Why The Vatican Wrote a Document Against Homosexual Unions

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.

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.

Flashback to last year and the story of two gay men who "arranged" a family with a surrogate mother. She became pregnant with quints and, at the doctor's recommendation, with full consent from the two gay dads, she aborted one of the fetuses to make more room for the other four.

I would say that such situations are indeed dangerous for children, before and after birth.

It gets worse. The surrogate mother is pregnant again with another child that the homosexual couple plans to adopt. Last time a priest baptized the quads and blessed the parents while we didn't have a bishop. But there is hope ... our new bishop, installed in February, attended the Theology on Tap session held here in Lexington about a week and a half ago. Someone asked him a question about the new baby, and he reasoned that a child should only be baptized if there is reasonable hope that the child will be taught the Catholic faith and how to live as a Catholic. He did not, however, want to announce outright what he planned to do if the couple asked for baptism of the new child.

Someone asked him a question about the new baby, and he reasoned that a child should only be baptized if there is reasonable hope that the child will be taught the Catholic faith and how to live as a Catholic. He did not, however, want to announce outright what he planned to do if the couple asked for baptism of the new child.

Thanks for the update.

The priest was correct in baptizing the quads last year but wrong in blessing the two homosexual men. He was probably unsure of just what to do since the Rite of Baptism entails blessing the parents of the child(ren). It was also my understanding that the two dads are both catholic and plan to raise the children as catholics.

The children should not be punished for the lifestyle of the two men. All we can do is keep them all in our prayers.

If the bishop were to refuse baptism, I don't understand how that is a punishment. If an infant is baptized, does that not charge the parents with the responsibility to raise them as faithful Catholics? This may be a theologically sticky area, but does baptism impart a responsibility to the baptized to live as a Christian? If that is the case, is the child considered one to whom the faith has been given, and therefore more accountable to God than one who is not baptized? It seems to me that they would be better off not being baptized.

As to whether the parents are Catholics and intend to raise the children as Catholics, well, let's see ... they have

* lived as openly homosexual people, clearly in violation of the Church

* used multiple reproductive techniques banned by the church - surrogate motherhood, in vitro fertilization, selective abortion

* brought scandal to themselves and to the Church by proudly going public with all of this

Just to name a few.

I realize that nobody's perfect, and we all fall far short of living as perfect Christians, but it seems pretty clear to me that these guys have no intention of amending their lives to fit the teachings of the Church. What are they going to teach these children, that how they live and how they brought them into the world are wrong? Not likely. Baptizing these children sends the message that it's perfectly all right to go against core teachings and continue to receive the Eucharist and call yourself a Catholic. I do hope and pray for the spiritual conversion of these people and for the children involved, but I think the Church would do everyone involved a great disservice by administering the sacrament.

Of course, you are not the one I should be laying all this on ...

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.