Vatican Official's words and what about "Same-Sex Unions"?

[BroomWagon]

The archbishop also said the church’s affirmation of the full dignity of all human beings led him to oppose laws that outlaw homosexuality. In addition, he said that “to promote justice and to protect the weak,”** greater efforts were needed to ensure legal protection and inheritance rights for people living together, though not married.** “But do not call it marriage,” he said.

cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=34813&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cathnews%2FRSS+%28CathNews%29

Note this paragraph, the emboldened part in my view, almost looks like it would pertain to at least what are called “Unions” nowadays. “Same Sex Unions” at that.

What does one think of this? I would urge those interested to read the short article as I only took one paragraph out of context as the purpose of this thread.

The whole story is about the Archbishop’s words being “misunderstood” when reported in the press, however, it is interesting that here, he seems to echo at least, what some gay rights advocates want. I have often heard same-sex marriage advocates say they just want the same rights to visit in the hospital, social security benefits, taxation, insurance, inheritance rights and those things as their call for equal rights. In other words, Spousal Benefits.

I’ll leave it at that but welcome any responses… because sometimes we get the straight, “it’s a sinful lifestyle”, we should in no way sanction it, this view seems more popular with some Fundamentalist types I would say who yes, at times, do go overboard and it might appear a bit stern when listening to their words such as a commentator like Bryan Fischer. Then again, perhaps this Archbishop is largely voicing his own personal view.

I somewhat agree with his terminology AND that same sex unions should never be called Marriage as that should be only between a man and a woman.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Why do some of us have to keep reposting official Vatican documents? (As well as, often, official documents from the USCCB, which duplicates much of what is here):

II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

1. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.

Where the government’s policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. 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 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. …

III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL
RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

1. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.

From the order of right reason

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) 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.

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. 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. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. 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”.(14) 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.

From the biological and anthropological order

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.

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.

[cont’d]

 

[Elizabeth502]

continuing…

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.

From the social order

1. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.

From the legal order

1. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.
   Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)

cont’d

 

[Elizabeth502]

continuing…

IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS
WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

1. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, 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.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.

CONCLUSION

1. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[BroomWagon]

Why do some of us have to keep reposting official Vatican documents? (As well as, often, official documents from the USCCB, which duplicates much of what is here):

[cont’d]

Because it’s a story. I have seen a million same sex marriage threads but not so many same sex unions thread, practically none in the past 6 months.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Because it’s a story. I have seen a million same sex marriage threads but not so many same sex unions thread, practically none in the past 6 months.

And so it should be. I personnaly find it a big bore to see a dead horse whipped. Evil is evil and should never be legitimized.

 

[Elizabeth502]

And so it should be. I personnaly find it a big bore to see a dead horse whipped. Evil is evil and should never be legitimized.

Nor should evil be given a platform or be enabled for even more opportunities to invade good, as if there wasn’t enough such opportunity already.

Papal addresses, apostolic letters, encyclicals, and anything else emanating directly from the papacy are the supreme authoritative viewpoints which faithful Catholics are to adhere to, not the words of an archbishop – whether correctly or incorrectly interpreted, whether he said it off the cuff, misspoke, etc., and whether the media sensationalized it or not. (Wait, that’s what they’re paid to do.)

End of story.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The archbishop also said the church’s affirmation of the full dignity of all human beings led him to oppose laws that outlaw homosexuality. In addition, he said that “to promote justice and to protect the weak,” greater efforts were needed to ensure legal protection and inheritance rights for people living together, though not married. “But do not call it marriage,” he said.

Sounds like that to me, also. It makes perfect sense to me that he should say this, it’s what charity demands.

 

[BroomWagon]

Nor should evil be given a platform or be enabled for even more opportunities to invade good, as if there wasn’t enough such opportunity already.

Papal addresses, apostolic letters, encyclicals, and anything else emanating directly from the papacy are the supreme authoritative viewpoints which faithful Catholics are to adhere to, not the words of an archbishop – whether correctly or incorrectly interpreted, whether he said it off the cuff, misspoke, etc., and whether the media sensationalized it or not. (Wait, that’s what they’re paid to do.)

End of story.

THUMBS DOWN

It’s the end of YOUR’s and George Stegmeir’s story, that’s who. Who needs your cut and pasting, is that what we do in these threads? Huh? Enough of your perceived self-righteousness. You listen since you are making sure everyone sees you two’s self-righteous indignation. I have never never, never , never, let’s see, never spoken up for gay marriage here. This had to do with the exact Vatican Spokesman’s words, furthermore, this was from a news story in the Catholic News forum?? Do you have that straight? People don’t come to be insulted with your self-righteousness that you or George Stegmeir seem to push.

Oh, and if you want to show us all the threads to prove you have posted countless times this on same sex unions, not marriage in the news forums and not here in the philosophy forums, I will glady acknowledge I am wrong.

You don’t like the thread, good riddance, That goes for George Stegmeir too.

You listen since you are making your inflammatory statements so well known, you nor Geoerge Stegmeir have addressed one word, not one word of what the Archbishop said. Oh, yes, some cut and paste and unkind words, thanks so much.

Do you have some objection to people using these forums? Have you been able to direct any words to what a Vatican spokesman said??

 

[Elizabeth502]

Sounds like that to me, also. It makes perfect sense to me that he should say this, it’s what charity demands.

A better authority on charity and the application of charity in life would be a Pope, not an archibishop, particularly a pope who is already in line for canonization. That would eliminate the archbishop right there. When one member of the clergy “disagrees” with a papal statement, it is not the papal statement which is in error, but that member of the clergy.

Any clergyman’s opnion on the matter and any layperson’s opinion on the matter, if they differ from issued Vatican documents, are irrelevant and bear no authority whatsoever.

Charity demands that archbishops use both humility and prudence in speech. I don’t know that this archbishop did or didn’t, but I do know, and every faithful Catholic knows, what a layperson is obligated to do: not to engage in private interpretation of scripture which opposes Church documents. The Church interprets charity correctly, always in the context of Truth, and that interpretation is always built into its moral interpretations, as reflected in papal and magisterial documents.

Have a nice day.

 

[BroomWagon]

continuing…

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Nobody wants your cut and paste, we want to know how often you have posted these articles in the news forums in the past 6 months as you lecture people you do so often so we can confirm George Stegmeir’s statement that we are beating a dead horse.

 

[BroomWagon]

And so it should be. I personnaly find it a big bore to see a dead horse whipped. Evil is evil and should never be legitimized.

You seem like a real smart guy. Do you ever post in abortion or war threads? Those are evils too.

 

[BroomWagon]

Nor should evil be given a platform or be enabled for even more opportunities to invade good, as if there wasn’t enough such opportunity already.

Papal addresses, apostolic letters, encyclicals, and anything else emanating directly from the papacy are the supreme authoritative viewpoints which faithful Catholics are to adhere to, not the words of an archbishop – whether correctly or incorrectly interpreted, whether he said it off the cuff, misspoke, etc., and whether the media sensationalized it or not. (Wait, that’s what they’re paid to do.)

End of story.

THUMBS DOWN

It’s the end of YOUR’s and George Stegmeir’s story, that’s who. Who needs your cut and pasting, is that what we do in these threads? Huh? Enough of your perceived self-righteousness. You listen since you are making sure everyone sees you two’s self-righteous indignation. I have never never, never , never, let’s see, never spoken up for gay marriage here. This had to do with the exact Vatican Spokesman’s words, furthermore, this was from a news story in the Catholic News forum?? Do you have that straight? People don’t come to be insulted with your self-righteousness that you or George Stegmeir seem to push.

An article that did not get response and an article that comes from a Catholic News Agency and an article that I questioned. not your little cut and paste, accusing others of talking about subjects that have been talked about a million times, but you know no matter how often George Stegmeir and Elizabeth502 accuse others of beating a dead horse, I don’t see one article on it on the philosphy page, a place I never come.

Oh, and if you want to show us all the threads to prove you have posted countless times this on same sex unions, not marriage in the news forums and not here in the philosophy forums, I will glady acknowledge I am wrong.

You don’t like the thread, sorry you feel you need to make your feelings known, That goes for George Stegmeir too.

You listen since you are making your inflammatory statements so well known, you nor Geoerge Stegmeir have addressed one word, not one word of what the Archbishop said. Oh, yes, some cut and paste and unkind words, thanks so much.

Do you have some objection to people using these forums? Have you been able to direct any words to what a Vatican spokesman said??

 

[BroomWagon]

And so it should be. I personnaly find it a big bore to see a dead horse whipped. Evil is evil and should never be legitimized.

Oh sorry, I wrote this thread thinking it’d be excting for George Stegmeir.

Are you the only person in this forum?? Do others have rights besides George Stegmeir?

Hey everyone, this isn’t the Catholic Answers Forum, it’s the George Stegmeir forum!

You make a claim that the subject of a Vatican official’s words on these homosexuals and possible unions and that is same sex unions not marriages has been talked excessively per the Vatican official’s words and not to call it marriage. Okay, I’m all ears, please tell us where and how often it has been discussed in the recent months and mainly in the news forums because I rarely venture here.

:tsktsk:

 

[BroomWagon]

Nor should evil be given a platform or be enabled for even more opportunities to invade good, as if there wasn’t enough such opportunity already.

Papal addresses, apostolic letters, encyclicals, and anything else emanating directly from the papacy are the supreme authoritative viewpoints which faithful Catholics are to adhere to, not the words of an archbishop – whether correctly or incorrectly interpreted, whether he said it off the cuff, misspoke, etc., and whether the media sensationalized it or not. (Wait, that’s what they’re paid to do.)

End of story.

No, it’s not the end of the story, U claim you have posted all this countless times. Okay, I haven’t seen it in the news forum, the only forum basically I have read here in 6 months, seems you should put up if you come into someone’s thread saying incendiary things where they may have had earnest questions!

It’s not the end of the story. Are you a moderator telling people as to what they should write here?

Have a good day!

 

[BroomWagon]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=753139

I would direct GeorgeStegmeir to this thread to make the same remark about “beating a dead horse” in this story, same story in this thread that was posted in the Catholic News Forum BY CATHOLIC PRESS and where on February 10th, I asked a question as of the story.

Not what seems to be a kneejerk reaction that must have been to see this as a story on same-sex marriage which it is NOT and it pertains to what the Vatican official said.

To your great respect of other people in this forum!

I also honor greatly, that I waited 5 days on this, never received a reply, decide to try and find out about it and be accused of bringing up a subject that is the equal to beating a dead horse.

---

Crickets. You made the claim of a Vatican Official’s words being discussed so many times, it is like beating a dead horse, okay, let’s see the proof.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have seen a million same sex marriage threads but not so many same sex unions thread, practically none in the past 6 months.

Last 5 months alone:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=748580

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=747065

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=736136

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=735174

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=721975

And many, many prior to 5 months ago.

 

[BroomWagon]

First off, Catholic Press originally posted this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=753139

Secondly, I made it clear, I mainly read the news forum which I made clear, so far out of the six references you post below, only one is from the news forum. I will look closer to see if the exact Vatican documents were posted.

Last 5 months alone:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=748580

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=747065

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=736136

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=735174

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=721975

And many, many prior to 5 months ago.

First, saw possibly some Vatican info summed up, did not see direct links.
Second, no links posted by poster.
Third, no links posted by poster that made claim, title of thread is " why can’t another label be used for same sex marriage?", may address same sex unions…but is just as much about same sex marriage.

All but one outside of the news forum and in a variety of different forums.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=747065 No links posted again.

And this does nothing to beckon as to what the Vatican Official’s words meant.

Social Justice
Moral Theology
Social Justice
Moral Theology

 

[BroomWagon]

Last 5 months alone:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=748580

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=747065

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=736136

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=735174

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=721975

And many, many prior to 5 months ago.

Alone? I don’t see these Vatican documents posted over and over and over again as you did above.

And NONE, ZERO addressed the comments of a Vatican Official.

 

[BroomWagon]

And so it should be. I personnaly find it a big bore to see a dead horse whipped. Evil is evil and should never be legitimized.

Well if it bores you so much, maybe you can go to the original thread in the Catholic News area and make your comment there as well to the poster Catholic Press. Maybe someone will give you a thumbs up about your comment as well!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=753139

Maybe I should make that comment over there.