(link to the Free Republic thread)
Posted on 08/30/2013 7:57:59 PM PDT by annalex
Why does the Catholic Church teach that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and how should we respond to calls for homosexual “marriage”?
The issue of homosexual “marriage” is a controversial one today.
It is being voted into law, or imposed by courts, across the United States and across the world.
What does the Catholic Church have to say on the subject, and why does it teach what it does?
Here we offer an “interview” with Pope Benedict XVI that draws on his previous writings on the subject of homosexuality, on giving legal recognition to homosexual unions, and on the duties of Catholic politicians.
The Church’s conscientious effort to resist this pressure calls for a reasoned defense of marriage as a natural institution consisting of a specific communion of persons, essentially rooted in the complementarity of the sexes and oriented to procreation.
Sexual differences cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage.
Defending the institution of marriage as a social reality is ultimately a question of justice, since it entails safeguarding the good of the entire human community and the rights of parents and children alike.
Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.
The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world.
No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman.
There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.
Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts as a serious depravity (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10).
This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.
This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.
According to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is, however, objectively disordered, and homosexual practices are sins gravely contrary to chastity.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When legislation in favor 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 favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favor 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.
The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior 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 behavior, 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.
By the way, if you’ve found this interview helpful, don’t forget to share it with friends so that they can benefit from it, too!
If you’ve received this interview from a friend and would like to receive more information like this, you should sign up for the Jimmy Akin Secret Information Club at www.SecretInfoClub.com.
To learn more of Pope Benedict’s wisdom, be sure to read his writings on this subject. They include:
And:
For your pinging pleasure.
Yes, if your ignore God's will as revealed in the Holy Bible, then same-sex "marriage" is controversial.
This is considered hateful and prejudiced. Count me in.
Surprising full of clarity. I’ll give the Pope props for this interview. He makes the case very effectively. I do think the media is distorting him sometimes or not providing context, in order to further their agenda.
His answers.
The homo propagandists paint the Pope as not having a problem with their deviant relationships being recognized as marriage.
This proves them wrong, he also calls the likes of Pelosi immoral
Good stuff
"Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
The Church abolished some precepts of the Old Testaments, so each time you make a reference to the Old Testament alone, someone would challenge it on the grounds like "but we don't stone for adultery anymore, do we?"
The condemnation of the same sex "marriage", and even same sex sexual practices has to come from the specifically Christian view on human sexuality. It can't come from the Old Testament alone.
This is NOT an actual interview with Pope Benedict, let alone with the present Pope, Francis. It is an assemblage of some of Pope Benedict's statements on the subject of homosexuality. The content is the selection of Mr. Akin, not everything Pope Benedict has said or written on the topic.
It is very likely that, at some point during his long career as a theological writer, Pope Benedict mentioned the Old Testament prohibitions on homosexual behavior, as well as the many relevant New Testament passages.
(link to the Free Republic thread)
What purpose would quoting the Bible to people who don’t accept it serve?
Precisely. I believe in God’s Word but to those who won’t accept it you can say that homosexual acts are a violation of the natural law, of reason. Don’t get your hopes up, of course, for then the typical modern brainwashed by relativism will say:” Natural law accord to whom?” The patron of relativists is Pontius Pilate: “What is truth?”-John 18:38
Personally, I’m tired of this fight. To those who don’t accept that. God said it, that settles it. Proceed at your own peril.
I think, the quotes around "interview" and my assigning authorship to Akin make that clear. Is there a problem with the post?
Not at all. It seemed there was some confusion among the readers, so I pointed it out, and just included you because you were the original poster.
:)
Even those who revere Leviticus as Scripture are often hard-put to explain why they consider 9/10 of it irrelevant to their own personal behavior, let alone public policy. Unless you offer animal sacrifices, segregate menstruating women, and keep kosher, I'm talking about you, too.
That's why it's actually indispensable to explain moral abhorrence of perverse sex acts, in terms of Natural Law.
It's not slighting God. He is the Author of both the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature.
I agree. People should be scripturally and philosophically literate for such situations when objections are raised
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
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.