Cardinal Approves Blessing of Same-Sex Unions


If we are discussing the intrinsic meaning of a Civil Union then in principle (like adoption) the exchange of bodies is not intrinsic to the meaning of the institution.

What you refer to, and wisely so in many situations, is therefore a separate but “concomitant” prudential consideration - the desire to simulate marriage which, for Catholics at least, intrinsically involves the exchange of bodies.

We must therefore be open to prudential possibility that a Catholic couple are chaste in a Union situation and are seeking legal/familial rights similar in nature to adoption.

If that is the case then there is nothing in the nature of the institution itself that is disordered.
That would not be the case for a State SS “Marriage.”


As a practical matter, we are not. You identify certain theoretical possibilities, though their prevalence in the real world is questionable.

For adoption it in fact has no part whatsoever, ever. It is forbidden. The meaning is unambiguous. For civil union, it is mostly intended though the law neither grants a right nor forbids it. The participants typically themselves are plain about the nature of their relationship. [In many cases, the law acknowledges the sexual presumption, by forbidding various pairings to enter a civil union.]

If the state wishes to facilitate a legal framework to suit, fine. That doesn’t get us to a blessing ceremony or rite though.

Btw - I imagine the demand for civil unions is minimal now, given the bulk of those pursuing them see SSM as superior.


If you do not understand the difference between a principle and a common usage then typical Catholic discussions of the “intrinsic meaning” of an object will always be lost on you.

For adoption it in fact has no part whatsoever, ever

Nevermind, I see you have missed the point I am making…


I understand well, but thanks for your concern. I wonder if the the OP, the Cardinal and his interviewer were talking about theoretical possibilities or pastoral care in the real world :thinking:


considering the following combinations

Same sex unions
Same sex unions
Same sex unions

its union(s) that suggests sex, and that is what this is really about.


That’s right. Although some in the LGBT community regard same-sex unions as inferior to same-sex marriage, the basic principle is the same.


This is on our Diocesan web site. There was some MISunderstanding of the way it was said, supposedly.


That explains a lot about the AFL-CIO.




“The president of the German bishops’ conference urged priests to provide better pastoral care to Catholics who are homosexual, but he said, “I think that would not be right” when asked if he could imagine the Catholic Church blessing gay couples.”

“We must be pastorally close to those who are in need of pastoral care and also want it. And one must also encourage priests and pastoral workers to give people encouragement in concrete situations. I do not really see any problems there. An entirely different question is how this is to be done publicly and liturgically. These are things you have to be careful about, and reflect on them in a good way.”

While excluding “general solutions” such as a public ritual, Cardinal Marx said, "that does not mean that nothing happens, but I really have to leave that to the pastor on the ground, accompanying an individual person with pastoral care. "

Certainly that article gives an entirely different message to the one in the OP.


The issue is why people think that.
The institution itself, like adoption, has nothing to do with contracting exchange of bodies.
Marriage does (at least Catholic marriage).

So the reason people think like this is simply concommittant personal intentions, especially of those involved.

However the morality of an institution is not to be judged by misuse but by its intrinsic meaning.

Therefore if a chaste couple contract a Union there is no real reason, apart from unjustified scandal due to ignorance or prejudice by others, why they cannot do so.
If one can bless a mother and child who have just entered into a familial adoptive relationship why should it be denied of a chaste SS Union?
Of course it may need to be private if excessive scandal is likely.

Over time as such becomes normative nobody will care public or not.


Would that be “excessive unjustified scandal”? Or would 2 homosexual persons entering a civil union - to be blessed by the Church (publicly) - be no proper cause for scandal?


Look guys, it’s so easy to go hard on the Cardinal. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t in any way believe that this is right. However, we have to remember that it is wrong to speak in certain ways about a person who is ordained to the priesthood. Our lady even once asked that instead of judging a priest, we should say a Hail Mary for them every time we hear someone speaking I’ll of them ( even if they have a good reason to) or if we see them doing something bad. Let’s not forget how St. Padre Pío felt with this kind of thing. Whenever he heard anyone insulting a priest, Bishop, or the Hoy Father ( even out of a good intention) he would become very upset and even ask them who they thought they were to speak that way about a priest of God. Does that mean we shouldn’t speak up when something like this happens? No, of course not, we have to speak up when necessary, but sometimes we can get Carrie away and start being disrespectful. Remember that the respect we owe them does not come because of any merit of theirs, but because of the Holy orders they received and because of who they represent. Let’s all say a Hail Mary for him! Imagine how many we can send together if we all do it right now!


Any “disrespect” has hopefully been directed at the words that a media outlet claims he said, not at the man himself. A later media article in this thread suggests he in fact said something quite different!


Well that’s great news!!


Isn’t that playing games with terms?

  1. couple
  2. contract a union that is chaste

Why is something like this necessary for “gays”?

As far as I know, science hasn’t found a “gay” gene causing someone to be gay.

This language and effort, is trying to support the notions surrounding gay relationships as a legal arrangement and in some way avoid the obvious appearance of “scandal”. Especially when in extension, adoption of children also happens as an extension or possible extension of this arrangement.

Over time, we’ve seen in history, people get numb to all kinds of abnormalities, immorality and situations.


“nobody will care” Yes, that’s the goal.


Why is something like adoption necessary for children…and their previously alone adoptive parents?

Indeed why should Unions be limited to gays?


I am not sure.
I find it hard enough choosing my own words in this new area let alone choose between two expressions that are not mine.


Do you care that the Church now condones charging interest on a loan or that there actually is salvation for the non baptised or Communion in the hand or eating fish on Fridays. Such would have been beyond the pale not so long ago. We all take time to get our heads around new insights.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit