A
AlbMagno
Guest
Believing in theoretically sexless Civil Unions, for the sake of mitigating LGBT-family discrimination, is not technically a heresy.
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
I have not read his comment. Was there anything in it that suggested he was supporting homosexual unions only if they were chaste? If not, would that make it a heresy?
S
syril
Guest
Yes, if Francis was supporting non-chaste homosexual relationships it would be heresy. However either way it is heretical, being a homosexual is not wrong, but homosexual sex, thoughts and relationships are wrong.
Homosexuals can resist temptation thru prayer and the sacraments. They have been given a trial and will have great rewards in Heaven if they are able to live according to God’s law.
Homosexuals can resist temptation thru prayer and the sacraments. They have been given a trial and will have great rewards in Heaven if they are able to live according to God’s law.
E
Ender
Guest
Heresy has a very particular meaning in the church, and while this may seem a heresy to the layman it is not yet clear that Francis’ support of legal recognition of homosexual unions is canonically heretical.
That said, even if it is not heretical it seems clearly at odds with what the church has taught.
Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason… the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.
Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society…Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.
… the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral. (CDF 2003)
What is going on here? Can we have gone from “gravely immoral” in 2003 to “What we have to create is a civil union law” in 2020? This may or may not be a heresy, but it is certainly a challenge not just to the teaching on this subject but to virtually everything the church teaches. Why should we believe anything today if it can be so casually reversed tomorrow?
Last edited:
S
syril
Guest
But wouldn’t to teach contrary to what the Church has taught (at least on matters of morals) be considered heresy?
A
AlbMagno
Guest
As I’ve said earlier (in this thread I think), in the same interview he says that the idea of homosexual marriage is contradictory, and the context (when he talks about homosexuals’ right to have families) make it seem as if he is only advocating for Civil Unions to avoid homosexuals get cast out or broke by their biological family.
E
Ender
Guest
Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil. (CDF)
“A model of society which is mutilated or distorted in one sense or another, as is often encouraged by the mass media, greatly favors the gradual loss of the sense of sin.” (JPII, Reconciliatio et paenitentia)
“Likewise, a failure to speak the truth because of a misconceived sense of compassion should not be taken for love. We do not have a right to minimize matters of our own accord, even with the best of intentions.” (JPII - emphasis in the original)
A
AlbMagno
Guest
Well, as that is part of the Ordinary Magisterium, then I think we can conclude that Pope Francis treated it as a prudential judgement, and discarded it completely afterwards, just like some Catholics do with Climate Change or any environmental problem now. 
EDIT: I forgot! Just some post earliers I’ve also linked at an ancient practice of canonically uniting persons of the same sex for the sake of mutual aid (Adelphopoiesis) so it seems the Pope not only is making a prudential judgement, but also wanting to restore a traditional practice through secualr law!
EDIT: I forgot! Just some post earliers I’ve also linked at an ancient practice of canonically uniting persons of the same sex for the sake of mutual aid (Adelphopoiesis) so it seems the Pope not only is making a prudential judgement, but also wanting to restore a traditional practice through secualr law!
Last edited:
S
StudentMI
Guest
Thank you for this.
R
Rau
Guest
I’m guessing if that was his thinking, he’d probably have elaborated. Fairly unlikely many would connect his comments with the practice to which you refer…
A
AlbMagno
Guest
I know, but I was being a little sarcastic because I was responding to various posters who claimed that the Pope is a heretic. He can’t be a heretic because what he advocates for is in theory exactly the same as Adelphopoiesis but done in civil law instead of canon law.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
Advocating for a procedure to recognize two men as brothers is nothing whatever like advocating the recognition of two men as spouses. There is no context in which these could even be considered similar, let alone “exactly the same.”
A
AlbMagno
Guest
Pope Francis never said that the couple have to be recognized as spouses, otherwise the distinction between civil union and marriage would make no sense.
M
MikeInVA
Guest
M
MikeInVA
Guest
I don’t really understand the concept of this ceremony, but I would assume that it is designed to support the participants spiritually. A same-sex civil union would do the opposite - it will support them in their error.
A
AlbMagno
Guest
It wouldn’t support them in their error if chastity is encouraged.
Frankly, as we are discussing a theoretical construct, this idea could be justified with new conditions without end.
Frankly, as we are discussing a theoretical construct, this idea could be justified with new conditions without end.
E
Ender
Guest
The pope made his suggestion in connection with the discussion on ministering to homosexuals. It is disingenuous to remove the suggestion from the context in which it was made.
Last edited:
A
AlbMagno
Guest
Yeah, that’s why I said he discusses it to solve inter-familiar discrimination to homosexuals.
However, the fact that they are hoosexual doesn’t mean that they will call themselves spouses. A well cathecized homosexual person would know the difference. If anything, the law itself can make the difference by distinguishing it from marriage.
However, the fact that they are hoosexual doesn’t mean that they will call themselves spouses. A well cathecized homosexual person would know the difference. If anything, the law itself can make the difference by distinguishing it from marriage.
E
Ender
Guest
That he mentioned inter-familial objections in no way suggests that his suggestion stopped there. In fact he absolutely blurred the distinction between families based on marriage and those based on homosexual unions when he encouraged two men to raise “their” children in their parish church. This has already gone off the rails.
There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. (CDF)
Such a law even with that specified - which in fact never happens - already runs afoul of church doctrine.
Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.
In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure.
One may insist that distinctions between real marriage and civil unions exist and are well known now, but the path to the elimination of any distinction is all downhill.
Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”. Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.
There is no way to frame these suggestions as anything other than harmful to the church and to society at large, whatever rationale is used to support them.
- Status