Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

avatar

Church Teaching Still Unchanged

June 14th, 2011, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Please email or fax to our legislators, including Mr. Alesi.  Then they can’t say they didn’t know, Catholic or not.

The following is an excerpt by the CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, entitled: “CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS,” approved by Pope John Paul II on March 28, 2003 and promulgated on June 3, 2003 by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.   

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.

Tags: ,

|

6 Responses to “Church Teaching Still Unchanged”

  1. avatar A Catholic says:

    According to news reports, Mr. Alesi is going to vote in favor of gay “marriage”. This will be a betrayal of his constituents and of his faith. Of course, as a member of Spiritus Christi, he has already been led away from the Catholic Church. They will probably hail him at Spiritus as a hero. It’s unbelievable how far down the path of immorality we’ve fallen. The news report indicated that if there is a vote, it is estimated that the gay “marriage” advocates are still in need of about 2 more votes. Let’s keep praying that God will yet have mercy on us. Isn’t it interesting how it looks like it might be fallen-away Catholics that will give the margin to the gay “marriage” side- just like way back in 1970 when a “Catholic” legislator changed his mind and cast the deciding vote in favor of legalizing abortion in New York state.

  2. avatar Anonymous says:

    It is just unfortunate this bishop give lip service to this while doing everything he can under the radar to promote the homosexual unions and homosexual behavior the bishops publically condemn.

  3. avatar Louis E. says:

    My own state senator,Greg Ball,is still dithering,see http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/ over the last couple of days.My letter should be in two local papers today and tomorrow.

  4. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    Louis E,
    Be sure to send us links if your letter is published online in those papers.

  5. avatar Louis E. says:

    I believe that the Putnam County Courier charges for online access and the Putnam Press Times doesn’t put text online.

    I’ve been busy today on the polhudson blog though!

  6. avatar Louis E. says:

    The Press/Times did not print the letter,as it turns out.

Leave a Reply


Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.


-Return to main page-