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.
Any moderately theologically educated Catholic should have been able to tell what Cardinal Schönborn meant by that article.
 
CrossofChrist said:
I feel that this is addressed toward me since I have said the Tablet is not reliable, including directly in reply to one of your posts.

I just don’t understand why people are so quick to look negatively upon a member of the hierarchy and are inclined to look at his comments in the worst light possible. When considering all that Cardinal Schoenborn has for his background, compared with the credibility of The Tablet, I’m more inclined to trust that Schoenborn isn’t supporting civil unions. Here are some of his credentials:

-student of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI
-Editorial Secretary for the Catechism of the Catholic Church
-is responsible for YOUCAT, which has the approval of Benedict XVI
-good manager of the sex abuse crisis

There’s more too, but I think that suffices.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
 
Lucky7 said:
Fantastic. This is what should happen every time the media twists the words of our Church leaders. It is unfortunate that it is necessary, but it is.

Thanks for posting that Abyssnia.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍👍👍

It seems that a good number of people are now subscribing to “tabloid Catholicism”, jumping to conclusions every time a news account misses the point (which is the majority of the time).

Why are we so ready to allow these things to rock our firm foundation and our faith and trust in Christ and the Church?
 
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 anyone can demonstrate how it is possible to support homosexual civil unions and not at the same time support gay sexual acts, which according to the Church are intrinsically disordered and a mortal sin, I am open to hearing about it. I cannot intellectually equate the support of such unions with the Church’s teachings on how those who have homosexual tendencies are called, as are all Catholics, to live a life of chastity.
 
jwinch2 said:
If anyone can demonstrate how it is possible to support homosexual civil unions and not at the same time support gay sexual acts, which according to the Church are intrinsically disordered and a mortal sin, I am open to hearing about it. I cannot intellectually equate the support of such unions with the Church’s teachings on how those who have homosexual tendencies are called, as are all Catholics, to live a life of chastity.
Click to expand...
same sex civil unions ≠ homosexual civil unions
In a more basic form a domestic partnership (better term for same sex civil unions) is something recognizing a shared household to some degree with rights making it easier for such a situation, for example two long time bachelors who are best buddies moving in together and having a joint household.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
same sex civil unions ≠ homosexual civil unions
In a more basic form a domestic partnership (better term for same sex civil unions) is something recognizing a shared household to some degree with rights making it easier for such a situation, for example two long time bachelors who are best buddies moving in together and having a joint household.
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”?
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
same sex civil unions ≠ homosexual civil unions
In a more basic form a domestic partnership (better term for same sex civil unions) is something recognizing a shared household to some degree with rights making it easier for such a situation, for example two long time bachelors who are best buddies moving in together and having a joint household.
Click to expand...
Where has anyone said that when they use the term “same sex” civil unions they are talking about two, heterosexual guys sharing a household? I’m pretty sure when people use that term they mean homosexual civil unions. Or is there something you know that I don’t know?

In fact this is what the article that Abyssnia posted stated:

To make this very clear, **the cardinal said **in a side note to this statement that, as the state may choose to respect certain choices made by its citizens, it may as a consequence legislate upon them, but it must never equate marriage with non-marriage. This cannot be seen as an endorsement of same-sex civil unions, neither in a legal sense, nor in a moral sense.

It seems pretty clear here that the Cardinal is not referring to your version of same sex civil unions here. Did you have trouble understadning it?
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
same sex civil unions ≠ homosexual civil unions
In a more basic form a domestic partnership (better term for same sex civil unions) is something recognizing a shared household to some degree with rights making it easier for such a situation, for example two long time bachelors who are best buddies moving in together and having a joint household.
Click to expand...
All unacceptable. These fictions simply confuse and mimic authentic unions. There is no such need. There are plenty of legal devices available right now for unique relationships that do not confuse things.
 
Lucky7 said:
Where has anyone said that when they use the term “same sex” civil unions they are talking about two, heterosexual guys sharing a household? I’m pretty sure when people use that term they mean homosexual civil unions. Or is there something you know that I don’t know?

In fact this is what the article that Abyssnia posted stated:

To make this very clear, **the cardinal said **in a side note to this statement that, as the state may choose to respect certain choices made by its citizens, it may as a consequence legislate upon them, but it must never equate marriage with non-marriage. This cannot be seen as an endorsement of same-sex civil unions, neither in a legal sense, nor in a moral sense.

It seems pretty clear here that the Cardinal is not referring to your version of same sex civil unions here. Did you have trouble understadning it?
Click to expand...
It is all a ploy. Why is there a need to have the law codify all these unique relationships?
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
same sex civil unions ≠ homosexual civil unions
In a more basic form a domestic partnership (better term for same sex civil unions) is something recognizing a shared household to some degree with rights making it easier for such a situation, for example two long time bachelors who are best buddies moving in together and having a joint household.
Click to expand...
Two long time bachelors or perhaps widowers who move in together are hardly the same thing at all in that they do not have a romantic relationship. That is not remotely what is being argued.
 
jwinch2 said:
Thanks for sharing this. Let us hope that this is indeed the correct interpretation of the Cardinal’s comments, and let us pray that the Cardinal will be steadfast in his defense of the Truth.
Click to expand...
👍

And let us remain vigilant. discerning and prayerful as our Mother asks when we hear contradiction.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
same sex civil unions ≠ homosexual civil unions
In a more basic form a domestic partnership (better term for same sex civil unions) is something recognizing a shared household to some degree with rights making it easier for such a situation, for example two long time bachelors who are best buddies moving in together and having a joint household.
Click to expand...
I think this is obvious obfuscation and only aids in further de-sensitizing society so that it will eventually accept the unacceptable.
 
Dakota_Roberts said:
same sex civil unions ≠ homosexual civil unions
In a more basic form a domestic partnership (better term for same sex civil unions) is something recognizing a shared household to some degree with rights making it easier for such a situation, for example two long time bachelors who are best buddies moving in together and having a joint household.
Click to expand...
What are the “rights” that you are referring to that would make the above situation easier?
Health benefits?
If so, then what about siblings who live together? Should my sister and I move in together and get a civil union? I sure could use the healthcare offered at her place of employment !
(I’m not being serious.)

If same-sex civil unions are afforded certain benefits , the same should apply to everyone else. Siblings, two relatives, partners in businesses, two best friends, etc. Sooner or later, three or more people can get civil unions. How about civil unions between children/teens and an older adult?

Same-sex civil unions are not only wrong morally, they present a form of injustice. Not only toward those who are truly married, but to all of us single people. Why should two men or two women who claim to “love” one another be afforded any of the rights of such a situation, when my sister and I are not? It opens a whole can of worms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top