Homosexuality and the Clergy
Card. McCarrick’s Acceptance
of Homosexual Civil Unions
Kathleen Willett Redle
Vatican II | Hot Topics | Home | Books | CDs | Search | Contact Us | Donate
Cardinal McCarrick gave a clear demonstration of the progressivist agenda when he supported the slippery slope or maybe I should call it the “slop” of “homosexual civil unions” in his June 7, 2006 interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN.
The ultra-liberal Blitzger questioned McCarrick about the same sex marriage amendment and homosexual civil unions. Blitzer mentioned how Ted Kennedy said that a vote for this amendment for the ban on same sex marriage is “bigotry, pure and simple.” This is from the “pro-choice” supposedly Catholic Senator who earns applause from such groups as Catholics for a Free Choice” So we’re supposed to believe that Catholic Church teaching for 2,000 years against homosexual relationships of any kind is “bigotry”? Ted Kennedy thinks he knows more than the Bible and Church Tradition put together. What’s worse, though, is that Card. McCarrick should know better, but he doesn’t.
Here are the central questions and answers of the Blitzer-McCarrick interview:
Cardinal McCarrick supports homosexual civil unions in a CNN interview Internet photo
Blitzer: You think that you could live with – you could support civil unions between gays and lesbians, but you wouldn't like them to get formally married, is that right?
McCarrick: Yes. I think – I think basically the ideal would be that everybody was able to enter a union with a man and a woman and bring children into the world and have the wonderful relationship of man and wife that is so mutually supportive and is really so much part of our society and what keeps our society together. That's the ideal.
If you can't meet that ideal, if there are people who for one reason or another just cannot do that or feel they cannot do that, then in order to protect their right to take care of each other, in order to take care of their right to have visitation in a hospital or something like that, I think that you could allow, [it is] not the ideal, but you could allow for that for a civil union.
But if you begin to fool around with the whole – the whole nature of marriage, then you’re doing something which affects the whole culture and denigrated what is so important for us. Marriage is the basic foundation of our family structure. And if we lose that, then I think we become a society that’s in real trouble.” (Catholic Online edition, June 8, 2007)
Yet with his statement, Card. McCarrick is doing exactly that – “fooling around with the whole nature of marriage,” as well as the United States Constitution, not to mention the Catholic Church’s sacred laws. He gives us a false excuse that homosexuals need to have their “right protected to visit someone in a hospital.” But I hardly think this is the case. People visit friends and relatives everyday in hospitals, and they don’t need some homosexual civil union license from the state to do so.
Can you imagine the early Church Fathers legitimating sodomy so that sick persons would have visitors? Can you imagine St. Paul protecting the rights of homosexuals? It is simply not viable. What Card. McCarrick offers is a progressivist sentimental ruse to shelter homosexuals and evade applying Catholic Morals to them.
McCarrick, seated at left, welcomed Abdullah and asked the blessing of Allah - Columbia School of Law internet photo
This is the same Cardinal who asked “Allah” to pray for and guide the steps of Prince Abdullah II of Jordan at The Catholic University of America on September 13, 2005. [click here ]
Progressivist religious authorities like Card. McCarrick are the ones who all along have been shuffling homosexual and pedophile priests from one Catholic parish to another to continue their nefarious practice of molesting children and teen age boys. They do not support the only two reasonable things that occur to anyone with common sense: report these pedophile priests to the civil authorities, or send them to a monastery permanently for prayer and penance.
McCarrick's "denial" confirms his previous statement
Then with a typical progressivist twist, Card. McCarrick denied what he stated without really denying anything. He looks much like a boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar who protests that he really isn’t trying to get any cookies out – it just looks that way.
Here is a part of McCarrick’s June 12 “clarification” posted on the Archdiocese of Washington website:
After that, I spoke of the legislation as it had been proposed and that it would not eliminate the possibility of civil unions. I said, ‘If this is what the legislation would provide for, I think we can live with that.’
Why does the Cardinal of Washington find the ideal of not having homosexual relations too difficult to follow when it has always been followed since the beginning of recorded history? Instead, McCarrick thinks it better for us to coexist with homosexuals living with their “partners” in civil unions. Is this so much different from institutionalizing Sodom and Gomorrah in our legislation? It doesn’t seem so.
My point was that the wording of the proposed legislation to protect marriage, which did not eliminate civil unions, might be necessary in order to have the votes needed to pass it …. In trying to reply to a question, I mentioned people who may need the right to take care of each other when they are grievously ill and hospitalized, but it was always in the context of the proposed legislation, and in no way in favor of a lifestyle that is contrary to the teaching of the Church and Scripture.
I realized that my words could have given the wrong impression to someone who did not take my remarks in context. I regret any confusion my words may have caused because I did not make myself sufficiently clear ("Cardinal McCarrick issues clarification on same sex marriage comments", Catholic News Agency online, June 23, 2006).
This complacence of Card. McCarrick with this openly sinful behavior certainly does not correspond to the clear statements made by Our Lord or St. Paul when they warned us that fornicators and homosexuals would not enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Mat 5:28,1; Cor 6:9-10). Christ never gave homosexual civil unions approval so that sick persons could receive visits. What a bizarre work of mercy McCarrick reserves to homosexuals!
The decadent Roman Emperors, even when they were homosexuals themselves, didn’t recommend “civil unions” so that an ailing homosexual partner could receive assistance. I think that we are not just slouching towards Sodom with Catholic Prelates like Card. McCarrick, but being hit by a gigantic mudslide that will send society into the worst possible decadence!
Everyone knows that when a law is passed legalizing something, then people accept it as moral and legitimate. If homosexual civil unions or partnerships are condoned and allowed, then this will legitimate homosexual relationships before society at large. Then what you have is the eventual acceptance - within years or decades - of homosexual marriage.
We see Europe losing its Christian morals and identity because of the acceptance of homosexual civil unions and marriages. If we allow homosexual civil unions today in the United States, what will we permit tomorrow? I present this to arouse the vigilance of my reader.
I do not think we should bequeath to our children the kind of perverse world acceptable to Card. McCarrick. Before we decide to line up on his side, we should recall what Christ said regarding those who scandalize children. He said that it would be better for him that a millstone be hanged around his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones." (Lk 17:2).
Posted June 26, 2006
Related Topics of Interest
Why the Priesthood Will Continue To Become a "Gay" Profession
Homosexuality and the Clergy
Paul VI's Homosexuality: Rumor or Reality?
Should Chaste Homosexual Seminarians Become Priests?
The Statistics on Homosexuality and its Effects
Married Priests and Homosexual Seminarians
What about "Chaste" Homosexual Priests?
The True Colors of Benedict XVI
© 2002- Tradition in Action, Inc. All Rights Reserved