Why Has The Holy See Written a Document Against Homosexual Unions?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Why Has The Holy See Written a Document Against Homosexual Unions?

Secretary of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Responds

VATICAN CITY, AUGUST 1, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Why has the Holy See published a document, clearly articulating its negative ethical judgment on those laws that give legal recognition to homosexual unions?

Salesian Archbishop Angelo Amato, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and, together with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, signatory of the document, answered the question in this interview with Vatican Radio.

The document "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," of a "doctrinal character," was published by the Holy See on Thursday.

Q: What are the essential points of the document?

Archbishop Amato: There are three. First of all, there is a reaffirmation of the essential characteristics of matrimony, which is founded on the complementarity of the sexes. This is a natural truth, confirmed by revelation, so that man and woman can have that communion of persons, through which they participate in a special way in God's creative work, receiving and educating new lives. There is no principle whatsoever to assimilate or establish analogies between homosexual unions and God's plan for matrimony and the family. Matrimony is holy, while homosexual relations are in contrast to the natural law and are intrinsically disordered.

Q: But, with this document, isn't there a risk of discriminating against homosexual persons?

Archbishop Amato: The Church respects men and women with homosexual tendencies, and invites them to live according the law of the Lord, in chastity. It must be kept in mind, however, that the homosexual inclination in itself is objectively disordered and that homosexual practices are grave sins against chastity.

Q: What were the other two points mentioned?

Archbishop Amato: The second point affects the attitudes that must be assumed given these homosexual unions. The civil authorities adopt three attitudes: of tolerance, of legal recognition, or of genuine comparison with matrimony as such, including the possibility of adoption. In face of a policy of tolerance, the Catholic faithful is called to affirm the immoral character of this phenomenon, requesting that the State circumscribe it with limits which will not endanger the fabric of society and will not expose youth to an erroneous conception of sexuality and matrimony. However, in face of the legal recognition or comparison with heterosexual matrimony, there is a duty to oppose in a clear and motivated manner, even claiming the right to objection of conscience.

Q: How is this clear rejection justified?

Archbishop Amato: This is the third point of the document, which offers the arguments of rational order, biological and anthropological order, social order, and juridical order which justify the Catholics' rejection.

Right reason cannot justify a law that is not in keeping with the natural moral law: if it does so, the State no longer fulfills its duty to defend matrimony, an essential institution for the common good.

One thing is a homosexual union as a private phenomenon, and quite another its legal recognition, as a model of social life, which would devalue the matrimonial institution and cloud the perception of some fundamental moral values. Moreover, in homosexual unions, the biological and anthropological conditions of matrimony and the family are missing.

As regards the hypothesis of the integration of children in homosexual unions, such an adoption would be violent for the children, as it would deprive them of a proper environment for their full human development. From the social point of view, it would change the concept of matrimony, with its task of procreation and education and would cause great harm to the common good, especially if its incidence in the social fabric increases. Lastly, speaking juridically, married couples guarantee the order of generations and, therefore, are of eminent public interest. This is not so in the case of homosexual couples.

Q: What should be, concretely, the attitude of Catholic politicians in this respect?

Archbishop Amato: Faced with a first draft law favorable to this recognition, the Catholic parliamentarian has the moral duty to express his disagreement clearly and publicly, voting against it. A vote in favor would be a gravely immoral act.

In face of a law that is already in force, he must make known his opposition. If it is not possible to abrogate the law, he could mobilize and support proposals directed to limiting the harm of such a law and decrease the negative effects at the level of public culture and morality, on the condition that his opposition to laws of this type is clear and avoids the danger of scandal.

This is a principle expressed in the encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" (1995).The leading cultures of the world have always given great institutional recognition not so much to friendship between persons as to matrimony and the family, a condition of stable life favorable to the common good: procreation, survival of society, education, and socialization of children.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), August 02, 2003

Answers



-- (top@top.top), August 03, 2003.

Considerations on “gays” issues

In these days (July and August 2003) the “ gays issues” are in the front burner of entertainment, politics and religion. Reality shows are portraying the gay lifestyle with surprise and amusement in the background. No moral issues are raised by Hollywood. The gay existence is a fact and any social or legal development does not come as a surprise to anybody. Some States in America and several nations around the world had legalized gays unions (legal marriages) against the will of a vast majority of conservative. President Bush, pushed by right wing, is planning to introduce legislation against homosexual people’s legal marriages. The Episcopalian Church in America has just elected the first gay bishop, to the astonishment of many of its followers and of others Christian denominations. The Catholic Church, faithful to its conservative doctrine, has just published a document “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons”, as a stern warning to politicians planning to approve legislation in favor of “gays marriage”. Before examining this document, it is interesting to add a piece of news just released by the mass media regarding a cover up by the Catholic Church on the sticky subject of “priests sex offenders” and priests with homosexual tendencies. It is ironic how the Church tried to protect in the past its gay members. A document, written by card. Ottaviani more than forty years ago, gave strict guidelines to be observed by all catholic bishops all over the world. Similar policy, now rejected not only by the civil law but also by the same Church, was thought and presented as a local failure and deviation. Remember card. Bernard Law of Boston, the most outstanding scapegoat within the catholic dioceses. During the fury of that controversy Benedict, without knowing anything about Ottaviani’s rules, thought how naïve were the mass media and commentators putting the blame on the local bishops instead of going to the source, the Vatican. The Catholic Church has an absolutistic and monarchic structure; therefore, no bishop would dare to implement policies on delicate matters without the approval of his Superiors in Rome. To do the opposite would mean immediate suspension and removal from office. If on one hand is understandable the desire of protecting the institution, on the other is plain wrong and appalling to give a kind of immunity to the offenders and to disregard with cynicism the sufferings and rights of the poor victims. The document “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons” by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on June3, 2003 does “not contain new doctrinal elements”. According to the same document, the question of union between homosexual persons “relates to the natural moral law”. “The Church’s teaching on marriage…is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the mayor cultures of the world”. The document rejects marriage between gays, based on four arguments that nobody can dispute or deny. They are Revelation or Holy Scripture, natural moral law, right reason and universal consensus. The argument of universal consensus can be wrong like any other argument based on numbers and percentages. The number of people accepting one position or another does not make that position true or right. A few historical examples will be sufficient to prove the inconsistency of that argument. Before Galileo and Copernicus, everybody thought and believed firmly that the earth was flat and the sun was orbiting around our planet and not vice versa. Again, before Darwin, the whole world believed in creation, and to think of evolution would have been not only heretical but also insane. A more recent perception of a changing social reality is the position of women, considered through the history of humankind inferior and subservient to men. Nodaway such belief is rejected as discriminatory and unfair. Other examples could be cited, where the argument of universal consensus does not hold true, but appears insidious and deceitful.

The other two arguments of natural moral law, and right reason are tied together, because both presupposes a certain vision of nature and reason that is not shared by all philosophers and does not reflect the human reality. In this vision, human nature is a direct product of God and is governed by immutable and eternal laws. These laws cannot be challenged, disobeyed or mutated by human whim. According to this conception, homosexual persons are an insult to the divine plan of the natural order and harmony in the universe. They contradict nature as intended by God and they are not entitled to have the same rights as the other normal people. Taken to an extreme, this theory sees homosexuals as freaks of nature and therefore destined to eradication. Obviously, nobody is putting forward openly such a theory, morally and politically offensive, but the premises are there and the conclusion inescapable. This position implicitly contained in the Vatican document reiterates unequivocally “the homosexual inclination is however objectively disordered and homosexual practices are sins gravely contrary to chastity”. In order to sweeten this hard pill, the document encourages people to accept homosexuals “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”. According to the Catholic doctrine, homosexuals must abstain from any sex and live in perpetual chastity. It would be like to tell a handicapped person not to seek help in science and technology, but to carry on with his deformity, because that is what nature intended for his existence. In the opposite vision, nature and human nature in particular is not a direct product of God, (admitting that God has anything to do with it) with immutable and eternal laws. Moreover, the divine plan of natural order is neither divine or orderly and harmonic. Nature is a product of a cosmic explosion and of an unending evolution, where violence, disorder, abnormalities and contradictions are present. Nature is in constant evolution. It is not something static o never-ending. It had a beginning and it will have an end. In partial support of this vision, we could mention a law in thermodynamics called entropy, which can be enunciated as follows, energy and matter tend to become more disordered. The natural progression of the universe is from order to disorder, from lower to higher entropy. Other laws in physics, chemistry etc. could be cited in this regard. Anyway, homosexuality is one of the many so-called deviations or aberrations of nature. Homosexuals are not contrary to nature, if we want to use this terminology, but nature is contrary to them. They have the right to express their sexuality according to their natural inclination, like any other human being. In this conception is not only admissible or possible another lifestyle, but it is legally correct and must be accepted and defended. Contrary to the Vatican warning to the politicians not to implement any legislation favoring union between gays, this position tries to legalize gay and lesbian marriages as beneficial to the fabric of society. For the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage” and would be “contrary to the common good”.

Finally the arguments based on the Bible or Holy Scripture. It would not be out of place to remember that the Bible, as inspired book, has been a source of inspiration and comfort for millions of people through the centuries. Nevertheless, we should not forget that the same sacred book had been a sword of double edge. Some had been encouraged to seek conversion by embracing the virtuous path, while others have started crusades of total destruction of cultures, religions and populations, always based on the Scripture. The reading and interpretation of the Bible should be done by single believers and by official Churches without arrogance and with sincere humility, asking God “thy will be done, not mine”. Unfortunately, more often than none, we carry out our will not His in the interpretation of the Holy Scripture. Having said this, let us examine how the Catholic Church is defending her position on gays unions based on the book of Genesis. The three passages [one. God first created “male and female” (Gen 1:27), two. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24) and third. He commands them “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28)], are interpreted as universal law and command that should be applied to every single human being. Since every human being is gendered (male or female) follows, that, every one should get married and should procreate, because fruitfulness belongs to the very nature of marriage. Therefore, indirectly any other type of union or lifestyle would be excluded in this Creator’s plan. If this were true, as universal law, would follow that celibacy, virginity and no married life in general would be contrary to God’s plan. If this were true, as universal command of procreating (because bearing children belongs to the very nature of marriage), people impotent, sterile or unwilling to procreate would contradict again the Creator’s plan. On the other hand, if these passages are not interpreted by the Church as universal law and command, then other lifestyles or unions are not automatically excluded. Then celibacy, virginity, gays unions, etc. could be possible. The Vatican arguments based on the Scripture against homosexual unions do not seem valid or apodictic. What would be the possible interpretation of those three biblical passages? Obliviously neither the literal one (which is abandoned inclusive by the most conservative exegetes like in the specific case of creation) nor the apparently juridical one offered by the Vatican theologians. The inspired writer of the book of Genesis never intended to lay down a law or universal command in order to circumscribe exactly the parameters of a union, he just stated a fact observable in the ordinary day life.

Finally the remarks by St. Paul condemning homosexuality “as a serious depravity” (Rom 1:24-27) could present some difficulties. But here, as in other issues, St, Paul is putting forward the prevailing moral view of his culture, which for the today standards does not seem in tune with the conquests and aspirations of our society, like is evident in the question of women, education of children, etc.

It is sad to see the official Catholic Church wasting her moral authority on issues not defensible either from a philosophical or theological point of view. Time, as it happened many times in the past, will prove the Church wrong, and out of step with our society. Contrary to the Vatican’s assertion, legal recognition of homosexual unions would not obscure certain basic moral values and would not cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.



-- Dario Lisiero (dlisiero10@att.net), August 26, 2003.


Dario,

The Catholic Church cannot be wrong AND the Catholic Church does not waste her time. Therefore, without even reading each and every false assertion and misguided posit put forward in your voluminous misguided morally relativistic blurb -I can state with moral certainty -that YOU are incorrect.

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 26, 2003.


"But here, as in other issues, St, Paul is putting forward the prevailing moral view of his culture, which for the today standards does not seem in tune with the conquests and aspirations of our society, like is evident in the question of women, education of children, etc. "

A: In fact, the prevailing moral view of Paul's time was largely heathen and ungodly, just as it is now, and particularly so among the Gentiles, to whom Paul ministered and wrote. What Paul preached was radically counter-cultural; but it was the truth. Today the Church of the Living God, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, continues to preach that same uncompromising truth. Truth is not relative and it is not subjective. It is a fact that the teachings of the Church are often "out of tune" with "the aspiratrions of our society" - and Thank God for that! - for the Church presents the fullness of truth, while society aspires to incorporate untruth for its own ungodly purposes.

"It is sad to see the official Catholic Church wasting her moral authority on issues not defensible either from a philosophical or theological point of view. Time, as it happened many times in the past, will prove the Church wrong, and out of step with our society. Contrary to the Vatican’s assertion, legal recognition of homosexual unions would not obscure certain basic moral values and would not cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage."

A: Yes, the Catholic Church does indeed possess moral authority, bestowed upon it by God Himself. And the human race is responsible before God for recognizing that authority and abiding by it. ANYTHING can be defended on philosophical and theological grounds. False philosophies and false theologies abound. However, homosexual acts cannot be defended by any philosophy or theology that is centered on objective truth. The Church has never been "proven wrong" on any doctrinal matter, because the Church CANNOT teach falsely. God Himself has guaranteed that the Holy Spirit guides His Church to ALL TRUTH. God doesn't lie. Therefore it is not the Church which is "out of step" with society, but society that is tragically out of step with truth, as presented by God's Church. Any official recognition of homosexual "unions" would constitute a grotesque parody of marriage as God intends that holy state to exist, and therefore a sacrilege. The truth is no different today than it was in St. Paul's day, and if the human race endures another 2,000 years, the truth will be no different then. The Church has always taught the truth, and always will; therefore it will continue to oppose such intrinsically ungodly societal "aspirations" until the end of time.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 26, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ