B
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
And I am no less confused.
V
Vico
Guest
Is it confusing that the last sentence was omitted when Alazraki’s interview was broadcast in 2019?And I am no less confused.
The grace of the Holy Spirit certainly exists. I have always defended the doctrine. And it is curious that in the law on homosexual marriage…. It is an incongruity to speak of homosexual marriage. But what we have to have is a law of civil union (ley de convivencia civil), so they have the right to be legally covered.”
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
I seems pretty straightforward to me.
I don’t think that this article clarify things a lot. They don’t speak of something we don’t already know.
We already know that Our Holy father doesn’t speak of redefinition of the sacrament of marriage or of civil marriage.
For this hot topic, to give some context is not enough. What our Holy Father said is not contained in Church’s doctrine (CCC for eg). It goes against what some Catholics of good will, simple citizens or politicians have fight for in their respective societies, and what most bishops’s reflexions are.
So what would enlight us more would be: is Church doctrine on the views of homosexuality in general and on civil unions for people of different and same sex would change or not.
But I think the conclusion may be that the Church is not ready to give us a definite answer now. As it may add more controversies.
We already know that Our Holy father doesn’t speak of redefinition of the sacrament of marriage or of civil marriage.
For this hot topic, to give some context is not enough. What our Holy Father said is not contained in Church’s doctrine (CCC for eg). It goes against what some Catholics of good will, simple citizens or politicians have fight for in their respective societies, and what most bishops’s reflexions are.
So what would enlight us more would be: is Church doctrine on the views of homosexuality in general and on civil unions for people of different and same sex would change or not.
But I think the conclusion may be that the Church is not ready to give us a definite answer now. As it may add more controversies.
Last edited:
On a practical side, answers to the two topics raised by the article, health care and heritage and civil unions.
It depends on legislation, but the person who is responsible for the health decision of a vulnerable or someone no longer able to make decisions on himself is not necessary a parent, the spouse or the civil partner. Some provisions planned the possibility to hire by a written paper a “person of trust” for sensible health care decision. She will be consulted, before other family member.
Heritage. Marriage may bring some heritage’s rights. But not always a lot. It really depends on the law and on the situation. Children and even parents may have be much more rights than a spouse. Civil unions may brings some heritage’s right that may be less than thoses provide by marriage or equal.
But that’s not the only way to have heritage or economic protection. Some others legal provisions may protect the person we share our live.
In the conclusion, unless we want perfect equality in all wordly aspects (on the execption of children), I think that we absolutely need civil unions everywhere on the planet may be a little weak argument.
It depends on legislation, but the person who is responsible for the health decision of a vulnerable or someone no longer able to make decisions on himself is not necessary a parent, the spouse or the civil partner. Some provisions planned the possibility to hire by a written paper a “person of trust” for sensible health care decision. She will be consulted, before other family member.
Heritage. Marriage may bring some heritage’s rights. But not always a lot. It really depends on the law and on the situation. Children and even parents may have be much more rights than a spouse. Civil unions may brings some heritage’s right that may be less than thoses provide by marriage or equal.
But that’s not the only way to have heritage or economic protection. Some others legal provisions may protect the person we share our live.
In the conclusion, unless we want perfect equality in all wordly aspects (on the execption of children), I think that we absolutely need civil unions everywhere on the planet may be a little weak argument.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
The pope only supports some rights and is refering to non sexual relationships, which even if not likely, and maybe “naive”, is not an opinion that is morally wrong.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
But that is the line that we have issues with.
The Church teaches officially that Homosexual Civil Unions must be opposed and are gravely immoral and evil.
[/quote]
I have seen no Catholic dogma that a man and woman cannot live together as brother and sister, or that a family cannot include multiple members of the same or opposite sex? Are you thinking that it is a matter of giving scandal? It could be giving scandal for scandal can occur without sin.
Which is why we are confused because that last sentence is against Catholic teaching.I seems pretty straightforward to me.
The Church teaches officially that Homosexual Civil Unions must be opposed and are gravely immoral and evil.
[/quote]
I have seen no Catholic dogma that a man and woman cannot live together as brother and sister, or that a family cannot include multiple members of the same or opposite sex? Are you thinking that it is a matter of giving scandal? It could be giving scandal for scandal can occur without sin.
V
Vico
Guest
For same sex it could be scandal and occasion to sin also.
Excerpts from CDF: Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons June 3, 2003
Excerpts from CDF: Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons June 3, 2003
1. “It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant – legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children.”
2, 3. are about marriage.
4. “no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family”.
5. Three legal positons: toleration, recognize to avoid discrimination, or favor like marriage with adoption.
…
“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.”
“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.”
“11. 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.” … “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.”
Last edited:
R
redcatholic
Guest
That has to be one of the toughest jobs in the world.
G
goout
Guest
Yes, the Pope deserves respect for the degree of difficulty in the instant information age.That has to be one of the toughest jobs in the world.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
I agree that the document from CDF, Approved by Saint Pope John Paul II, disapproves of anything beyond tolerance, that is, any explicit legal recognition of cohabiting homosexual persons.
B
BarbTh
Guest
I think of it in these terms “Give to caesar what is caesar’s and to God what is God’s”.
Secular authorities in a democratic society are called to legislate for all the people, not for only some wherever applicable (giving to caesar). This is a mandate from God in my book. We are commanded by Jesus: “a new commandment I give to you that you love one another”. Homosexual civil unions protects their rights as citizens. Civil union is not inclusive of any sort of moral declaration (giving to God) at all re homosexuality, nor is there any equation with Sacramental Marriage.
Under what reasoning or premise, in New Testament terms, would God deny homosexual people their earthly rights as citizens, as human beings?
I dont think we have the right to attempt to enforce our beliefs on non believers. How would I feel if some non Christian religion tried to enforce their belief or beliefs on me? We do have the right to state the serious and offensive, most grave, nature of homosexual active behaviour most especially for Christians. Such behaviour is potentially serious mortal sin.
Civil = of the ordinary life of citizens as distinguished from military, legal, or ecclesiastical affairs
of or relating to the citizen as an individual civil rights
Dictionary.com
Secular authorities in a democratic society are called to legislate for all the people, not for only some wherever applicable (giving to caesar). This is a mandate from God in my book. We are commanded by Jesus: “a new commandment I give to you that you love one another”. Homosexual civil unions protects their rights as citizens. Civil union is not inclusive of any sort of moral declaration (giving to God) at all re homosexuality, nor is there any equation with Sacramental Marriage.
Under what reasoning or premise, in New Testament terms, would God deny homosexual people their earthly rights as citizens, as human beings?
The key to me is the adjective “unjust” i.e. denying civil union citizens’ rights to homosexual partners - why not then deny citizen rights to promiscuity or other serious sexual offences.Vatican website Catholic Catechism: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
2358 “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
I dont think we have the right to attempt to enforce our beliefs on non believers. How would I feel if some non Christian religion tried to enforce their belief or beliefs on me? We do have the right to state the serious and offensive, most grave, nature of homosexual active behaviour most especially for Christians. Such behaviour is potentially serious mortal sin.
Civil = of the ordinary life of citizens as distinguished from military, legal, or ecclesiastical affairs
of or relating to the citizen as an individual civil rights
Dictionary.com
Last edited:
B
BarbTh
Guest
Same rights as de facto male female partnerships. De facto male female relationships are also contrary to our moral law and sexual morality.
My question to you:
It is the sinner that is justified before God because he beats his breast and asks for God’s Mercy as he knows he is a sinner. Self knowledge is a criteria for humility.
St Augustine says that humility is the foundation of all virtue.
Rather often at times we can be like the pharisee and declare how righteous we are in our beliefs failing to see our own sinfulness or worse thinking that our sins are less than another’s… while so and so or so and so is completely wrong and nothing but a sinner.
My question to you:
In the Parable of The Pharisee and The Sinner - all paraphrased: The Pharisee declares to God that he has always done his duty and is a good person while that sinner is nothing but a sinner.Under what reasoning or premise, in the New Testament, would God deny homosexual people their earthly and secular rights as citizens, as human beings?
It is the sinner that is justified before God because he beats his breast and asks for God’s Mercy as he knows he is a sinner. Self knowledge is a criteria for humility.
St Augustine says that humility is the foundation of all virtue.
Rather often at times we can be like the pharisee and declare how righteous we are in our beliefs failing to see our own sinfulness or worse thinking that our sins are less than another’s… while so and so or so and so is completely wrong and nothing but a sinner.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
Seems to be so. There should not be confusion however. In 2010 the Argentine bishops rejected then Cardinal Bergoglio’s proposal to support the legality of civil union for homosexual persons by the state, as an alternative to marriage equality.
Last edited:
N
neophyte
Guest
nm
34567890
34567890
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.