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.
ringil said:
I have no problems with the state authorizing same sex civil unions. In fact, I believe civil unions are all that the state needs to be legitimizing in the first place.
Click to expand...
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
  1. In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty
Click to expand...
 
Thank you, Abyssinia. It gets so tiring to have to re-post this link ad infinitum, and it’s startling that it has to continue to be done.
 
ringil said:
And yet we are hearing some Churchmen with different opinions on this matter.
Click to expand...
The Vatican, not “some Churchmen,” is the ultimate authority. There still exists dissent in the Church. Dissent does not equal doctrine.

She gave you a Vatican document, not some unverified second- or third-hand comment or supposition by a different source.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
The Vatican, not “some Churchmen,” is the ultimate authority. There still exists dissent in the Church. Dissent does not equal doctrine.

She gave you a Vatican document, not some unverified second- or third-hand comment or supposition by a different source.
Click to expand...
Do Cardinals routinely voice dissent?
 
ringil said:
And yet we are hearing some Churchmen with different opinions on this matter.

It seems that this issue has not been settled. Perhaps Pope Francis will provide a clear-cut answer on the matter but until then no universal normative teaching has been outlined.
Click to expand...
Rome has spoken so it is settled as for Faithful Catholics. For other Catholics who think that by continually talking about how it should change for whatever reasons it won’t be like women’s ordination, artificial birth control, abortion, gay marriage etc.
 
JMJSHJ said:
Rome has spoken so it is settled as for Faithful Catholics. For other Catholics who think that by continually talking about how it should change for whatever reasons it won’t be like women’s ordination, artificial birth control, abortion, gay marriage etc.
Click to expand...
What is the tolerance level for dissent within the Church?
 
epan said:
What is the tolerance level for dissent within the Church?
Click to expand...
It depends on the Pope and whether he welcomes or is willing to tolerate debate on a topic. Sometimes, dissenting theologians who are silenced by one Pope will be tolerated or even embraced by another, especially if a Bishop or Cardinal is sympathetic to their views.

For example, in his book, What Happened at Vatican II, John W. O’Malley names three theologians who had been silenced Pope Pius XII, but were allowed by Pope John XXIII to participate in VII and influence the debate. They were Karl Rahner, Henri de Lubac and Yves Congar. Rahner was brought to the council by Cardinal König, but de Lubac and Congar were both brought to Rome by Pope John XXIII himself.

Regarding Henri de Lubac, O’Malley writes:

“Even earlier, in August 1960, John named Henri du Lubac, whose ideas were condemned by Humani Generis, as a consultor to Ottaviani’s Theological Commission, where he was able to have little influence. Once the council got under way, de Luac’s theological vision was reflected in the form and substance of the key document of the council, Lumen Gentium. A dozen years earlier he had been forbidden not only to teach, but even to live in a Jesuit house where there were students, lest he corrupt them with his ideas”. (p. 119)"

So it really depends on the top man in charge and whether he is open to different interpretations of doctrine.
 
epan said:
True, but can you name any progress in social justice gained from conservativism? Indeed, the founding of the US was quite radical. By definition, conservatism is the lack of change - keeping what has been in the past. It abhors social justice, if achieving it involves change. Dictatorship and totalitarianism are conservative ideas, much older than the radical notion of democracy. So, while Communism and Socialism work very well on a certain scale, say in a monastery, a convent, or a small village, when one introduces totalitarian government (which is contrary to the principles of these philosophies), you end up with something opposed to social justice. But this failure is not inherent to Communism, etc…

You mention Laissea-faire economics. The strongest recent proponent in the US was President Reagan. Mr Bush was also a fan. Neither of these men’s agenda could be called liberal, today. I agree with you that it is an unjust economic system. It may have been a radical idea at one time (thought I doubt it) It is considered part of the evil side of the Republican party agenda by many.
Click to expand...
Laissez faire economics is part of classical liberalism
 
epan said:
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...
It is, mostly because materialism is so attractive.

Okay, for the sake of argument let us say the Church accepts, or at least softens its stance, on gay marriage. What next? I was talking with a friend about what the next cultural revolution will be. Since the late 1950’s, beginning with the rise of the Baby Boomers, every generation has pushed the envelop. Elvis swinging his hips, the hippie counterculture, Bowie’s androgyny , comedians and films attacking faith etc etc. What will the Marilyn Mansons and Lady Gagas of 2055 look like? Pop culture has to shock and titillate in order to survive and remain relevant. Twenty years from now, a gay or transgendered performer wont be shocking, so they’ll have to do something else to shock.

The desire to shock, to push the metaphorical envelop, isn’t going to stop anytime soon. So when the next “urgent cultural revolution” begins, will the Church have to accept polygamists, incest, euthanizing the disabled/elderly, pederasty or bestiality? I’m not comparing those to homosexuality, but to pretend those issues won’t arise in the future is naive. The same arguments for gay marriage can be used for polygamy and incest. They love each other, we don’t have the right to impose our morals on anyone, it is discriminatory and they’re adults blah blah blah.

If you have doubts about euthanizing the disabled/elderly, pederasty or bestiality ever being accepted you should note more than a few philosophers and intellectuals, especially Peter Singer of Stanford, have argued in favor of those acts.

So where do we stop? You think the media won’t promote the next sea change? They live for it. So either the Church becomes marginalized by pop culture today with homosexuality or it happens on the next cause celebre. Personally, I believe the people who hate the Church aren’t going to change their mind on it one way or the other and people cannot bend the Word of God to fit themselves. They’re supposed to allow God to mold them.
 
ringil said:
I have no problems with the state authorizing same sex civil unions. In fact, I believe civil unions are all that the state needs to be legitimizing in the first place.
Click to expand...
If that’s the case, what logic would preclude 3 or 4 people from arguing that they deserve to have legal recognition as a “civil union”?
 
ringil said:
And yet we are hearing some Churchmen with different opinions on this matter.

It seems that this issue has not been settled. Perhaps Pope Francis will provide a clear-cut answer on the matter but until then no universal normative teaching has been outlined.
Click to expand...
Heterodoxy is nothing new and has been around since the early Church when even certain bishops denied the divinity of Christ and the Incarnation. I wouldn’t get too excited over dissenting theologians just because they happen to tickle the ears of the relativists. I agree, though, it’s not easy to be a Catholic these days - only through trust in the Word of God, the unerring Deposit of Faith, and in Catholic prophecy which has stated we would indeed, see the days when “bishop would be against bishop,” can we humbly trust it will all be sorted out. For those who have already assented to the Faith, it really isn’t much of an issue.
 
Tigg said:
Heterodoxy is nothing new and has been around since the early Church when even certain bishops denied the divinity of Christ and the Incarnation. I wouldn’t get too excited over dissenting theologians just because they happen to tickle the ears of the relativists. I agree, though, it’s not easy to be a Catholic these days - only through trust in the Word of God, the unerring Deposit of Faith, and in Catholic prophecy which has stated we would indeed, see the days when “bishop would be against bishop,” can we humbly trust it will all be sorted out. For those who have already assented to the Faith, it really isn’t much of an issue.
Click to expand...
It is possible for there to be open discussion on this as the Church’s stance on what he is talking about as opposed to what people think he is talking about is settled.
 
bellasbane said:
Regarding Henri de Lubac, O’Malley writes:

“Even earlier, in August 1960, John named Henri du Lubac, whose ideas were condemned by Humani Generis, as a consultor to Ottaviani’s Theological Commission, where he was able to have little influence. Once the council got under way, de Luac’s theological vision was reflected in the form and substance of the key document of the council, Lumen Gentium. A dozen years earlier he had been forbidden not only to teach, but even to live in a Jesuit house where there were students, lest he corrupt them with his ideas”. (p. 119)"
Click to expand...
I think it should be noted that de Lubac’s ideas weren’t actually condemned in Humani Generis, but the strawman the neo-scholastics set up as his ideas were.
 
epan said:
True, but can you name any progress in social justice gained from conservativism?
Click to expand...
Do you consider Christianity part of conservatism or Catholicism? (I mean if you had to put it in a box which is nearly impossible to do)
You mention Laissea-faire economics. The strongest recent proponent in the US was President Reagan. Mr Bush was also a fan. Neither of these men’s agenda could be called liberal, today. I agree with you that it is an unjust economic system. It may have been a radical idea at one time (thought I doubt it) It is considered part of the evil side of the Republican party agenda by many.
Click to expand...
Depends where you are in the world. In America, maybe not, since America has been liberal since it’s foundation in the classical sense.
 
CrossofChrist said:
I think it should be noted that de Lubac’s ideas weren’t actually condemned in Humani Generis, but the strawman the neo-scholastics set up as his ideas were.
Click to expand...
Here’s what de Lubac said about Humani Generis:

‘It seems to me to be, like many other ecclesiastical documents, unilateral: that is almost the law of the genre; but I have read nothing in it, doctrinally, that affects me. The only passage where I recognize an implicit reference to me is a phrase bearing on the question of the supernatural; now it is rather curious to note that this phrase, intending to recall the true doctrine on this subject, reproduces exactly what I said about it two years earlier in a [sic] article in Recherches de science religieuse.’ (H. de Lubac)

Benedict XVI was a major figure in the “New Theology” as well. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top