Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons
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 LetterEvangelium 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 [link added] and his Companions, Martyrs.
Cardinal Cupich: Put aside preconceptions and listen to LGBTQ people
The synodal approach to church life that Pope Francis is encouraging has greatly assisted me. It has forced me to rethink how I serve in the church and how I minister to those I serve. Perhaps the most important insight I have gained is that church leaders should be wary about presuming too much about people. We do better when we listen to others before we speak or make judgments about them. Given our years of education and preparation in the seminary and the deference that people often offer us, the fallacy that “Father knows best” can easily creep into our thinking.
Some years ago, Cardinal Luis Ladaria, former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, offered helpful advice to U.S. bishops. In 2021, we were formulating a national policy regarding admission to Communion for Catholics in public office who support legislation permitting abortion, euthanasia or other moral evils.
Cardinal Ladaria urged us to first “reach out to and engage in dialogue with Catholic politicians within their jurisdictions who adopt a pro-choice position regarding abortion legislation, euthanasia, or other moral evils, as a means of understanding the nature of their positions and their comprehension of Catholic teaching” (emphasis added). Only then, the cardinal noted, could the bishops discern “the best way forward for the church in the United States to witness to the grave moral responsibility of Catholic public officials to protect human life at all stages.”
We do better when we listen to others before we speak or make judgments about them.
In other words, we should listen to them rather than presume that we know how they understand church teaching, or that we know how they view carrying out the responsibilities of their office.
This approach of putting aside our preconceptions and really listening also applies to how church leaders ought to consider people in a variety of life situations. This includes not only LGBTQ Catholics, but also people who are married or single, those in so-called irregular situations, those who are living with physical and psychological disabilities and others.
Over this past decade as archbishop of Chicago, I have scheduled listening sessions with people representing all these groups. These conversations have given me a fresh perspective for understanding what the church means when it affirmed at the Second Vatican Council that “the joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in their hearts” (Gaudium et Spes, #1).
Of course, we can make that affirmation honestly only if we are in touch with people at those profound levels of human existence, and listen to them. In my conversations with LGBTQ Catholics, I have encountered searing truths about the realities of their lives in our church and in our world.
An overwhelming number of LGBTQ Catholics I’ve met told me that they suffer a sense of alienation precisely because they feel preemptively judged and excluded. The pain is especially sharp when it is experienced in their families or among those who have been their friends. This is also true when they experience this as members of their own church. They relate stories of being ostracized, even being thrown out of their family homes, when they told their parents about their sexual orientation. They felt unwelcome in the church and even spoke of being denied baptism and admission to Catholic schools for the children they adopted. One person told me that the way they were banished, shunned and even hated led them to the conclusion that being gay made them a modern-day leper. Tragically, this kind of alienation can lead to suicidal ideation.
In my conversations with LGBTQ Catholics, I have encountered searing truths about the realities of their life in our church and in our world.
Yet amidst these realities of exclusion and suffering lies a profound resiliency, an unwillingness to give up their desire to be good and respond to Christ’s call to follow him in the life of the church. They attend Mass. They become involved in parish life where they are welcomed. They pray daily and practice works of mercy, especially outreach to the poor.
Many of our LGBTQ Catholic sisters and brothers value community life. They are convinced that it is important to make the case for their place in the life of the church because they have something not only to receive but also to give, which we should recognize and welcome.
Many LGBTQ people also learn and know what sacrificial love is, as they take on the role of parenting children who otherwise would not have a home. This also happens when LGBTQ people put the social Gospel into practice by volunteering for good causes and by dealing compassionately with others, as so many of them already know what it means to feel excluded.
I believe we have a better chance of pursuing a holy life if we walk together “on the road” (synodos) and help each other along the way.
Contrary to what others often say or think about LGBTQ people, the idea that they are uniquely obsessed with sexual satisfaction is a myth (as if we don’t have abundant examples of cultural obsession with heterosexual gratification). Rather, what’s been clear in my conversations with LGBTQ Catholics is that they place a high priority on expressions of love and intimacy that comport with church teaching. In fact, they tend to see a relationship with a partner as an attempt to establish stability in their lives in the face of the promiscuity that is sometimes present in both the gay and straight communities.
Pastoral outreach to the LGBTQ population always should include the call of the Gospel to live a chaste and virtuous life. At the same time, in my 50 years as a priest I have learned that all of us struggle with those demands. We are, after all, all called to chastity.
Returning to Pope Francis’s call for a synodal church, I believe we have a better chance of pursuing a holy life if we walk together “on the road” (synodos) and help each other along the way. This means leaving behind preemptive exclusion and the shunning of those we have easily, if not lazily, judged as unworthy of our companionship. For if we talk with and, even more important, listen to each other, we may actually come to recognize what all God’s children share as members of the same family: that we are more alike than different, and that we are all from and going home to God.
For the most part, I find my fellow Irish Americans to be woefully ignorant about modern Ireland. Our Irish Catholic ancestors would be apalled by the hate crimes against this Protestant family. I will try to share this video far and wide.
The topic of in vitro fertilization (IVF) can be challenging to discuss. On an issue laden with difficulties, with serious impact on the lives of people in our communities, it is all the more important to be knowledgeable. Too often people give their support for IVF (and other assisted reproductive technologies) without fully considering all that is involved, including, for example, moral, legal, and financial implications.
Couples may struggle with the heartache of infertility. Technologies such as IVF seemingly provide an answer to their pain. However, these procedures are problematic for all involved. Although IVF creates new life, it also unjustly destroys life as well. Millions of babies have been born as a result of IVF. However, tens of millions more embryos have been discarded, experimented upon, or frozen. These "excess" embryos have been denied their natural right to live and fully develop.
IVF is not an acceptable solution to infertility. As part of our loving duty to accompany those dealing with infertility, we can promote alternative means to address the problem. Click here to view the video (and letter) by Bishop Michael Burbidge of the Diocese of Arlington as he points out how "[t]he Church encourages and promotes all life-giving and restorative fertility treatments, approaches like NaProTechnology, that address and resolve underlying causes of infertility."
Some Public Policy Concerns
Support for IVF should not be policy in government funded programs. IVF is not a process that people should be forced to support through our tax dollars or our insurance plans. No matter how well intended to help infertile couples, we cannot support technology that:
Encourages eugenic practices and the grave error of viewing children as property under the absolute control of another.
Removes conception from its intended place within the loving marital act and reduces it to a laboratory procedure. This harms the dignity of all involved.
Allows new life to be brought about outside of a proper marriage setting, such as in non-standard unions, through surrogacy, or even to single people. This deprives children of their natural right to be born into a family of a married father and mother.
Catholic Church teaching takes very seriously the moral and ethical implications of the IVF process. For more information see:
A Catholic resource on IVF or a letter to the U.S. Senate on the IVF Protection Act from 2024.
Sincerely,
Loretta Fleming Executive Director
You are receiving this email because you signed up for alerts from Human Life Action. Click here to unsubscribe from this mailing list.
US bishops are lying when they say abortion is their 'preeminent priority' (Michael Hichborn, 1/27/25)
Catholic Relief Services: A Collaborative Investigation conducted by the Population Research Institute and Lepanto Institute in Cameroon, Zimbabwe, and Lesotho, 2024
JD Vance [re: abortifacients, IVF]: Mature Catholics have a Responsibility to Guide Him (Catholic365, 1/29/25)
“Helping young people accept their bodies and their vocation as women and men is the true path of freedom and happiness,” says Bishop Barron (USCCB, 1/29/25)
Trump Order Will End Military ‘Gender Insanity,’ Ban Taxpayer-Funded Gender Transitions (DailyWire, 1/27/25)
"all those who believe in the sanctity of life, regardless of whether they support or oppose the theoretical validity of brain-death criteria, [should] oppose the use of brain-death criteria to obtain organs for transplantation in clinical practice. We can then, as a single voice, support medical research seeking innovative, morally uncontentious ways to replace failing organs" (National Catholic Register, 10/25/21)
"It is everyone’s hope that rape victims, whether pregnant or not, receive the most compassionate and effective care available. Unfortunately, using Plan B and continuing to cite the faulty Peoria Protocol, based upon what we now know, is simply an immoral compromise—with the unintended consequence of the loss of human life and the abandonment of truly loving and courageous Christian health care" (Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, 4/8/19)
pharmacies
Certain other "contraceptives" can act as abortifacients! For example, it has long been known that other hormonal "contraceptives" can cause early abortions and are deadly dangerous (e.g., 1, 2) and just about every pharmacy (including those in supermarkets and department stores!) provides such. No parish should be allowing advertisements from providers of abortifacients! Please speak with your pastor, to ensure that your parish - be it in a bulletin or a directory - does not have such ads.
Especially with Central Jersey and the Philly suburbs so much being a worldwide capitol for the pharmaceutical industry,
~3.jpg)
