Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give LegalRecognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons
INTRODUCTION
I. THE NATUREOF MARRIAGE AND ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTERISTICS
II. POSITIONSON THE PROBLEM OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINSTLEGAL RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
From the orderof right reason
From thebiological and anthropological order
From thesocial order
From the legalorder
IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLICPOLITICIANS WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
1. In recentyears, various questions relating to homosexuality have been addressed withsome frequency by Pope John Paul II and by the relevant Dicasteries of the HolySee.(1) Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in thosecountries where it does not present significant legal issues. It gives rise togreater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant --legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility ofadopting children. The present Considerations do not contain new doctrinalelements; they seek rather to reiterate the essential points on this questionand provide arguments drawn from reason which could be used by Bishops inpreparing more specific interventions, appropriate to the different situationsthroughout the world, aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity ofmarriage, the foundation of the family, and the stability of society, of whichthis institution is a constitutive element. The present Considerations are alsointended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approachesto proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christianconscience.(2) Since this question relates to the natural moral law, thearguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ,but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good ofsociety.
I. THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE AND ITS INALIENABLECHARACTERISTICS
2. TheChurch's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexesreiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such byall the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationshipbetween human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature,essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the humanspirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, whoby mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward thecommunion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, inorder to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new humanlives.
3. The naturaltruth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblicalaccounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in whichthe voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements ofthe Creator's plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.
In the firstplace, man, the image of God, was created "male and female" (Gen1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female.Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and hasalso been raised to a new level -- the personal level -- where nature andspirit are united.
Marriage isinstituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons isrealized involving the use of the sexual faculty. "That is why a manleaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become oneflesh" (Gen 2:24).
Third, God haswilled to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his workof creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words "Befruitful 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 dignityof a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacioussign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). ThisChristian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human valueof the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).
4. There areabsolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any waysimilar 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 notproceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under nocircumstances can they be approved".(4)
SacredScripture condemns homosexual acts "as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of coursepermit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly arepersonally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexualacts are intrinsically disordered".(5) This same moral judgment is foundin many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously acceptedby Catholic Tradition.
Nonetheless,according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexualtendencies "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) Thehomosexual inclination is however "objectively disordered"(9) andhomosexual practices are "sins gravely contrary to chastity".(10)
II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
5. Faced withthe fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. Attimes they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legalrecognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard tocertain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of thesame sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legalequivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility ofadopting children.
Where thegovernment's policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legalrecognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully thevarious aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in everyoccasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which iscontradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discriminationagainst homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can beeffective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance mightbe exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoralnature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain thephenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, aboveall, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality andmarriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute tothe spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to thelegitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to bereminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far differentfrom the toleration of evil.
In thosesituations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have beengiven the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphaticopposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation inthe enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far aspossible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In thisarea, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUALUNIONS
6. Tounderstand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexualunions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken intoconsideration.
From the orderof right reason
The scope ofthe civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) butcivil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force onconscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it isconsistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofaras it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour ofhomosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legalguarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between personsof the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State couldnot grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promoteand defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.
It might beasked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose anyparticular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de factoreality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, oneneeds first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as aprivate phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society,foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of theinstitutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only moreserious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, andwould result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to thecommon good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society,for good or for ill. They "play a very important and sometimes decisiverole in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour".(14) Lifestyles andthe underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the lifeof society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluationof forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscurecertain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution ofmarriage.
From thebiological and anthropological order
7. Homosexualunions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements ofmarriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, forgranting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in aproper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibilityof using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv-ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter thisinadequacy.
Homosexualunions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents thehuman and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when andinsofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes inmarriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
As experiencehas shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions createsobstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the careof such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhoodor motherhood. Allowing childrento be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doingviolence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependencywould be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to theirfull human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction tothe principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rightsof the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and morevulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
From thesocial order
8. Societyowes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitableconsequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinitionof marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essentialreference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation andraising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and awoman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept ofmarriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to thecommon good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that ofmarriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction withits duties.
The principlesof respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legalrecognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusingsocial recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary tojustice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms ofcohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; onthe contrary, justice requires it.
Nor can theprinciple of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It isone thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in thoseactivities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil rightto freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which donot represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of thehuman person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognitionby the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfilthe purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categoricalrecognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that suchunions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially iftheir impact on society were to increase.
From the legalorder
9. Becausemarried couples ensure the succession of generations and are thereforeeminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutionalrecognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specificattention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this functionfor the common good.
Nor is theargument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions isnecessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simplybecause they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of theirrights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of theprovisions of law -- like all citizens from the standpoint of their privateautonomy -- to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would begravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family inorder to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that donot harm the body of society.(17)
IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS WITH REGARD TOLEGISLATION IN FAVOUR OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
10. If it istrue that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition ofhomosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particularway, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislativeproposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to takeaccount of the following ethical indications.
Whenlegislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed forthe first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moralduty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. Tovote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
Whenlegislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already inforce, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible forhim and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. Ifit 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 alaw and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinionand public morality", on condition that his "absolute personalopposition" to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger ofscandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in thisarea could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question ofthe legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of anunjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.
CONCLUSION
11. The Churchteaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approvalof homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. Thecommon good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basisof the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexualunions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only theapproval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model inpresent-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to thecommon 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 SovereignPontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the presentConsiderations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, andordered their publication.
Rome, from theOffices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003,Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Secretary
NOTES
(1) Cf. JohnPaul II, Angelus Messages of February 20, 1994, and of June 19, 1994; Addressto the Plenary Meeting of the Pontifical Council for the Family (March 24,1999); Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2357-2359, 2396;
Congregationfor the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana (December 29, 1975),8; Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986); Someconsiderations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the
non-discrimination of homosexual persons (July 24, 1992); PontificalCouncil for the Family, Letter to the Presidents of the Bishops' Conferences ofEurope on the resolution of the European Parliament regarding homosexual couples(March 25,
1994); Family,marriage and "de facto" unions (July 26, 2000), 23.
(2) Cf.Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on some questionsregarding the participation of Catholics in political life (November 24, 2002),4.
(3) Cf. SecondVatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 48.
(4) Catechismof the Catholic Church, No. 2357.
(5)Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana(December 29, 1975), 8.
(6) Cf., forexample, St. Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, V, 3; St. Justin Martyr,First Apology, 27, 1-4; Athenagoras, Supplication for the Christians, 34.
(7) Catechismof the Catholic Church, No. 2358; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of theFaith, Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986), 10.
(8) Cf.Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2359; cf. Congregation for the Doctrineof the Faith, Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1,1986), 12.
(9) Catechismof the Catholic Church, No. 2358.
(10) Ibid.,No. 2396.
(11) Cf. JohnPaul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 71.
(12) Cf.ibid., 72.
(13) Cf. St.Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 95, a. 2.
(14) John PaulII, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 90.
(15) Cf.Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum vitae (February22, 1987), II. A. 1-3.
(16) Cf. St.Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 63, a.1, c.
(17) It shouldnot be forgotten that there is always "a danger that legislation whichwould make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage aperson with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even toseek a
partner in orderto exploit the provisions of the law" (Congregation for the Doctrine ofthe Faith, Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposalson the non-discrimination of homosexual persons [July 24, 1992], 14).
(18) John PaulII, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 73.