Think again on same sex civil unions: Cardinal Schoenborn [CNAU]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tigg said:
I don’t think so as similar reports came out in 2010:

tfp.org/tfp-home/catholic-perspective/should-the-church-change-her-position-on-homosexuality-and-divorce.html

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13870

It’s alarming what has happened to the Church in Austria - one source said Crdnl Schoenborn closed 2/3 of his parishes. The next question is: What will Pope Francis do about this?
Click to expand...
The first link’s info comes, once again, from the Tablet. Hardly reliable.

The second link, while I disagree with his decision, fails to quote Cardinal Schoenborn’s response to the interviewer that says, “The Church’s position on these issues has not changed and this is no precedent.”
 
mike0219116 said:
I don’t think Benedict XVI would have said, “There can be same-sex partnerships and they need respect, and even civil law protection.”
Click to expand...
Yet you associate a statement seemingly in support of civil unions with “the Rhine continues to flow into the Tiber”.

But I digress. This isn’t the point of the article anyway. 🤷
 
I agree with Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn. Homosexuals need to have their rights protected. It’s going to happen!
 
Thank God!! A cardinal with some common sense!!! Why are we forcing our beliefs on people who don’t believe?
 
LilyM said:
In fact I wish all relationships of similar interdependence, be they sexual or between those related by biology or not - could be part of such a system…
Click to expand...
This is an argument several of us have made, as well as many IRL. Sexuality should have no special privilege in non-marital arrangements, because to do so is a form of discrimination. It’s requiring sexual activity to be the standard for “rights.”

No. Heterosexual marriage is the standard for special privilege, because of its unitive, procreative, and complementary function in society for the raising of gender-balanced families in which the new child learns how to relate to both genders and is prepared to assimilate healthfully into society as a grown adult.

All other relationships of caring, commitment, and mutuality –with or without a sexual component– such as two lifelong platonic companions caring for each other, such as two siblings, etc.–can be accorded legal standing which allows whatever level of mutuality the pair agrees on, a standing which can be formalized.

It’s not about whether you (or I ) “wish there could be such a system.” There is no legal logic to requiring sexual activity, outside of traditional marriage, to be the litmus test for “rights.”
 
Unfortunately, even if this were coming from the Vatican, it would still be a case of “too little, too late.”

At the current rate of gay marriage adoption, in public opinion, and in law, the Church will quickly find itself to be a strident voice in a secular society. the more strident the voice, then the less attractive it will become to converts and its own membership, and the more it will be ignored.

i am in no way saying that the Church should accept gay marriage. but, i believe that it needs to get a grip on the fact that it is just one of many religious organizations in an otherwise secular world, and that world is becoming increasingly secularized.
 
“There can be same-sex partnerships and they need respect, and even civil law protection. Yes, but please keep it away from the notion of marriage. Because the definition of marriage is the stable union between a man and a woman open to life,” Cardinal Schönborn said.
Click to expand...
But civil unions are merely a prelude to a demand for homosexual marriage. If the Church wishes to concur in giving civil law protection to unions other than marriage, then the above statement could equally be made with respect to heterosexual cohabitation or any other arrangement. But of course such unions are also detrimental to the institution of marriage.

I don’t think the Church ought to cooperate in the weakening and destruction of marriage.
 
JimG said:
But civil unions are merely a prelude to a demand for homosexual marriage. If the Church wishes to concur in giving civil law protection to unions other than marriage, then the above statement could equally be made with respect to heterosexual cohabitation or any other arrangement. But of course such unions are also detrimental to the institution of marriage.

I don’t think the Church ought to cooperate in the weakening and destruction of marriage.
Click to expand...
It would be hard to reconcile the view in the OP with Vatican documents. In fact, I cannot see how?
 
epan said:
Unfortunately, even if this were coming from the Vatican, it would still be a case of “too little, too late.”

At the current rate of gay marriage adoption, in public opinion, and in law, the Church will quickly find itself to be a strident voice in a secular society. the more strident the voice, then the less attractive it will become to converts and its own membership, and the more it will be ignored.

i am in no way saying that the Church should accept gay marriage. but, i believe that it needs to get a grip on the fact that it is just one of many religious organizations in an otherwise secular world, and that world is becoming increasingly secularized.
Click to expand...
Morality is not dictated by the whims of public opinion
 
CatholicGuy22 said:
Thank God!! A cardinal with some common sense!!! Why are we forcing our beliefs on people who don’t believe?
Click to expand...
Read Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical “Libertas”. You may find that it shakes you out of your liberal beliefs.

There’s no such thing as a right to sin. And why do you call it “forcing”? Sodomy is not just against the Divine Law, it is also against Natural Law. It cannot be ‘allowed’ by law any more than murder can be ‘allowed’… something that is contradictory to justice and to reason is not lawful.

If you believe what the Church teaches, you cannot believe that homosexual activity can be legal.
 
Francoist said:
Read Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical “Libertas”. You may find that it shakes you out of your liberal beliefs.

There’s no such thing as a right to sin. And why do you call it “forcing”? Sodomy is not just against the Divine Law, it is also against Natural Law. It cannot be ‘allowed’ by law any more than murder can be ‘allowed’… something that is contradictory to justice and to reason is not lawful.

If you believe what the Church teaches, you cannot believe that homosexual activity can be legal.
Click to expand...
You are so holy! :bowdown: Please pray the church will cleanse itself of the filth(liberals) in her church!
 
Elizabeth502 said:
This is an argument several of us have made, as well as many IRL. Sexuality should have no special privilege in non-marital arrangements, because to do so is a form of discrimination. It’s requiring sexual activity to be the standard for “rights.”

No. Heterosexual marriage is the standard for special privilege, because of its unitive, procreative, and complementary function in society for the raising of gender-balanced families in which the new child learns how to relate to both genders and is prepared to assimilate healthfully into society as a grown adult.

All other relationships of caring, commitment, and mutuality –with or without a sexual component– such as two lifelong platonic companions caring for each other, such as two siblings, etc.–can be accorded legal standing which allows whatever level of mutuality the pair agrees on, a standing which can be formalized.

It’s not about whether you (or I ) “wish there could be such a system.” There is no legal logic to requiring sexual activity, outside of traditional marriage, to be the litmus test for “rights.”
Click to expand...
I concur with this.
 
Robert_Sock said:
I agree with Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn. Homosexuals need to have their rights protected. It’s going to happen!
Click to expand...
What rights? The right that, “relationships of caring, commitment, and mutuality --with or without a sexual component-- such as two lifelong platonic companions caring for each other, such as two siblings, etc.–can be accorded legal standing which allows whatever level of mutuality the pair agrees on, a standing which can be formalized,” (thank you Elizabeth502) or the so-called “right” to perform intrinsically sinful acts? Which one do you think the Cardinal is speaking of?
 
Francoist said:
Read Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical “Libertas”. You may find that it shakes you out of your liberal beliefs.

There’s no such thing as a right to sin. And why do you call it “forcing”? Sodomy is not just against the Divine Law, it is also against Natural Law. It cannot be ‘allowed’ by law any more than murder can be ‘allowed’… something that is contradictory to justice and to reason is not lawful.

If you believe what the Church teaches, you cannot believe that homosexual activity can be legal.
Click to expand...
While I agree, this is not the best way to get the message across. If a missionary went out to a new land and said, “Everyone not united to Christ will burn in hell! Believe or else…” no one would listen to him. But if he preaches with compassion and says, “God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, became man and died for our sake so that we might be with him forever, united in love!” people might listen to him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top