I don’t think this is acceptable. Because it is implied that the homosexual act will take place as a result of this. So I’m pretty sure it’s against Church teaching.
Good on you - I used to love discussing things with my Moral Theology professor after class.
Make sure you get a priest who specialises in Aquinas.
Right, the procreative unitive aspect will always be missing. When one looks upon their child and know it is a unity of the two, it is simply amazing.
oh you took Moral Theology! Was that for your occupation? Or just for knowledge?
Vocational, the equivalent of a Masters Theology degree (six years) in Moral/Systematic Theology.
What vocation? If i could ask?
I’m not sure where you misunderstood me. Where did I skate away from objective good? That was actually the whole thrust of my comment.
Call me puzzled.
You’re missing the point my friend. I understand what the rules are according to your view. I wasn’t trying to debate the rules. Just trying to help you see another point of view as well.
I imagine some priests would struggle to form the reasonable hope that the child would be brought up in accord with the catholic faith if the parents reject the church’s teaching around marriage.
My view doesn’t count for a thing. That’s why I don’t give my POV. That said, your POV doesn’t count for anything either. The one who judges EVERYONE, is the one whose view is supreme.
This statement demonstrates the heart of the problem. Perception shifts unconsciously when it is about people with SSA from persons to acts. Or visa versa
Nah it’s fine… It just seemed strange since you’re responding to everyone else here and singling me out seemed arbitrary,… But that’s your choice.
I’m not sure about the distinction between “acts” and “actions”, but as for the longer phrases “human action” vs “acts of man”, the former are actions that require a human nature to commit, while the latter are any activity that a human might do, including things that don’t require a specifically human nature, (I might have switched these, and I took my moral theology course ages ago, so take what I say with a grain of salt).
But if this is correct, I’m also unsure what it has to do with your concern.
Blessings are good. So, is your point that any such blessing must bless only that which is good in this situation, or that there should be no blessing at all because there is no good.
While there is no good in an action that is unholy, that is, a civil union between two people of the same sex as a marriage, there is still good in both people, and possibly in some of these relationships.
No, it is same-sex unions, as in gender. The adjective is what makes this about gender, not the act of sex. Has this term been defined to always include sexual relationships?
We are talking about a public liturgical blessing here. That blessing says something about it’s object. You are reducing the matter to a vagueness that makes a blessing almost moot.
I’m saying that benediction recognizes something objectively good, and calls the divine favor on it.
Yes people are good in God’s eyes. Ok, inlight of the topic what is your point?
You are talking about a public, liturgical blessing. The topic is wider. However, with your definition (public and liturgical), I know understand your point. You are speaking only of the faux marriage ceremony type of thing.
I think it is somewhat dubious to lean too heavily on the possibility that it is not. My best friend and I would not describe us as having a same sex relationship, nor would anyone else, despite such an interpretation being permitted by strict examination of the words. The term is used - almost exclusively I think - to refer to relationships having a romantic framework and a genesis in the sexual attraction between the persons.
Now whether they actually by choice refuse to engage in sexual acts, or age and infirmity have diminished them naturally such that there are no sexual acts between them - is another question.
That was my thought, but reading here, there is sometimes the comparison to couples in a second marriage who live in continence because it would be adultery. That was the only reason I questioned it. But even within that comparison, there is not Catholic ceremony for those heterosexual couples.
Would people get as concerned about blessing “different sex Unions”?