Pope Francis: Church Could Support Civil Unions

[KnightofChrist]

A marriage and a union are very decidedly different where we are concerned. One is a sacramental exchange between the two where the other is a government issued contract.

This position still relies upon chopping up the Kingship of Christ, making Him only King of the Church and not King of the civil part of society. One cannot deny or divide the influence of the Church's social doctrine from the civil government. To do so is known as "Americanism", and it was shown to be error by Pope Leo XIII.

While civil marriages/civil unions are different than Sacramental Marriages, Christ is King of both the Church and the government. The State or government is dutifully bound by the same Law that the Church is bound by, it cannot justly blessed unions that Christ does not bless.

How very important and relevant are the words of Pope Leo XIII when it comes to pressures today to ease up on the Church's social doctrines.
 

The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: "For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them." -Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.

We cannot consider as altogether blameless the silence which purposely leads to the omission or neglect of some of the principles of Christian doctrine, for all the principles come from the same Author and Master, "the Only Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father."-John i, I8. They are adapted to all times and all nations, as is clearly seen from the words of our Lord to His apostles: "Going, therefore, teach all nations; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you all days, even to the end of the world."-Matt. xxviii, 19. Concerning this point the Vatican Council says: "All those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."-Const. de fide, Chapter iii. " - Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae

 

 

[josephine]

Please bare in mind that I am not american, i live in a european country. English is not my first language,

so forgive me if I make mistakes. ;)

 

in my country, civil marriage and religious marriage are completely separated. And civil marriage doens't look like religious marriage.

it's just a legal contract. makes things easier for taxes and heritage rights. you can easily divorce. (which at least 1 in 3 do)

after a civil marriage, you are free to have any (religious) ceremony that you can think of. you don't need a permit or anything.

 

So. civil marriage is open for both people of the opposite gender as for people of the same sex. Should I try and protest, to turn that around?

Honestly, I don't think so. I mean, yes, it may be a sin for gay people to have sex. But it is also a sin to discriminate them. And a heterosexual couple,

that is having sex outside of marriage, never have a religious marriage, using contraception, and then divorce. don't they sin as well?

 

Should we try to make sex outside of marriage illegal too? or not going to church on sundays? because these too are very serious sins...

 

so what i'm trying to say is: should we, as catholics, strive to make sinning illegal?

even if the majority of the people thinks it's a good thing and they aren't religious anyway?

[CatholicCid]

So the loving union of a happy couple will somehow...make the rest of us happy by spreading its influence? Is that what you  mean?

 

Or are you afraid straight people will start getting homosexual unions?

Sorry to break it to you, but the unsacramental union of straight people is happening right under your nose and yet no one bats an eye.

Actually, as I have been trying to get across, from a secular viewpoint, the question to ask is not whether a union is loving, but how is it beneficial to society? 

 

From a religious viewpoint, these unions do not aide in the pursuit of one's final end. And, to allow such unions is to allow for a disordered behavior to become normalized, thereby harming society. This is true not only for same sex civil unions, but for any behavior that does not aide in the pursuit for eternal salvation.

 

From a personal viewpoint, I am not afraid of any such thing. More so, since I see an active homosexual lifestyle as harmful to the individuals involved and, as their fellow citizen and, more so, their fellow human being, I need to take a stand against such civil unions that reinforce harmful disorders. When an issue involves any disordering of love, whatever it might be, I cannot simply stand by and let someone pursue that without attempting to persuade them otherwise. This includes the tolerance, let alone support, of civil unions. 

 

And, yes, I do see what is happening "right under my nose," but, as the very existence of this thread indicates, people are batting an eye. We're having a discussion on this topic right now. It's not 'cut and dry,' and you attempting to make it seem so is a disservice to those who are attempting to at least try and have an honest discussion of the topic at hand.

Edited March 10, 2014 by CatholicCid

[mortify ii]

Peace be with you,

 

See now we are being very daft.

You are making some pretty unsupported claims about the nature of homosexuality which is leading you down this road. People are offended by these terms because a lot of the time, people with strong religious bias dont understand the full picture.

 

You stated that you noticed a transition from bisexual to homosexual in a friend which lead you to believe sexual orientation is fluid.

Not necessarily. The thing is, people are born into a world filled with norms that they have to live up to. You have to fit into a mold or else there is something wrong with you. Science is continually showing that homosexuality is genetic so that means it has the potential to be hard wired into our being.

You suggest you can change it...well thats likely NOT that case at all and therefore we cannot build a model on how to deal with it based on error.

 

Much of what you said I generally agree with, especially about people suppressing their feelings and remaining in the "closet," however it does not apply to my friend. My friend was bisexual, his sexual orientation used to towards men and women at least up to his teens. At some point, for whatever reason, the sexual orientation towards women switched off and now he only possesses it towards men. I want to make it clear that he is not suppressing feelings towards women, he simply no longer has them. I was very perplexed when he revealed this to me because sexual orientation is not supposed to change, it's believed to be so intrinsic and innate to our being that what we are born with we maintain throughout our whole life, and yet here is a case where sexual orientation did in fact change. What factors caused this to happen? Could it have been steered in some way? Could he have become heterosexual if conditions were different? Who knows, this is but one case supporting a hypothesis that is likely never to be entertained. Now you may think this is ignorant and offensive but my friend is not a liar, his sexual orientation changed, now what do you make of it? 

 

I dont think anyone is suggesting that the sacramental marriage between a homosexual couple is the same as a heterosexual couple.

The topic is about civil unions....a government issued agreement. Not a sacrament. 

 

 

And my point was the government should not support a civil union between homosexuals. 

[4588686]

 

 

I have to remind myself sometimes that I have more in common with a Hindu than I do with other Westerners. Just to emphasize this point so that we don't talk past eachother, I have to remind you that I am not a modernist. I am by nature what Rene Geunon and Syyed Hossein Nasr to refer to as a traditional person, and tradition in this sense has a specific meaning. It refers to someone who lives according to a higher transcendent principle (God, Tao, Brahman, or Nature as understood by the Stoics), recognizes that there is a hierarchical order in this world according to it, and that there is truth and the absence of it. Mircea Eliade has a similar anthropological concept when he speaks of the homo religiosus. Modernism is the stark opposition to this traditional worldview because it rejects any transcendent principle or supra human element, and is consequently an aberration.

 

To me the suggestion that homosexual unions are somehow equal to a marital union between a man and woman is simply baffling. It is equally obvious that the former is not only unequal, but specifically inferior to the later. And to proceed further, is not only inferior but so diametrically opposed to the natural order that it could never be supported. Let me take some time by recalling an event in my University years, when I sat down with some classmates and this very topic came up. I was very surprised to discover that my Hindu, Buddhist, and Chinese classmates, all immigrants, also held negative views towards homosexuality. It made me realize that if people from cultures independent of mine own recognized the same moral truth there must be something substantial behind it. Everything can't be relative as our modernist friends like to suggest, there is something real we can all tap into but I struggled to describe it. I realized I had no words for such things because I myself was heavily influenced by modernism, and only carried a faint few seeds of light.

 

Anyway, let me just end with that great stoic, Marcus Aurelius:

 

"All things are interwoven with one another; a sacred bond unites them; there is scarcely one thing that is isolated from another. Everything is coordinated, everything works together in giving form to the one universe. The world-order is a unity made up of multiplicity: God is one, pervading all things; all being is one, all law is one (namely, the common reason which all thinking creatures possess) and all truth is one -- if, as we believe, there can be but one path to perfection for beings that are alike in kind and reason."

 

 

Seyyed Hossein Naser is a perfectly decent historian.  However, whenever he tries to venture out into positive argument is falls into incoherence and obscurism, as you do here. 

[4588686]

"It's Obvious that gay marriage is bad my Chinese friend thinks so too, hahahahaha!"

[mortify ii]

"It's Obvious that gay marriage is bad my Chinese friend thinks so too, hahahahaha!"

 

You have to realize Hasan that you are in the minority position. Virtually every culture regards homosexuality as perverse behavior. I need not explain to you what makes homosexuality wrong, it behooves you to explain why homosexuality should be tolerated. And you can laugh, but there is something to be said when diverse and independent cultures all share the same view towards a topic.

 

Time to get ecumenical and share some thoughts from our friends in other faiths:

 

 

"Gay marriages do not fit in our culture and heritage. All those who demand the approval of such marriages in India are doing so under the influence of the West. Incorrect Western practices have no place in our culture; we should not blindly follow. Sanatana Dharma has no place for this and we do not even discuss it."

Swami Pragyananda Maharaj

 

"This is just adharmic. If these relations were to be accepted, then why was creation created? When Brahma directed Manu to create the world, Manu clearly said that the creation could not be made without women. Hindu dharma cannot sanction man-to-man marriages."

Maharishi Sarkhandi Mahatyagi

 

"A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse [penis and vagina] and nothing else... Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate [mouth, hand, anus] for sexual contact."

Beyond Dogma, 1996, Dalai Lama

 

"They want me to condone homosexuality. But I am a Buddhist and, for a Buddhist, a relationship between two men is wrong. Some sexual conduct in marriage is also wrong"

"If an individual has no faith, that is a different matter... If two men really love each other and are not religious, then that is OK by me."

Dalai Lama, May 25, 1999 interview published in The Age

 

 

Those above quotes by the Dalai Lama caused considerable controversy in the Western Buddhist community. He curtailed his position a bit, differentiating what Buddhism teaches and what might be permitted from a secular point of view. However it's interesting how even Buddhism has a negative view towards homosexual acts and recognizes how it contradicts natural law.  In all this we see that most eastern philosophies can be distinguished by what they are in themselves and how they are applied and interpreted in a West. The West's take on Buddhism is quite different, one will easily find articles and statements by American and European spiritual leaders in Buddhism saying homosexuality is perfectly ok, I suppose this is Buddhisms version of "cafeteria Catholics."

 

 

Some key words: Dharma, Adharma, Pandaka

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Peace be with you,

 

 

Much of what you said I generally agree with, especially about people suppressing their feelings and remaining in the "closet," however it does not apply to my friend. My friend was bisexual, his sexual orientation used to towards men and women at least up to his teens. At some point, for whatever reason, the sexual orientation towards women switched off and now he only possesses it towards men. I want to make it clear that he is not suppressing feelings towards women, he simply no longer has them. I was very perplexed when he revealed this to me because sexual orientation is not supposed to change, it's believed to be so intrinsic and innate to our being that what we are born with we maintain throughout our whole life, and yet here is a case where sexual orientation did in fact change. What factors caused this to happen? Could it have been steered in some way? Could he have become heterosexual if conditions were different? Who knows, this is but one case supporting a hypothesis that is likely never to be entertained. Now you may think this is ignorant and offensive but my friend is not a liar, his sexual orientation changed, now what do you make of it? 

 

 

And my point was the government should not support a civil union between homosexuals. 

 

I totally agree that gayness isn't necessarily something one is born with, nor do I believe you need to have a gay gene to be gay. I don't get why people spend so much time arguing about this point. Either way, attraction isn't something we can easily control.

 

@CrossCut: I don't know much about the research dealing gay attraction being genetic, but I've heard the findings are conflicting. Do you know more about this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html
^ I don't really know why I posted this. I didn't read it.

 

 

Actually, as I have been trying to get across, from a secular viewpoint, the question to ask is not whether a union is loving, but how is it beneficial to society? 

 

From a personal viewpoint, I am not afraid of any such thing. More so, since I see an active homosexual lifestyle as harmful to the individuals involved and, as their fellow citizen and, more so, their fellow human being, I need to take a stand against such civil unions that reinforce harmful disorders. When an issue involves any disordering of love, whatever it might be, I cannot simply stand by and let someone pursue that without attempting to persuade them otherwise. This includes the tolerance, let alone support, of civil unions. 

 

@CatholicCid: I don't completely buy my understanding of your initial argument. Should the government really do away with anything that is harmful to society? If that's the case, tobacco and alcohol should be banned. McDonald's should be banned. The Westboro Baptist Church should be banned...

 

I think the bigger problem here is that we're exaggerating the effect gay marriage will have on society. Even if there is a negative impact, I would argue that there is a much larger one if we continue to exclude a large portion of society from marriage.

 

 

Btw, please be more careful with your choice of words. The evidence (much of it from government funded research) does not support the notion that homosexuality is a "disorder".
 

Edited March 12, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CatholicsAreKewl]

You have to realize Hasan that you are in the minority position. Virtually every culture regards homosexuality as perverse behavior. I need not explain to you what makes homosexuality wrong, it behooves you to explain why homosexuality should be tolerated. And you can laugh, but there is something to be said when diverse and independent cultures all share the same view towards a topic.

 

Time to get ecumenical and share some thoughts from our friends in other faiths:

 

 

"Gay marriages do not fit in our culture and heritage. All those who demand the approval of such marriages in India are doing so under the influence of the West. Incorrect Western practices have no place in our culture; we should not blindly follow. Sanatana Dharma has no place for this and we do not even discuss it."

Swami Pragyananda Maharaj

 

"This is just adharmic. If these relations were to be accepted, then why was creation created? When Brahma directed Manu to create the world, Manu clearly said that the creation could not be made without women. Hindu dharma cannot sanction man-to-man marriages."

Maharishi Sarkhandi Mahatyagi

 

"A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse [penis and vagina] and nothing else... Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate [mouth, hand, anus] for sexual contact."

Beyond Dogma, 1996, Dalai Lama

 

"They want me to condone homosexuality. But I am a Buddhist and, for a Buddhist, a relationship between two men is wrong. Some sexual conduct in marriage is also wrong"

"If an individual has no faith, that is a different matter... If two men really love each other and are not religious, then that is OK by me."

Dalai Lama, May 25, 1999 interview published in The Age

 

 

Those above quotes by the Dalai Lama caused considerable controversy in the Western Buddhist community. He curtailed his position a bit, differentiating what Buddhism teaches and what might be permitted from a secular point of view. However it's interesting how even Buddhism has a negative view towards homosexual acts and recognizes how it contradicts natural law.  In all this we see that most eastern philosophies can be distinguished by what they are in themselves and how they are applied and interpreted in a West. The West's take on Buddhism is quite different, one will easily find articles and statements by American and European spiritual leaders in Buddhism saying homosexuality is perfectly ok, I suppose this is Buddhisms version of "cafeteria Catholics."

 

 

Some key words: Dharma, Adharma, Pandaka

 

Not a fair point. I can make a similar argument for racist attitudes toward black people 50-100 years ago (with quotes by notable figures like Ghandi). We can even argue that blackness is ugly by noting all the cultures (including African ones) where lighter skin tones are preferred. Majority Opinion =/= Right.  #boom

Edited March 12, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CrossCuT]

Actually, as I have been trying to get across, from a secular viewpoint, the question to ask is not whether a union is loving, but how is it beneficial to society? 

 

From a religious viewpoint, these unions do not aide in the pursuit of one's final end. And, to allow such unions is to allow for a disordered behavior to become normalized, thereby harming society. This is true not only for same sex civil unions, but for any behavior that does not aide in the pursuit for eternal salvation.

 

From a personal viewpoint, I am not afraid of any such thing. More so, since I see an active homosexual lifestyle as harmful to the individuals involved and, as their fellow citizen and, more so, their fellow human being, I need to take a stand against such civil unions that reinforce harmful disorders. When an issue involves any disordering of love, whatever it might be, I cannot simply stand by and let someone pursue that without attempting to persuade them otherwise. This includes the tolerance, let alone support, of civil unions. 

 

And, yes, I do see what is happening "right under my nose," but, as the very existence of this thread indicates, people are batting an eye. We're having a discussion on this topic right now. It's not 'cut and dry,' and you attempting to make it seem so is a disservice to those who are attempting to at least try and have an honest discussion of the topic at hand.

 

What what.....so now we are going to start categorizing peoples relationships?

How is your presence in this forum beneficial from any of those viewpoints? Are we really going to start analyzing peoples personal lives and how the outside world decides if its good enough of some ish? Really?

 

I think that is sick.

How would you like the government coming to your house and tearing your family apart because they no longer feel the relationship to your wife and children is beneficial to society?

 

I think we are officially treading down a very very very non christian path and reaching too far into insanity on this topic. We are no longer treating people humanly at this point and I find it very offensive that you think someone would have to prove that their personal relationship would benefit YOU in some way.

 

And you wonder why people are getting intolerant of us? Its because we say stupid things like this.

 

Peace be with you,

 

 

Much of what you said I generally agree with, especially about people suppressing their feelings and remaining in the "closet," however it does not apply to my friend. My friend was bisexual, his sexual orientation used to towards men and women at least up to his teens. At some point, for whatever reason, the sexual orientation towards women switched off and now he only possesses it towards men. I want to make it clear that he is not suppressing feelings towards women, he simply no longer has them. I was very perplexed when he revealed this to me because sexual orientation is not supposed to change, it's believed to be so intrinsic and innate to our being that what we are born with we maintain throughout our whole life, and yet here is a case where sexual orientation did in fact change. What factors caused this to happen? Could it have been steered in some way? Could he have become heterosexual if conditions were different? Who knows, this is but one case supporting a hypothesis that is likely never to be entertained. Now you may think this is ignorant and offensive but my friend is not a liar, his sexual orientation changed, now what do you make of it? 

 

 

And my point was the government should not support a civil union between homosexuals. 

 

I think you are trying to explain a complicated biological system by a very crude method of observation. You cant make any conclusions based on this observation because sexual orientation is more than an outward expression.  In a very basic biological sense, phenotype does not equal genotype.

 

I would encourage you to do some personal research on the theories behind homosexuality before coming to a conclusion based on one personal observation with a friend. Try the NCBI search engine, there are a ton of scholarly research papers available to the public.

[NotreDame]

A good question to ask would be why heterosexual couples were granted those legal and economic privileges to begin with. There most likely has been some form of reason or incentive behind the government offering these privileges.

 

Then, one would have to ask if these other alternative lifestyles being discussed are able to satisfy the reasons why heterosexual couples were originally granted these privileges. 

 

That being said, it must be remembered that a privilege is not a right. By it's very definition, it need not be applied equally to all groups.

 

My last post was an attempt to present the issue in an entirely secular way. Marriage and the benefits associated with it by the government are a privilege. Therefore, it must be asked: Why does the secular government offer these privileges? Or, more specifically: Why does the secular government regulate marriage?

 

Actually, as I have been trying to get across, from a secular viewpoint, the question to ask is not whether a union is loving, but how is it beneficial to society?

 

What C-Cid says here ^^^ are some of the most logical, reasoned words I've ever seen shared on Phatmass regarding this subject. 

[CrossCuT]

And my point was the government should not support a civil union between homosexuals. 

 

Why not?

 

Tolerance is the world of the decade. Michelle Bachman recently spoke publicly about how homosexuals are not tolerant of her views or other views as Christians.

 

Sure. I can see how some homosexuals are angry.

 

 

But lets look at the facts, Michelle wants tolerance for herself as well as all Christians in the world yet she is unwilling to give tolerance in return.

 

All heterosexuals can marry, enter unions, blah blah blah etc. However not only are homosexuals denied the sacramental marriage in the church (which is justified), but NOW Christians are saying they arent even allowed to have government issued civil unions?

 

How is that tolerance for them?

How are they suppose to sit quietly and not feel like they are being attacked?

[KnightofChrist]

Not a fair point. I can make a similar argument for racist attitudes toward black people 50-100 years ago (with quotes by notable figures like Ghandi). We can even argue that blackness is ugly by noting all the cultures (including African ones) where lighter skin tones are preferred. Majority Opinion =/= Right.  #boom

 

The point does work with other immoral behavior like murder, theft, etc, which a vast majority of cultures though out the ages have universally condemned.

[NotreDame]

@CatholicCid: I don't completely buy my understanding of your initial argument. Should the government really do away with anything that is harmful to society? If that's the case, tobacco and alcohol should be banned. McDonald's should be banned. The Westboro Baptist Church should be banned...

 

I think the bigger problem here is that we're exaggerating the effect gay marriage will have on society. Even if there is a negative impact, I would argue that there is a much larger one if we continue to exclude a large portion of society from marriage.

 

Btw, please be more careful with your choice of words. The evidence (much of it from government funded research) does not support the notion that homosexuality is a "disorder".
 

Although he understands and explains the issue very well, at the personal level is where I begin to differ with El Cid. 

 

I don't like the government legislating too much personal morality, because I don't trust the government to exercise that sort of power intelligently.  However, I probably don't have to point out that lots of very personal morality is legislated.  Tobacco is restricted, street drugs are illegal, Alcohol was banned in the constitution, NYC got rid of big gulps, etc.

 

I dont want to put words in his mouth, but regarding the use of "disordered", the Catholic Church does teach that SSA is disordered and that may be the sense he is using it.  Being something like a clinical disorder is probably something a little different from the "disorder" the Catholic Church uses. 

 

You mention that we are excluding a large portion of society from marriage.  How large do you think this portion is and what are the negative effects from not extending marriage to same-sex unions?

Edited March 12, 2014 by NotreDame

[KnightofChrist]

Why not?

As previously explained the Unverisal Kingship of Christ and His kingdom.
 

Tolerance is the world of the decade. Michelle Bachman recently spoke publicly about how homosexuals are not tolerant of her views or other views as Christians.
 
Sure. I can see how some homosexuals are angry.
 
 
But lets look at the facts, Michelle wants tolerance for herself as well as all Christians in the world yet she is unwilling to give tolerance in return.
 
All heterosexuals can marry, enter unions, blah blah blah etc. However not only are homosexuals denied the sacramental marriage in the church (which is justified), but NOW Christians are saying they arent even allowed to have government issued civil unions?
 
How is that tolerance for them?
How are they suppose to sit quietly and not feel like they are being attacked?

 

You're confusing tolerance by government with acceptance and blessing of government. There is no "NOW", the Church hasn't just changed it's position, nor have faithful Christians, the Church has always been against the State blessing unions which are against the natural law. Because again Christ' authority is not just over the Church, but the state as well.

Tolerance of homosexuality would be not making it against the law, or not punishing the act like a crime.

Same-sex marriage/unions would be more than just tolerance but acceptance and blessing. Edited March 12, 2014 by KnightofChrist