Call me a troglodyte, but it was my impression from Catholic moral teaching that nobody has a “right” to do what is contrary to the law of God, whether we consider that portion of the law that is supernaturally revealed, or that which was written on the heart.
(NCR/John Allen) Another veteran Vatican figure has signaled openness to civil recognition of same-sex unions in the wake of similar comments in early February from the Vatican’s top official on the family. It’s a position also once reportedly seen with favor by the future pope while he was still Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
The latest expression of support for civil recognition as an alternative to gay marriage comes from Archbishop Piero Marini, who served for 18 years as Pope John Paul II’s liturgical master of ceremonies.
“There are many couples that suffer because their civil rights aren’t recognized,” Marini said. [Emphasis mine — he speaks of the “rights” of homosexual couples as couples. Read more…]
Could I have been wrong?
Wait! Here it is: “One thing, however, remains always true — that the liberty which is claimed for all to do all things is not, as We have often said, of itself desirable, inasmuch as it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.” (Leo XIII, Libertas)
I guess I was right.
But wait, there’s even more! From the deepest, darkest medieval papacy, I have drudged up another document. Mind you, it’s so old that nobody will pay any attention to it since we’ve come so far since then as church, if you know what I mean (I feel très chic when I leave off the definite article like that!). Anyway, here’s my recent discovery of esoteric and arcane knowledge:
The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law, but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience. 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. 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.
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.
The above excerpts come from a document of the Holy Office of the Roman Inquisition! (Sounds of thunder, screams, terrifying flashbacks to mass autos da fé.) The document dates all the way back to the pontificate of … Blessed John Paul II, whose M.C. was Archbishop Piero Marini.
One can easily understand how such antiquated things get forgotten.