EWTN Kicks Off Its 2017 Spring Season March 1
Experience Miracles, Motorcycles & Far Away Places
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.Wouldn't it be grand to hear a priest's homily, particularly in Washington D.C. tell a parish full of Catholic politicians (if it exists) that they cannot support in anyway gay unions and that they (the politicians) must vote against all such laws?
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." (Source: The Vatican)
"Human rights in Islamic countries have been a hot-button issue for many decades. International non-governmental organizations (INGOs) such as Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) consistently find human rights violations in Islamic countries. Amongst the human rights issues that are frequently under the spotlight are gay rights, the right of consensual sex outside of marriage, individual freedom of speech and political opinion.[1] The issue of women’s rights is also the subject of fierce debate.[1]When the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, Saudi Arabia refused to sign it as they were of the view that shariah law had already set out the rights of men and women.[1] To sign the UDHR was deemed unnecessary.[2] What the UDHR did do was to start a debate on human rights in the Islamic world. Following years of deliberation, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) adopted the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam." (Source: Wikipedia)President Trump is not taking away women's rights, bringing back slavery or wanting to kill gays- Trump actually doesn't even oppose gay "marriage" - unfortunately.
CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFULVatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
[quote in part] "In some places it has also been proposed that in order objectively to examine their actual situation, the divorced and remarried would have to consult a prudent and expert priest. This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision in conscience to approach holy communion, without this implying an official authorization.Jesus and our Church have always been very clear on this subject.
In these and similar cases it would be a matter of a tolerant and benevolent pastoral solution in order to do justice to the different situations of the divorced and remarried.
Even if analogous pastoral solutions have been proposed by a few fathers of the church and in some measure were practiced nevertheless these never attained the consensus of the fathers and in no way came to constitute the common doctrine of the church nor to determine her discipline. It falls to the universal magisterium, in fidelity to sacred Scripture and tradition, to teach and to interpret authentically the <depositum fidei>.
With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ, the church affirms that a new union cannot be recognized as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive holy communion as long as this situation persists.
This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of holy communion.[end quote]
1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating their children in the faith.
"For the African Church, this is a pressing issue. For example, in 2004 it was reported that nearly half of marriages in Senegal are polygamous. I know from my own former ministry in Kenya that polygamy is not at all unknown among Catholics. People in that sort of situation might well think that the admission of those in irregular second unions throws them some sort of lifeline.
Four Cardinals, as we know, have submitted five dubia to the Pope on the matter of the correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. Virtually every priest who has ever worked in Africa could submit a dubium on this matter too, namely, to quote Cardinal Napier: “If Westerners in irregular [marital] situations can receive Communion, are we to tell our polygamists and other ‘misfits’ that they too are allowed?”
If polygamists were ever admitted to Holy Communion for whatever reason, it would undo a century of work by the missionaries who have consistently taught that marriage is an exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman, and can only be dissolved by death. It would also severely damage the credibility of the Church, and undermine the authority of Scripture. Dubium means doubt, but on this matter there can be no doubt. We cannot admit polygamists to Holy Communion, whether serial ones of concurrent ones, whether Westerners or from other continents." [end quote]
"I want to tell you something. What is it that I expect as a consequence of World Youth Day? I want a mess. We knew that in Rio there would be great disorder, but I want trouble in the dioceses!" he said, speaking off the cuff in his native Spanish. "I want to see the church get closer to the people. I want to get rid of clericalism, the mundane, this closing ourselves off within ourselves, in our parishes, schools or structures. Because these need to get out!"...that we would be petitioning our Holy Father to clarify Holy Communion for adulterers and fornicators?