Posted on 08/10/2003 12:26:32 PM PDT by sinkspur
On July 31, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document on gay marriage titled, Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons.
Early commentary on the document dwelt on its strong language denouncing homosexuality, and on its challenge to Catholic politicians to resist the legalization of same-sex unions.
In truth, however, all that was old hat. The churchs position on homosexuality has long been known, as has its opposition to any redefinition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Insistence that Catholic politicians must vote coherently with their faith was at the heart of the Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Public Life issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Jan. 16, 2003.
If there is something new in the July 31document, it is not in the teaching or political stance of the church, but its analysis of the social situation. Whereas previous documents had called the church to arms to fight the legalization of homosexual relationships, Considerations seems designed, at least in part, to prepare the church for resistance in situations in which that legalization has already taken place.
It doesnt take a political scientist to figure out that at least in the developed world, the church is losing the argument.
Twelve European nations today, for example, have laws under which gay couples enjoy at least some of the civil benefits of marriage. They are: France, Germany, Switzerland, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Croatia. (In Spain, there is no federal legislation, but autonomous regions are free to craft their own policies. Catalonia, for instance, recognizes same-sex unions, but not adoption rights.)
In light of this, the July 31 Vatican document appeals to all Catholics, by no means just politicians, to refuse to cooperate with these measures.
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, it states.
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.
What might that mean?
In theory, any Catholic whose work intersects with marriage issues adoption counselors, civil registrars of marriage, even inheritance and retirement specialists could find themselves facing a choice between the civil law and the demands of their church.
Redemptorist Fr. Brian Johnstone, a moral theologian at Romes prestigious Alphonsian Academy, said that Catholic adoption agents would clearly face a conflict of formal cooperation if the law were to give adoption rights to gay parents. The new Vatican document comes down hard on adoption, stating that such measures 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.
Similarly, Catholic marriage counselors would be in a difficult position if a same-sex couple were to seek their services.
A bit more complicated, Jonhstone said, would be the case of a Catholic who works as a civil registrar of marriages.
You could argue that both ways, Johnstone said. You could argue that this person is uniting his will with that of the same-sex couple and hence is cooperating with the marriage. Or you could take the view that he is simply willing the civil effects of that act and not the marriage itself.
Still more complex, Johnstone said, would be a case in which a same-sex couple wishes to enroll their child in a Catholic school.
Its hard to construe accepting that child as formal cooperation, Johnstone said. But there could be a problem under the heading of scandal.
In this case, Johnstone said, he meant not the popular sense of scandal, meaning shocking people, but the technical sense of inducing someone to commit sin against the faith or morals of the church. In that sense, he said, someone might be able to argue that by accepting the children of homosexual unions, the church was in effect legitimizing those unions and hence inducing people to accept them.
In short, Catholics who work with married couples and their children may find themselves in much the same situation as Catholic health care professionals, who have long had to negotiate matters of conscience on issues such as abortion, birth control, and artificial reproduction.
Nope. It is not "the demands of their church". It is the law from God.
Resisting sin is not painless and is not deviod of earthly consequences. Believers have to make a choice, obey God or follow Satan. That choice can have severe earthly consequences. Those that love and serve the Lord will make the right choice, enduring the earthly consequences, because they know true freedom and frue happiess come only from God.
Undoubtedly, substitute the word socialism for homosexual marriage and you're left accepting socialism because socialists do it.
On the contrary, it's the first thing I've read which poses some of the problems that Catholics in particular positions will face. The Pope's document did a good job of defending the Faith; this is simply an analysis of the effects.
It's analysis. Not everything written about the Catholic Church has to thunder with condemnation.
I have lived in a City far away from the parish of my upbringing for the last 13 years. In that time I've attended Mass infrequently until recently. The new church I frequent (I'm already looking for another) included an insert in the Church bulletin from some Catholic group who asserts its mission as the protector of those who work the land.
This insert, which was August's calendar (all the days of the month were noted with 'things to think about') was a piece of propoganda that shocked me.
It noted that one of it's goals was to restrict state to state produce distribution, and to enact legislation that would reduce our agricultural output, as we produce (according to the insert) 1.5x that which we need to consume. This group also asserted via the insert that all people have a 'right' to enough food to flourish, not just to survive. And they intend to bring that right about through government edict.
The thought to contemplate on the Feast of the Assumption was 'the dignity of our bodies'. And judging from the 'deep thoughts' for some of the previous days, the dignity of our bodies that we need to be contemplating is centered around their goals for the 'tillers of the land'. No mention of contemplating the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, though. Again, I was shocked. I called my Mom later on that Sunday and asked if she'd received such an insert and she said no, so it was undoubtedly something local.
I had called the rectory a few days before I attended Mass to register as a new Parishoner. The registrar couldn't take my call that day so she called me back a few days later, I told her I had changed my mind.
I hope I can find a Catholic Church that is not party to this kind of machination, but it doesn't look hopeful in my region.
When the Kumbaya lavender music director came out of the closet to try to adopt an innocent child, he was given by the diocese the appropriate ultimatum: Break up with your "partner" and vow celibacy or begone. Mr. Music chose the latter, was promptly fired with the usual gang of suspects weeping crocodile tears, flapdoodle and wailing about insensitivity, and now works for a local Methodist Church (quelle surprise since the local Methodist bishop got arrested last year for sitting in for "gay rights" to be Methodists pastors and to marry in the Methodist Church).
The definition of liberalism, particularly in the RCC, is constant, neverending disturbance of the peace for the sake f disturbance. "Gee, the Unitarians would let Bruce and Lance marry and adopt little Frank, change his name to Foxy, and 'share their love with him.' Why can't WE be the ones out front for a change?"
Enough tolerance. Time to drive this perversion from the ranks. Lately Rome has been appointing actual Catholics as bishops in formerly AmChurch leftist dioceses. The cockroaches are just beginning to go scampering for the woodwork.
Wonder what Lavender Rembert, Milwaukee's one-time clerical queen, must "feeeeeel" about all this? He ought to write it up for National "Catholic" Reporter.
Holy Toledo did that make me laugh!!!!! And bump...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.