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.
I prefer Archbishop’s Chaput’s take on civil unions…NO.

God help us if Pope Francis does not put an end to this nonsense within the clergy soon.
 
Archbishop Weakland, once one of the top Benedictines and a top Vatican liturgical ‘reformer’, who paid out almost half a million dollars in Church funds to prevent his male ex-lover from suing, has stated that homosexuals are entitled to have a “genital expression” of their love.

His Eminence is merely taking a page out of the Archbishop Weakland book, and suggesting that (contra Blessed John Paul II and Benedict XVI) Vatican II marks a new era of the Church, in which she can change her teaching on things that used to be called “sins”.

It is, obviously, apostasy.
 
cathcon.blogspot.com/2013/02/cardinal-schonborn-worried-by.html

Here’s an interview with Archbishop Schoenborn from last year
(Bold is the interviewer):

The case sparked hope in those who have wanted the Church to change its stance with regard to gay people…
“In the case of irregular situations, such as couples who move in together, divorcees who remarry and same-sex couples, we as pastors have to stand firm and uphold the teachings of the Church Scriptures; not because we are fideists but because we believe that these teachings represent the road to happiness. And we must try and help everyone to lead a life that is in accordance with these teachings.”

Why then, did you decide not to intervene?
“Because we have to recognise that not just those who live in an objective state of moral disorder, but all of us, are in need of forgiveness and mercy. We are moving towards a destination that we know with our heart and mind but we are conscious of the need for conversion and patience. We should not justify certain situations but ask for change. As a pastor I judged that in that particular situation, in the particular case we are talking about, there was a path already being followed.”

You must admit that this sets a precedent…
“The Church’s position on these issues has not changed and this is no precedent. This case is just an exception, as are others…”
**
Should the Church show more mercy towards gay people?**
“The Church has always shown mercy towards sinners and we are all sinners. Even if we focus only on certain sins and states of moral disorder, all of us as Christians need to confess. But there can be no mercy without truth. A path of conversion is necessary: this goes as much for remarried divorcees as it does for those living in same-sex relationships. We must help them recognise that this is not God’s plan and that if they feel unable to follow the Church’s teachings, they should admit this with humility, asking for God’s help, confessing and trying not to sin again. Although we are unable to change his plan, we must remember that God is infinitely merciful of our sins.”
My thoughts:

First of all, this is coming from the Tablet, so I doubt that this is reliable. But even if it is, I believe the Cardinal is saying that the people with same-sex attraction deserve respect and shouldn’t be demonized for sinning, since we all sin. They even could need civil law protection from being discriminated against from hate crimes. But marriage shouldn’t be in the question, or so-called “civil unions” for that matter, because as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said, “legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean … the approval of deviant behaviour”.

If this isn’t what he is saying, all I can say is that he is flat out wrong.
 
CrossofChrist said:
My thoughts:

First of all, this is coming from the Tablet, so I doubt that this is reliable. But even if it is, I believe the Cardinal is saying that the people with same-sex attraction deserve respect and shouldn’t be demonized for sinning, since we all sin. They even could need civil law protection from being discriminated against from hate crimes. But marriage shouldn’t be in the question, or so-called “civil unions” for that matter, because as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said, “legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean … the approval of deviant behaviour”.

If this isn’t what he is saying, all I can say is that he is flat out wrong.
Click to expand...
You raise a very good point… this could be a case of mendacious reporting. I pray that it is so.
 
mike0219116 said:
Better?

lifesitenews.com/news/vienna-cardinal-same-sex-couples-need-civil-law-protection/
Click to expand...
Notice how they get their info from The Tablet.

It’s very likely the Cardinal is saying that people in same-sex relationships deserve respect and civil law protection, not that the relationship in and of itself should be given civil law protection. It’s a distinction The Tablet is not likely to make seeing that they want to create disunity in the Church to further their secular liberal agenda.
 
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...
I’m gonna have to agree with this statement. The act of homosexuality is not permitted and NEVER will be permitted at all by the Church.

Being gay is different than acting gay
 
I am shocked Cardinal Schonborn said this, absolutely shocked…not really
 
Vatican document on homosexual unions ‘Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recongition to unions between homosexual persons,’ says:
  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. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection
Click to expand...
Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, 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.
Click to expand...
  1. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
Click to expand...
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
Click to expand...
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
Click to expand...
 
But not all the rights sought by those in same sex relationships are reserved exclusively to marriage.

And in view of the many ways gay partners support each other - financially, as carers when one partner is ill and so on - they deserve some sort of streamlined way to recognise at least this aspect of the relationship and appropriate rights. 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.

No, I am not calling for the ‘marriage’ or ‘civil union/partnership’ label to be applied, nor for equal or completely analogous rights, only a part of the sorts of rights currently automatically afforded to, say, children or other dependent relatives.

Besides which, most jurisdictions bestow all manner of rights analogous to married rights upon heterosexual partners merely by virtue of the fact that they are in an exclusive sexual and domestic relationship. No furore or outrage from the Church about this even though last I checked fornication and adultery were grave sins as well.
 
More evidence that the Church has some major issues to be dealt with. Has there ever been a time when the Church heirarchy promoted apostasy/heresy?

The question remains: will they be dealt with?
 
Francoist said:
You raise a very good point… this could be a case of mendacious reporting. I pray that it is so.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top