Pages

Our Motto:

The Connecticut Catholic Corner Motto: Romans 14:16 "Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil."

All articles owned by Connecticut Catholic Corner

© 2007-2024 All articles owned by Connecticut Catholic Corner *except EWTN press releases(see sidebar)*

***FYI: Comments***

Due to continued problems with Disqus I have removed them from this blog- in doing so comments from 2018-2020 have disappeared from my blog posts.
Showing posts with label Joe Biden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joe Biden. Show all posts

Friday, June 19, 2020

A people without good morals is incapable of self government

I invite all Catholics to read what the Catholic Church taught in 1910 about the United States of America and Patriotism-and what would happen if immoral ignorant people were voting in our great country. 

If we want to fix our country, our Catholic Church must return to teaching this about our country and how to hold on to it- or we will certainly loose it. Socialism and communism are just a heartbeat away. 

I've highlighted some parts that stood out to me in light of our current trials+tribulations in America.

(The Catholic Instructor: An Educational Library of Ready Reference, published by The Office of Catholic Publications, 1910)


American Patriotism: The Duty and Value of Patriotism

By The Most Rev. Archbishop Ireland


A History of the achievements of the church in America from the great pens of John Gilmary Shea, LL. D. and the review of its progress and growth by Richard H. Clark, LL. D. two native Catholic historians of recognized pre-eminence in the field of Catholic History in the United States, may very appropriately be accompanied by an extensive quotation from the celebrated address on “The Duty and Value of Patriotism,” delivered by the Most Rev. JohnIreland, D. D., Archbishop of St. Paul, before the New York Commandery of the Loyal Legion, and an authentic History of the origin and foundation of that great Patriotic Catholic Organization, “The Knights of Columbus.”

No one has earned a better right to speak for American Patriotism or Liberty, than the Archbishop of St. Paul. He served his country in her hour of peril and speaks as one of her defenders.

The calumnies so frequently uttered against the Church, and the Americanism of Catholic citizens, should need no other refutation than will be found in the lofty patriotism breathed in this eloquent address to his comrades in arms.

The following are pertinent selections from the Archbishop’s address:

     “I shall define patriotism as you understand and feel it. Patriotism is love of country, and loyalty to its life and weal-love, tender and strong; tender as the love of son for mother, strong as the pillars of death; loyalty generous and disinterested shrinking from no sacrifice, seeking no reward save country’s honor and country’s triumph.

More than a century ago a trans-Atlantic poet and philosopher, reading well the signs wrote:

“Westward the star of empire takes its way.
The first four acts already past,
A fifth shall close the drama with the day:
Time’s noblest offspring is the last.”

Berkeley’s prophetic eye had descried America. What shall I say in brief discourse of my country’s value and beauty, of her claims to my love and loyalty? I will pass by in silence her fields and forests, her rivers and seas, the boundless riches hidden beneath her soil and amid the rocks of her mountains, her pure and health-giving air, her transcendent wealth of nature’s fairest and most precious gifts. 

I will not speak of the noble qualities and robust deeds of her sons, skilled in commerce and industry, valorous in war, prosperous in peace. In all these things America is opulent and great; but beyond them and above them is her singular grandeur, to which her material splendor is only one fitting circumstance.

America born into the family of nations in these latter times is the highest billow in humanity’s evolution, the crowning effort of ages in the aggrandizement of man. Unless we take her in this altitude we do not comprehend her; we belittle her towering stature, and conceal the singular design of Providence in her creation.

America is a country of human dignity and human liberty.
When the fathers of the Republic declared: “That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” a cardinal principle was enunciated, which in its truth was as old as the race, but in practical realization almost unknown.

Slowly, amid sufferings and revolutions, humanity had been reaching out toward a reign of the right of man. Ante-Christian paganism had utterly denied such rights. It allowed nothing to man as man; he was what wealth, place, or power made him. Even the wise Aristotle taught that some men were intended by nature to be slaves and chattels. The sweet religion of Christ proclaimed aloud the doctrines of the common fatherhood of God, and the universal brotherhood of men. Eighteen not yet put its civil and political institutions in accord with its spiritual faith. The Christian Church was all this time leavening human society, and patiently awaiting the promised fermentation. This came at last, and it came in America. It came in a first manifestation through the Declaration of Independence; in came in a second and final manifestation through President Lincoln’s proclamation of emancipation.

In America all men are civilly and politically equal; all have the same rights; all wield the same arm of defence and of conquest, the suffrage; and the sole condition of rights and of power is simple manhood.

Humanity, under the spell of heavenly memories, never ceased to dream of liberty, and to aspire to its possession. Now and then, here and there, its refreshing breezes caressed humanity’s brow. But not until the Republic of the West was born, not until the star-spangled banner rose toward the skies, was liberty caught up in humanity’s embrace, and embodied in a great and abiding nation.

In America the government takes from the liberty of the citizen only so much as is necessary for the weal of the nation, which the citizen by this own act freely concedes. In America there are no masters, who govern in their own right, for their own interest, or at their own will. We have over us no Louis XIV., saying: “L’etat c’est moi”; no Hohenzollern, announcing that in his acts as sovereign he is responsible only to his conscience and to God. Ours is the government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The government is our own organized will.

THERE IS NO STATE ABOVE OR APART FROM THE PEOPLE

Rights begin with, and go upward from the people. In other countries, even those apparently the most free, rights begin with and come downward from the state. The rights of citizens, the rights of the people, are concessions which have been painfully wrenched from the governing powers. With Americans, whenever the organized government does not prove its grant, the liberty of the individual citizen is sacred and inviolable. Elsewhere there are governments called republics; universal suffrage constitutes the state; but once constituted the state is tyrannous and arbitrary, and invades at will private rights, and curtails at will individual liberty. 

One Republic is liberty’s native home- America.

The God-given mission of the Republic of America is not only to its own people; it is to all the peoples of the earth, before whose eyes it is the symbol of human rights and human liberty, toward whom its flag flutters hopes of future happiness for themselves.

Is there not for Americans a meaning to the word, Country? Is there not for Americans reason to live for country, and, if need there be, to die for country? Whatever the country, patriotism is a duty; in America the duty is thrice sacred.

Duty to country is a duty of conscience, a duty to God. For country exists by natural divine right. It receives from God the authority needful for its life and work; its authority to command is divine. The apostle of Christ to the Gentiles writes: “There is no power but from God, and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore, he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.” The religion of patriotism is not sufficiently considered; and yet, it is this religion which gives to country its majesty, and to patriotism its sacredness and force.

PATRIOTISM IN THE TIME OF PEACE

The days of peace have come upon our fair land; the days when patriotism was a duty have not departed. What was saved by war must be preserved.

A government of the people, by the people, and for the people, as proposed by the founders of the Republic, was, in the light of the facts of history, a stupendous experiment. The experiment has so far succeeded. A French publicist, De Maistre, once dismissed with contempt the argument drawn from the United States in favor of free institutions in Europe, remarking; “The Republic of the United States is in its swathing-clothes; let it grow; wait a century and you will see.” 

The Republic has lived out a century, it has lived out a mighty civil war, with no diminution, assuredly, of vigor and promise. Can we say, however, that it is beyond all the stages of an experiment? The world at large is not willing to grant this conclusion; it tells us, even, that the Republic is but now entering upon its crucial crisis. 

New conditions, indeed, confront us; new perils menace us, in a population bordering on the hundredth million and prepared quickly to leap beyond this figure, in plethoric unwieldy urban conglomerations, in that unbridled luxury of living consequent on vast material prosperity, which in all times is a dreaded foe to liberty. It were reckless folly on our part to deny all force to the objections which are put to us.

Meanwhile, the destinies of numerous peoples are in the balance. They move toward liberty, as liberty is seen to reign undisturbed in America; they recede toward absolution and hereditary rĂ©gimes, as clouds are seen darkening our sky. 

Civil, political, social happenings of America are watched, the world over, with intense anxiety, because of their supported bearings upon the question of the practicability of popular government. A hundred times the thought pressed itself upon me, as I discussed in foreign countries the modern democracy, that, could Americans understand how much is made to depend upon the outcome of republican and democratic institutions in their country, a new fire of patriotism, a new zeal in the welfare of the Republic, would kindle within their hearts.

For my part, I have unwavering faith in the Republic of America. I have faith in the providence of God and the progress of humanity; I will not believe that liberty is not a permanent gift, and it were not if America fail. I have faith in the powerful and loyal heart of America, which clings fast to liberty, and sooner or later rights wrongs and uproots evils. I have no fears. Clouds cross the heavens; soon a burst of sunlight dispels them. 

Different interests in society are out of joint with one another, and the social organism is feverish; it is simply the effort toward new adjustments; in a little while there will be order and peace. Threatening social and political evils are near, and are seemingly gaining ground; the American people are conservatively patient; but ere long the national heart is roused and the evils, however formidable be their aspect, go down before the tread of an indignant people.

DANGERS TO A GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE

The safety of the Republic lies in the vigilant and active patriotism of the American people.

There is a danger of ignorant voters. As a rule, the man who does not read and write intelligently, cannot vote intelligently. Americans understand the necessity of popular instruction, and spare no expense at spreading it. They cannot be too zealous in the matter. They need to have laws in every State which will punish, as guilty of crimes against the country, the parent who neglects to send his children to school.

There is a danger-and a most serious one-in corrupt morals. 

A people without good morals is incapable of self-government. At the basis of the proper exercise of the suffrage lie unselfishness and the spirit of sacrifice. A corrupt man is selfish; an appeal to duty finds no response in his conscience; he is incapable of the high-mindedness and generous acts which are the elements of patriotism; he is ready to sell the country for pelf or pleasure. 

Patriotism takes alarm at the spread of intemperance, lasciviousness, dishonesty, perjury; for country’s sake it should arm against those dire evils all the country’s forces, its legislatures, its courts, and above all else, public opinion. 

Materialism and the denial of a living, supreme God annihilate conscience, and break down the barriers to sensuality; they sow broadcast the seeds of moral death; they are fatal to liberty and social order. A people without a belief in God and a future life of soul will not remain a free people. The age of the democracy must, for its own protection, be an age of religion.

AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP-THE SOLE STANDARD

Storms are passing over the land, arising from sectarian hatred, and nativist or foreign prejudices. These are scarcely to be heeded; they cannot last. Day by day the spirit of Americanism waxes strong; narrowness of thought and unreasoning strife cannot resist its influences.

The country is America; only they who are loyal to her can be allowed to live under her flag; and they who are loyal to her may enjoy all her liberties and rights. Freedom of religion is accorded by the Constitution; religion is put outside the state action, and most wisely so; therefore, the religion of a citizen must not be considered by voter or executive officer. The oath of allegiance to the country makes the man a citizen; if that allegiance is not plenary and supreme, he is false to his profession; if it is, he is an American. 

Discriminations and segregations, in civil or political matters, on lines of religion, of birth-place, or of race, or of language-and, I add, or of color- is un-American, and wrong. Compel all to be Americans, in soul as well as in name: and then, let the standard of all value be their American citizenship.

AMERICAN PATRIOTISM NEEDED

American patriotism is needed-patriotism intense, which speaks out in noble pride, with beating heart; Civis Americanus-I am an American citizen; patriotism active, which shows itself in deed and in sacrifice; patriotism public-spirited, which cares for the public weal as for the apple of the eye. Private personal civic virtue is not uncommon among us; more uncommon is public civic virtue, which watches the ballot and all approaches to it, which demands that public officials do their duty, which purifies public opinion on all matters where country is concerned. This patriotism will save the Republic.

From whom primarily does the Republic expect this patriotism? From her veteran soldiers.

This patriotism, America, thou shalt have. I speak for veterans. I speak for their brother-citizens.

Noblest ship of state, sail thou on over billows, and through storms, undaunted, imperishable! Of thee I do not say: “Caesarem vehis-thou carriest Caesar.” But of thee I say: “Libertatem vehis-thou carriest Liberty.” Within thy bulwarks the fair goddess is enthroned, holding in her hands the dreams and hopes of humanity. Oh! For her sake, guard well thyself. Sail thou on, peerless ship; safe from shoals and malign winds, ever strong in keel, ever beauteous in prow and canvas, ever guided by heaven’s polar star! Sail thou on, I pray thee, undaunted and imperishable!" --end--


If we do nothing our country will continue to destroy itself from the inside. We must be a properly educated and moral people. Our Catholic Church today is mostly failing us. Our Catholic Church of yesterday will never fail us, as we can always find solid teachings with Her. 

I have many of these old Catholic teaching books and I will continue to share the treasures they hold. Please share this writing with other Catholics who may not have such books or good solid priests to instruct them in our beautiful Faith. Perhaps you know a priest who might be interested in this writing from 1910? Please share - I think our country really needs this now. Thank you.

God bless you all and God bless America.

In Christ, 

Julie 






Tuesday, September 24, 2013

What about Joe?


In a recent (and wonderful) interview, Cardinal Raymond Burke made it perfectly clear (I just love when our clergy speak in no uncertain terms) that Nancy Pelosi could NOT have Holy Communion at Mass because of her support and work on behalf of child killing- abortion.

Cardinal Burke said in his interview regarding Nancy Pelosi, Holy Communion and Canon Law 915: “Certainly this is a case when Canon 915 must be applied. This is a person who obstinately, after repeated admonitions, persists in a grave sin — cooperating with the crime of procured abortion — and still professes to be a devout Catholic. This is a prime example of what Blessed John Paul II referred to as the situation of Catholics who have divorced their faith from their public life and therefore are not serving their brothers and sisters in the way that they must — in safeguarding and promoting the life of the innocent and defenseless unborn, in safeguarding and promoting the integrity of marriage and the family.
Let's all pretend we don't see this.
What Congresswoman Pelosi is speaking of is not particular confessional beliefs or practices of the Catholic Church. It belongs to the natural moral law which is written on every human heart and which the Catholic Church obviously also teaches: that natural moral law which is so wonderfully illumined for us by Our Lord Jesus Christ by His saving teaching, but most of all by His Passion and death.
To say that these are simply questions of Catholic Faith which have no part in politics is just false and wrong. I fear for Congresswoman Pelosi if she does not come to understand how gravely in error she is. I invite her to reflect upon the example of St. Thomas More who acted rightly in a similar situation even at the cost of his life." [End]

Wonderful! 

Thank you Cardinal Burke!

But…umm… what about Joe Biden?

He’s still pretending to be Catholic isn’t he?

How about taking on the Vice President who is guilty of the EXACT same thing as Nancy Pelosi?

Why didn’t anyone put their foot down to the Kennedy boys?

If you are going to put your foot down (and you should), let it come down on ALL the guilty parties.  And don’t forget the mental midgets calling themselves “nuns” riding buses and waving rainbow flags in support of “gay marriage”. 

Let the Church REALLY enforce Canon Law 915 with an across the world excommunication for Catholics who do what Pelosi does?  Let's not single one out one from among the hordes, lets apply it to all who are guilty.  

The Church had no problem (for a day) excommunicating the ENTIRE NATION of wayward Catholic lawmakers and voters in Uruguay…

Quote: “Bishop Heriberto Bodeant, secretary for the Uruguayan bishops’ conference, said the lawmakers essentially excommunicated themselves by voting for abortion.
“Automatic excommunication is for those who collaborate in the execution of an abortion in a direct way,” he said. “If a Catholic votes…with the manifest intention that he thinks the Church is wrong about this, he separates himself from the communion of the Church.”[End]
Ooops! *another case of Catholic whiplash*

That’s right, you publicly called them excommunicated, then the media went crazy and the next day it was all a terrible “misunderstanding” and the Church backpedaled and the media "updated" the story.
Update quote:  “The Uruguayan bishops’ conference has explained recent statements regarding Catholic lawmakers who voted to legalize abortion in the country, saying they are not excommunicated if they voted in favor of abortion.“Excommunication applies to Catholics who have acted directly in carrying out an abortion, which does not include those who vote for a law that allows it,” Bishop Heriberto Bodeant, secretary general of the conference said.”[End]

We get a lot of these explanations when someone in the Church says something.  We hear something said, we hold our breath waiting for the explanation to come for fear to believe what we hear the first time around.

How about we stop playing games, end the Catholic whiplash from our Bishops and enforce what Church Canon Laws say to enforce?  If you don’t… what’s the point in writing Canon Law?

In Christ,

Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner
                                                                                      
Canon Law Can.  #915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.


Links to quotes:





Friday, June 21, 2013

Send this to Catholic Politicians everywhere!!

     Apparently many of our American Bishops either don't know this document or refuse to share it with Catholics and in particular Catholic politicians.  Because [some of ] our Bishops are such failures at educating and correcting wayward/clueless/unrepentant Catholics about what the Church actually teaches, it must fall to ALL OTHER Catholics to share Church teaching and educate other Catholics. 
   
   **Please share this article from the Vatican... put it on Facebook, tweet it on Twitter, email it to family and friends and don't forget to share it with the Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden's in our government.  God bless you all for sharing our wonderful Catholic faith... 

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS


INTRODUCTION
1. In recent years, various questions relating to homosexuality have been addressed with some frequency by Pope John Paul II and by the relevant Dicasteries of the Holy See.(1) Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues. 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. The present Considerations do not contain new doctrinal elements; they seek rather to reiterate the essential points on this question and provide arguments drawn from reason which could be used by Bishops in preparing more specific interventions, appropriate to the different situations throughout the world, aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity of marriage, the foundation of the family, and the stability of society, of which this institution is a constitutive element. The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.(2) 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.

I. THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE
AND ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTERISTICS
2. 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. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.
3. The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator's plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.
In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united.
Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).
Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.
Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).
4. 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”.(4)
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”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.
Nonetheless, 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”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10)

II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
5. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.
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. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. 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. 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.

III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL
RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.
From the order of right reason
The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.
It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. 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”.(14) 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.
From the biological and anthropological order
7. 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. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
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. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
From the social order
8. 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. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.
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.(16) 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.
Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. 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.
From the legal order
9. 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.
Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)

IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS
WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.
When legislation in favour 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 favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour 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. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.

CONCLUSION
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. 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 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. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary


NOTES
(1) Cf. John Paul II, Angelus Messages of February 20, 1994, and of June 19, 1994; Address to the Plenary Meeting of the Pontifical Council for the Family (March 24, 1999); Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2357-2359, 2396; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana (December 29, 1975), 8; Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986); Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons (July 24, 1992); Pontifical Council for the Family, Letter to the Presidents of the Bishops' Conferences of Europe on the resolution of the European Parliament regarding homosexual couples (March 25, 1994); Family, marriage and “de facto” unions (July 26, 2000), 23.
(2) Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life (November 24, 2002), 4.
(3) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 48.
(4) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2357.
(5) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana (December 29, 1975), 8.
(6) Cf., for example, St. Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, V, 3; St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 27, 1-4; Athenagoras, Supplication for the Christians, 34.
(7) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986), 10.
(8) Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2359; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986), 12.
(9) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358.
(10) Ibid., No. 2396.
(11) Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 71.
(12) Cf. ibid., 72.
(13) Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 95, a. 2.
(14) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 90.
(15) Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum vitae (February 22, 1987), II. A. 1-3.
(16) Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 63, a.1, c.
(17) It should not be forgotten that there is always “a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons [July 24, 1992], 14).
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...