LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

資料來源

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

1. The issue of homosexuality and the moral evaluation of homosexual acts have increasingly become a matter of public debate, even in Catholic circles. Since this debate often advances arguments and makes assertions inconsistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church, it is quite rightly a cause for concern to all engaged in the pastoral ministry, and this Congregation has judged it to be of sufficiently grave and widespread importance to address to the Bishops of the Catholic Church this Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.

2. Naturally, an exhaustive treatment of this complex issue cannot be attempted here, but we will focus our reflection within the distinctive context of the Catholic moral perspective. It is a perspective which finds support in the more secure findings of the natural sciences, which have their own legitimate and proper methodology and field of inquiry.

However, the Catholic moral viewpoint is founded on human reason illumined by faith and is consciously motivated by the desire to do the will of God our Father. The Church is thus in a position to learn from scientific discovery but also to transcend the horizons of science and to be confident that her more global vision does greater justice to the rich reality of the human person in his spiritual and physical dimensions, created by God and heir, by grace, to eternal life.

It is within this context, then, that it can be clearly seen that the phenomenon of homosexuality, complex as it is, and with its many consequences for society and ecclesial life, is a proper focus for the Church's pastoral care. It thus requires of her ministers attentive study, active concern and honest, theologically well-balanced counsel.

3. Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation's "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being "intrinsically disordered", and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4).

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.

4. An essential dimension of authentic pastoral care is the identification of causes of confusion regarding the Church's teaching. One is a new exegesis of Sacred Scripture which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all of its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life. These views are gravely erroneous and call for particular attention here.

5. It is quite true that the Biblical literature owes to the different epochs in which it was written a good deal of its varied patterns of thought and expression (Dei Verbum 12). The Church today addresses the Gospel to a world which differs in many ways from ancient days. But the world in which the New Testament was written was already quite diverse from the situation in which the Sacred Scriptures of the Hebrew People had been written or compiled, for example.

What should be noticed is that, in the presence of such remarkable diversity, there is nevertheless a clear consistency within the Scriptures themselves on the moral issue of homosexual behaviour. The Church's doctrine regarding this issue is thus based, not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony. The community of faith today, in unbroken continuity with the Jewish and Christian communities within which the ancient Scriptures were written, continues to be nourished by those same Scriptures and by the Spirit of Truth whose Word they are. It is likewise essential to recognize that the Scriptures are not properly understood when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church's living Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in substantial accord with that Tradition.

The Vatican Council II in Dei Verbum 10, put it this way: "It is clear, therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls". In that spirit we wish to outline briefly the Biblical teaching here.

6. Providing a basic plan for understanding this entire discussion of homosexuality is the theology of creation we find in Genesis. God, in his infinite wisdom and love, brings into existence all of reality as a reflection of his goodness. He fashions mankind, male and female, in his own image and likeness. Human beings, therefore, are nothing less than the work of God himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in a striking way in their cooperation with him in the transmission of life by a mutual donation of the self to the other.

In Genesis 3, we find that this truth about persons being an image of God has been obscured by original sin. There inevitably follows a loss of awareness of the covenantal character of the union these persons had with God and with each other. The human body retains its "spousal significance" but this is now clouded by sin. Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.

Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in I Cor 6:9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.

7. The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.

To chose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

8. Thus, the Church's teaching today is in organic continuity with the Scriptural perspective and with her own constant Tradition. Though today's world is in many ways quite new, the Christian community senses the profound and lasting bonds which join us to those generations who have gone before us, "marked with the sign of faith".

Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

9. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.

There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.

The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.

10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace.

12. What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a Christian's suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life for all who follow Christ.

It is, in effect, none other than the teaching of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians when he says that the Spirit produces in the lives of the faithful "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control" (5:22) and further (v. 24), "You cannot belong to Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires."

It is easily misunderstood, however, if it is merely seen as a pointless effort at self-denial. The Cross is a denial of self, but in service to the will of God himself who makes life come from death and empowers those who trust in him to practise virtue in place of vice.

To celebrate the Paschal Mystery, it is necessary to let that Mystery become imprinted in the fabric of daily life. To refuse to sacrifice one's own will in obedience to the will of the Lord is effectively to prevent salvation. Just as the Cross was central to the expression of God's redemptive love for us in Jesus, so the conformity of the self-denial of homosexual men and women with the sacrifice of the Lord will constitute for them a source of self-giving which will save them from a way of life which constantly threatens to destroy them.

Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life. As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God's personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord's grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way.

13. We recognize, of course, that in great measure the clear and successful communication of the Church's teaching to all the faithful, and to society at large, depends on the correct instruction and fidelity of her pastoral ministers. The Bishops have the particularly grave responsibility to see to it that their assistants in the ministry, above all the priests, are rightly informed and personally disposed to bring the teaching of the Church in its integrity to everyone.

The characteristic concern and good will exhibited by many clergy and religious in their pastoral care for homosexual persons is admirable, and, we hope, will not diminish. Such devoted ministers should have the confidence that they are faithfully following the will of the Lord by encouraging the homosexual person to lead a chaste life and by affirming that person's God-given dignity and worth.

14. With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one's conscience. Its specific authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word "Catholic" to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the Bishops in any way.

15. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.

We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church's position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.

An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.

16. From this multi-faceted approach there are numerous advantages to be gained, not the least of which is the realization that a homosexual person, as every human being, deeply needs to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously.

The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

17. In bringing this entire matter to the Bishops' attention, this Congregation wishes to support their efforts to assure that the teaching of the Lord and his Church on this important question be communicated fully to all the faithful.

In light of the points made above, they should decide for their own dioceses the extent to which an intervention on their part is indicated. In addition, should they consider it helpful, further coordinated action at the level of their National Bishops' Conference may be envisioned.

In a particular way, we would ask the Bishops to support, with the means at their disposal, the development of appropriate forms of pastoral care for homosexual persons. These would include the assistance of the psychological, sociological and medical sciences, in full accord with the teaching of the Church.

They are encouraged to call on the assistance of all Catholic theologians who, by teaching what the Church teaches, and by deepening their reflections on the true meaning of human sexuality and Christian marriage with the virtues it engenders, will make an important contribution in this particular area of pastoral care.

The Bishops are asked to exercise special care in the selection of pastoral ministers so that by their own high degree of spiritual and personal maturity and by their fidelity to the Magisterium, they may be of real service to homosexual persons, promoting their health and well-being in the fullest sense. Such ministers will reject theological opinions which dissent from the teaching of the Church and which, therefore, cannot be used as guidelines for pastoral care.

We encourage the Bishops to promote appropriate catechetical programmes based on the truth about human sexuality in its relationship to the family as taught by the Church. Such programmes should provide a good context within which to deal with the question of homosexuality.

This catechesis would also assist those families of homosexual persons to deal with this problem which affects them so deeply.

All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous.

In assessing proposed legislation, the Bishops should keep as their uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and promote family life.

18. The Lord Jesus promised, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" (Jn. 8:32). Scripture bids us speak the truth in love (cf. Eph. 4:15). The God who is at once truth and love calls the Church to minister to every man, woman and child with the pastoral solicitude of our compassionate Lord. It is in this spirit that we have addressed this Letter to the Bishops of the Church, with the hope that it will be of some help as they care for those whose suffering can only be intensified by error and lightened by truth.

(During an audience granted to the undersigned Prefect, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, approved this Letter, adopted in an ordinary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ordered it to be published.)

Given at Rome, 1 October 1986.

JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER 

Prefect

ALBERTO BOVONE 

Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Numidia

Secretary

               

鮑維均：保羅所指摘的就是同志性行為

2006.12.18　時代快拍

原始網址：http://christiantimes.org.hk/Common/Reader/News/ShowNews.jsp?Nid=38504&Pid=5&Version=0&Cid=220&Charset=big5_hkscs

環聖同志釋經解讀講座
鮑維均：保羅所指摘的就是同志性行為

（12月18日消息）

 


梁嘉儀

【時代論壇訊】「聖經的句子不應被肢解，我們解經亦不應脫離處境及背景。」美國三一神學院新約副教授鮑維均博士在主講由環球聖經公會主辦的「同志釋經解讀」講座時指出，「今天我以處境方法挑戰這個課題，我們並要學懂如何查經和研讀聖經，以幫助我們從聖經中了解同志行為這課題。」講座於12月15至16日（週五及六）一連兩晚假播道會尖福堂舉行，首晚約有三百人參加。

鮑維均以羅馬書第一章、哥林多前書六章及提摩太前書一章的經文闡釋有關有學者之前指出這些經文是保羅指向孌童論、性虐待、主動與被動及外邦的宗教禮節而論及的，鮑維均認為並不如此，他說：「主前第五世紀即柏拉圖時期，孌童很盛行，但主前四百年後已逐漸減少，及至主前二百年已成為罪行，保羅時期羅馬帝國孌童論已不再是重要的課題，故此保羅在經文裡並不是回應孌童論。而當時有成年人同志，甘願彼此有性行為，特別在浴室尤為嚴重，這可以從一九九六年發現的壁畫上可以見到的現象。至於有關外邦宗教禮節之說更不成立，因為保羅書信的對象很明顯不是那些外邦宗教的人。所以『處境』是支持了傳統釋經看法。」

「羅馬書一章27節所說的『同樣地』是保羅將男女同志性行為連在一起，這是一個具震撼性的指摘，因為當時有人會罵男同志，但沒有人罵女同志，然而保羅罵男亦罵女同志，並認為他們在自己身上受到應受的報應，也正好證明不是指向主動與被動。保羅將男、女相提並論便是超越了當時的『處境』。」鮑維均續分析道：「27節『彼此』是很重要的字眼，指出兩個成年人甘心樂意活出性慾望，彼此羞辱身體，無分主動與被動，而兩者均應受最大的懲罰，一章32節『他們是該死的』，這亦可以明白到猶太傳統是反同志的。」

鮑維均指出：「同志論的人會提出自然與反自然，認為自然是人內心的慾望，反自然便是違反了人自然的慾望。然而保羅所指的自然是指向神的創造和計劃是客觀的，不是自我主觀意願，自然不是應心中慾望去斷定，人去挑戰就是反造物主，從創世記可以找到，男與女的角色在創世時已立定了，何況其他規律！」他續說：「神所命定的人不去做就是以自然去交換不自然，即是有異性性傾向的人行出同志行為便是如此了。」關於利未記「親男人」的闡釋，鮑博士有的看法是：「保羅在林前及提前所提到的『親男色』正是回應利未記所寫的，並不是保羅所作的，原文arsenokoitai在這幾處經文都是呼應的，很明顯地，利未記的背景是影響著保羅的，所以保羅所指摘的就是同志性行為，並非如其他學說所指的論據。」

講座於週六晚繼續，鮑維均繼續以六章體栽與結構去解讀羅馬書的修辭處境，對猶太揀選神學的挑戰，「解放」與」「聖潔的活祭」，並從救贖歷史去探討性取向是否天生的問題，可否改變，及當今教會應如何去面對社會及教會及身邊的親友在同志課題上的困惑。

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

資料來源

PERSONA HUMANA

DECLARATION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS
CONCERNING SEXUAL ETHICS

I

According to contemporary scientific research, the human person is so profoundly affected by sexuality that it must be considered as one of the factors which give to each individual's life the principal traits that distinguish it. In fact it is from sex that the human person receives the characteristics which, on the biological, psychological and spiritual levels, make that person a man or a woman, and thereby largely condition his or her progress towards maturity and insertion into society. Hence sexual matters, as is obvious to everyone, today constitute a theme frequently and openly dealt with in books, reviews, magazines and other means of social communication.

In the present period, the corruption of morals has increased, and one of the most serious indications of this corruption is the unbridled exaltation of sex. Moreover, through the means of social communication and through public entertainment this corruption has reached the point of invading the field of education and of infecting the general mentality.

In this context certain educators, teachers and moralists have been able to contribute to a better understanding and integration into life of the values proper to each of the sexes; on the other hand there are those who have put forward concepts and modes of behavior which are contrary to the true moral exigencies of the human person. Some members of the latter group have even gone so far as to favor a licentious hedonism.

As a result, in the course of a few years, teachings, moral criteria and modes of living hitherto faithfully preserved have been very much unsettled, even among Christians. There are many people today who, being confronted with widespread opinions opposed to the teaching which they received from the Church, have come to wonder what must still hold as true.

II

The Church cannot remain indifferent to this confusion of minds and relaxation of morals. It is a question, in fact, of a matter which is of the utmost importance both for the personal lives of Christians and for the social life of our time.[1]

The Bishops are daily led to note the growing difficulties experienced by the faithful in obtaining knowledge of wholesome moral teaching, especially in sexual matters, and of the growing difficulties experienced by pastors in expounding this teaching effectively. The Bishops know that by their pastoral charge they are called upon to meet the needs of their faithful in this very serious matter, and important documents dealing with it have already been published by some of them or by episcopal conferences. Nevertheless, since the erroneous opinions and resulting deviations are continuing to spread everywhere, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by virtue of its function in the universal Church[2] and by a mandate of the Supreme Pontiff, has judged it necessary to publish the present Declaration.

III

The people of our time are more and more convinced that the human person's dignity and vocation demand that they should discover, by the light of their own intelligence, the values innate in their nature, that they should ceaselessly develop these values and realize them in their lives, in order to achieve an ever greater development.

In moral matters man cannot make value judgments according to his personal whim: "In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose on himself, but which holds him to obedience. . . . For man has in his heart a law written by God. To obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged."[3]

Moreover, through His revelation God has made known to us Christians His plan of salvation, and He has held up to us Christ, the Savior and Sanctifier, in His teaching and example, as the supreme and immutable Law of life: "I am the light of the world; anyone who follows Me will not be walking in the dark, he will have the light of life."[4]

Therefore there can be no true promotion of man's dignity unless the essential order of his nature is respected. Of course, in the history of civilization many of the concrete conditions and needs of human life have changed and will continue to change. But all evolution of morals and every type of life must be kept within the limits imposed by the immutable principles based upon every human person's constitutive elements and essential relations - elements and relations which transcend historical contingency.

These fundamental principles, which can be grasped by reason, are contained in "the Divine Law - eternal, objective and universal - whereby God orders, directs and governs the entire universe and all the ways of the human community, by a plan conceived in wisdom and love. Man has been made by God to participate in this law, with the result that, under the gentle disposition of Divine Providence, he can come to perceive ever increasingly the unchanging truth."[5] This Divine Law is accessible to our minds.

IV

Hence, those many people are in error who today assert that one can find neither in human nature nor in the revealed law any absolute and immutable norm to serve for particular actions other than the one which expresses itself in the general law of charity and respect for human dignity. As a proof of their assertion they put forward the view that so-called norms of the natural law or precepts of Sacred Scripture are to be regarded only as given expressions of a form of particular culture at a certain moment of history.

But in fact, Divine Revelation and, in its own proper order, philosophical wisdom, emphasize the authentic exigencies of human nature. They thereby necessarily manifest the existence of immutable laws inscribed in the constitutive elements of human nature and which are revealed to be identical in all beings endowed with reason.

Furthermore, Christ instituted His Church as "the pillar and bulwark of truth."[6] With the Holy Spirit's assistance, she ceaselessly preserves and transmits without error the truths of the moral order, and she authentically interprets not only the revealed positive law but "also . . . those principles of the moral order which have their origin in human nature itself"[7] and which concern man's full development and sanctification. Now in fact the Church throughout her history has always considered a certain number of precepts of the natural law as having an absolute and immutable value, and in their transgression she has seen a contradiction of the teaching and spirit of the Gospel.

V

Since sexual ethics concern fundamental values of human and Christian life, this general teaching equally applies to sexual ethics. In this domain there exist principles and norms which the Church has always unhesitatingly transmitted as part of her teaching, however much the opinions and morals of the world may have been opposed to them. These principles and norms in no way owe their origin to a certain type of culture, but rather to knowledge of the Divine Law and of human nature. They therefore cannot be considered as having become out of date or doubtful under the pretext that a new cultural situation has arisen.

It is these principles which inspired the exhortations and directives given by the Second Vatican Council for an education and an organization of social life taking account of the equal dignity of man and woman while respecting their difference.[8]

Speaking of "the sexual nature of man and the human faculty of procreation," the Council noted that they "wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life."[9] It then took particular care to expound the principles and criteria which concern human sexuality in marriage, and which are based upon the finality of the specific function of sexuality.

In this regard the Council declares that the moral goodness of the acts proper to conjugal life, acts which are ordered according to true human dignity, "does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love."[10]

These final words briefly sum up the Council's teaching - more fully expounded in an earlier part of the same Constitution[11] - on the finality of the sexual act and on the principal criterion of its morality: it is respect for its finality that ensures the moral goodness of this act.

This same principle, which the Church holds from Divine Revelation and from her authentic interpretation of the natural law, is also the basis of her traditional doctrine, which states that the use of the sexual function has its true meaning and moral rectitude only in true marriage.[12]

VI

It is not the purpose of the present Declaration to deal with all the abuses of the sexual faculty, nor with all the elements involved in the practice of chastity. Its object is rather to repeat the Church's doctrine on certain particular points, in view of the urgent need to oppose serious errors and widespread aberrant modes of behavior.

VII

Today there are many who vindicate the right to sexual union before marriage, at least in those cases where a firm intention to marry and an affection which is already in some way conjugal in the psychology of the subjects require this completion, which they judge to be connatural. This is especially the case when the celebration of the marriage is impeded by circumstances or when this intimate relationship seems necessary in order for love to be preserved.

This opinion is contrary to Christian doctrine, which states that every genital act must be within the framework of marriage. However firm the intention of those who practice such premature sexual relations may be, the fact remains that these relations cannot ensure, in sincerity and fidelity, the interpersonal relationship between a man and a woman, nor especially can they protect this relationship from whims and caprices. Now it is a stable union that Jesus willed, and He restored its original requirement, beginning with the sexual difference. "Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female and that He said: This is why a man must leave father and mother, and cling to his wife, and the two become one body? They are no longer two, therefore, but one body. So then, what God has united, man must not divide."[13] St. Paul will be even more explicit when he shows that if unmarried people or widows cannot live chastely they have no other alternative than the stable union of marriage: ". . .it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion."[14] Through marriage, in fact, the love of married people is taken up into that love which Christ irrevocably has for the Church,[15] while dissolute sexual union[16] defiles the temple of the Holy Spirit which the Christian has become. Sexual union therefore is only legitimate if a definitive community of life has been established between the man and the woman.

This is what the Church has always understood and taught,[17] and she finds a profound agreement with her doctrine in men's reflection and in the lessons of history.

Experience teaches us that love must find its safeguard in the stability of marriage, if sexual intercourse is truly to respond to the requirements of its own finality and to those of human dignity. These requirements call for a conjugal contract sanctioned and guaranteed by society - a contract which establishes a state of life of capital importance both for the exclusive union of the man and the woman and for the good of their family and of the human community. Most often, in fact, premarital relations exclude the possibility of children. What is represented to be conjugal love is not able, as it absolutely should be, to develop into paternal and maternal love. Or, if it does happen to do so, this will be to the detriment of the children, who will be deprived of the stable environment in which they ought to develop in order to find in it the way and the means of their insertion into society as a whole.

The consent given by people who wish to be united in marriage must therefore be manifested externally and in a manner which makes it valid in the eyes of society. As far as the faithful are concerned, their consent to the setting up of a community of conjugal life must be expressed according to the laws of the Church. It is a consent which makes their marriage a Sacrament of Christ.

VIII

At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.

A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] 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 and can in no case be approved of.

IX

The traditional Catholic doctrine that masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder is often called into doubt or expressly denied today. It is said that psychology and sociology show that it is a normal phenomenon of sexual development, especially among the young. It is stated that there is real and serious fault only in the measure that the subject deliberately indulges in solitary pleasure closed in on self ("ipsation"), because in this case the act would indeed be radically opposed to the loving communion between persons of different sex which some hold is what is principally sought in the use of the sexual faculty.

This opinion is contradictory to the teaching and pastoral practice of the Catholic Church. Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact both the Magisterium of the Church - in the course of a constant tradition - and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act.[19] The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes "the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love."[20] All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship. Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of "impurity," "unchasteness" and other vices contrary to chastity and continence.

Sociological surveys are able to show the frequency of this disorder according to the places, populations or circumstances studied. In this way facts are discovered, but facts do not constitute a criterion for judging the moral value of human acts.[21] The frequency of the phenomenon in question is certainly to be linked with man's innate weakness following original sin; but it is also to be linked with the loss of a sense of God, with the corruption of morals engendered by the commercialization of vice, with the unrestrained licentiousness of so many public entertainments and publications, as well as with the neglect of modesty, which is the guardian of chastity.

On the subject of masturbation modern psychology provides much valid and useful information for formulating a more equitable judgment on moral responsibility and for orienting pastoral action. Psychology helps one to see how the immaturity of adolescence (which can sometimes persist after that age), psychological imbalance or habit can influence behavior, diminishing the deliberate character of the act and bringing about a situation whereby subjectively there may not always be serious fault. But in general, the absence of serious responsibility must not be presumed; this would be to misunderstand people's moral capacity.

In the pastoral ministry, in order to form an adequate judgment in concrete cases, the habitual behavior of people will be considered in its totality, not only with regard to the individual's practice of charity and of justice but also with regard to the individual's care in observing the particular precepts of chastity. In particular, one will have to examine whether the individual is using the necessary means, both natural and supernatural, which Christian asceticism from its long experience recommends for overcoming the passions and progressing in virtue.

X

The observance of the moral law in the field of sexuality and the practice of chastity have been considerably endangered, especially among less fervent Christians, by the current tendency to minimize as far as possible, when not denying outright, the reality of grave sin, at least in people's actual lives.

There are those who go as far as to affirm that mortal sin, which causes separation from God, only exists in the formal refusal directly opposed to God's call, or in that selfishness which completely and deliberately closes itself to the love of neighbor. They say that it is only then that there comes into play the fundamental option, that is to say the decision which totally commits the person and which is necessary if mortal sin is to exist; by this option the person, from the depths of the personality, takes up or ratifies a fundamental attitude towards God or people. On the contrary, so-called "peripheral" actions (which, it is said, usually do not involve decisive choice), do not go so far as to change the fundamental option, the less so since they often come, as is observed, from habit. Thus such actions can weaken the fundamental option, but not to such a degree as to change it completely. Now according to these authors, a change of the fundamental option towards God less easily comes about in the field of sexual activity, where a person generally does not transgress the moral order in a fully deliberate and responsible manner but rather under the influence of passion, weakness, immaturity, sometimes even through the illusion of thus showing love for someone else. To these causes there is often added the pressure of the social environment.

In reality, it is precisely the fundamental option which in the last resort defines a person's moral disposition. But it can be completely changed by particular acts, especially when, as often happens, these have been prepared for by previous more superficial acts. Whatever the case, it is wrong to say that particular acts are not enough to constitute mortal sin.

According to the Church's teaching, mortal sin, which is opposed to God, does not consist only in formal and direct resistance to the commandment of charity. It is equally to be found in this opposition to authentic love which is included in every deliberate transgression, in serious matter, of each of the moral laws.

Christ Himself has indicated the double commandment of love as the basis of the moral life. But on this commandment depends "the whole Law, and the Prophets also."[22] It therefore includes the other particular precepts. In fact, to the young man who asked, ". . . what good deed must I do to possess eternal life?" Jesus replied: ". . . if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments . . . . You must not kill. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not bring false witness. Honor your father and mother, and: you must love your neighbor as yourself."[23]

A person therefore sins mortally not only when his action comes from direct contempt for love of God and neighbor, but also when he consciously and freely, for whatever reason, chooses something which is seriously disordered. For in this choice, as has been said above, there is already included contempt for the Divine commandment: the person turns himself away from God and loses charity. Now according to Christian tradition and the Church's teaching, and as right reason also recognizes, the moral order of sexuality involves such high values of human life that every direct violation of this order is objectively serious.[24]

It is true that in sins of the sexual order, in view of their kind and their causes, it more easily happens that free consent is not fully given; this is a fact which calls for caution in all judgment as to the subject's responsibility. In this matter it is particularly opportune to recall the following words of Scripture: "Man looks at appearances but God looks at the heart."[25] However, although prudence is recommended in judging the subjective seriousness of a particular sinful act, it in no way follows that one can hold the view that in the sexual field mortal sins are not committed.

Pastors of souls must therefore exercise patience and goodness; but they are not allowed to render God's commandments null, nor to reduce unreasonably people's responsibility. "To diminish in no way the saving teaching of Christ constitutes an eminent form of charity for souls. But this must ever be accompanied by patience and goodness, such as the Lord Himself gave example of in dealing with people. Having come not to condemn but to save, He was indeed intransigent with evil, but merciful towards individuals."[26]

XI

As has been said above, the purpose of this Declaration is to draw the attention of the faithful in present-day circumstances to certain errors and modes of behavior which they must guard against. The virtue of chastity, however, is in no way confined solely to avoiding the faults already listed. It is aimed at attaining higher and more positive goals. It is a virtue which concerns the whole personality, as regards both interior and outward behavior.

Individuals should be endowed with this virtue according to their state in life: for some it will mean virginity or celibacy consecrated to God, which is an eminent way of giving oneself more easily to God alone with an undivided heart.[27] For others it will take the form determined by the moral law, according to whether they are married or single. But whatever the state of life, chastity is not simply an external state; it must make a person's heart pure in accordance with Christ's words: "You have learned how it was said: You must not commit adultery. But I say this to you: if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart."[28]

Chastity is included in that continence which St. Paul numbers among the gifts of the Holy Spirit, while he condemns sensuality as a vice particularly unworthy of the Christian and one which precludes entry into the Kingdom of Heaven.[29] "What God wants is for all to be holy. He wants you to keep away from fornication, and each one of you know how to use the body that belongs to him in a way that is holy and honorable, not giving way to selfish lust like the pagans who do not know God. He wants nobody at all ever to sin by taking advantage of a brother in these matters. . . . We have been called by God to be holy, not to be immoral. In other words, anyone who objects is not objecting to a human authority, but to God, Who gives you His Holy Spirit."[30] "Among you there must not be even a mention of fornication or impurity in any of its forms, or promiscuity: this would hardly become the saints! For you can be quite certain that nobody who actually indulges in fornication or impurity or promiscuity - which is worshipping a false god - can inherit anything of the Kingdom of God. Do not let anyone deceive you with empty arguments: it is for this loose living that God's anger comes down on those who rebel against Him. Make sure that you are not included with them. You were darkness once, but now you are light in the Lord; be like children of light, for the effects of the light are seen in complete goodness and right living and truth."[31]

In addition, the Apostle points out the specifically Christian motive for practising chastity when he condemns the sin of fornication not only in the measure that this action is injurious to one's neighbor or to the social order but because the fornicator offends against Christ Who has redeemed him with His blood and of Whom he is a member, and against the Holy Spirit of Whom he is the temple. "You know, surely, that your bodies are members making up the body of Christ. . . . All the other sins are committed outside the body; but to fornicate is to sin against your own body. Your body, you know, is the temple of the Holy Spirit, Who is in you since you received Him from God. You are not your own property; you have been bought and paid for. That is why you should use your body for the glory of God."[32]

The more the faithful appreciate the value of chastity and its necessary role in their lives as men and women, the better they will understand, by a kind of spiritual instinct, its moral requirements and counsels. In the same way they will know better how to accept and carry out, in a spirit of docility to the Church's teaching, what an upright conscience dictates in concrete cases.

XII

The Apostle St. Paul describes in vivid terms the painful interior conflict of the person enslaved to sin: the conflict between "the law of his mind" and the "law of sin which dwells in his members" and which holds him captive.[33] But man can achieve liberation from his "body doomed to death" through the grace of Jesus Christ.[34] This grace is enjoyed by those who have been justified by it and whom "the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set free from the law of sin and death."[35] It is for this reason that the Apostle adjures them: "That is why you must not let sin reign in your mortal bodies or command your obedience to bodily passions."[36]

This liberation, which fits one to serve God in newness of life, does not however suppress the concupiscence deriving from original sin, nor the promptings to evil in this world, which is "in the power of the evil one."[37] This is why the Apostle exhorts the faithful to overcome temptations by the power of God[38] and to "stand against the wiles of the Devil"[39] by faith, watchful prayer[40] and an austerity of life that brings the body into subjection to the Spirit.[41]

Living the Christian life by following in the footsteps of Christ requires that everyone should "deny himself and take up his cross daily,"[42] sustained by the hope of reward, for "if we have died with Him, we shall also reign with Him."[43] In accordance with these pressing exhortations, the faithful of the present time, and indeed today more than ever, must use the means which have always been recommended by the Church for living a chaste life. These means are: discipline of the senses and the mind, watchfulness and prudence in avoiding occasions of sin, the observance of modesty, moderation in recreation, wholesome pursuits, assiduous prayer and frequent reception of the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. Young people especially should earnestly foster devotion to the Immaculate Mother of God, and take as examples the lives of saints and other faithful people, especially young ones, who excelled in the practice of chastity.

It is important in particular that everyone should have a high esteem for the virtue of chastity, its beauty and its power of attraction. This virtue increases the human person's dignity and enables him to love truly, disinterestedly, unselfishly and with respect for others.

XIII

It is up to the Bishops to instruct the faithful in the moral teaching concerning sexual morality, however great may be the difficulties in carrying out this work in the face of ideas and practices generally prevailing today. This traditional doctrine must be studied more deeply. It must be handed on in a way capable of properly enlightening the consciences of those confronted with new situations and it must be enriched with a discernment of all the elements that can truthfully and usefully be brought forward about the meaning and value of human sexuality. But the principles and norms of moral living reaffirmed in this Declaration must be faithfully held and taught. It will especially be necessary to bring the faithful to understand that the Church holds these principles not as old and inviolable superstitions, nor out of some Manichaean prejudice, as is often alleged, but rather because she knows with certainty that they are in complete harmony with the Divine order of creation and with the spirit of Christ, and therefore also with human dignity.

It is likewise the Bishops' mission to see that a sound doctrine enlightened by faith and directed by the Magisterium of the Church is taught in faculties of theology and in seminaries. Bishops must also ensure that confessors enlighten people's consciences and that catechetical instruction is given in perfect fidelity to Catholic doctrine.

It rests with the Bishops, the priests and their collaborators to alert the faithful against the erroneous opinions often expressed in books, reviews and public meetings.

Parents, in the first place, and also teachers of the young must endeavor to lead their children and their pupils, by way of a complete education, to the psychological, emotional and moral maturity befitting their age. They will therefore prudently give them information suited to their age; and they will assiduously form their wills in accordance with Christian morals, not only by advice but above all by the example of their own lives, relying on God's help, which they will obtain in prayer. They will likewise protect the young from the many dangers of which they are quite unaware.

Artists, writers and all those who use the means of social communication should exercise their profession in accordance with their Christian faith and with a clear awareness of the enormous influence which they can have. They should remember that "the primacy of the objective moral order must be regarded as absolute by all,"[44] and that it is wrong for them to give priority above it to any so-called aesthetic purpose, or to material advantage or to success. Whether it be a question of artistic or literary works, public entertainment or providing information, each individual in his or her own domain must show tact, discretion, moderation and a true sense of values. In this way, far from adding to the growing permissiveness of behavior, each individual will contribute towards controlling it and even towards making the moral climate of society more wholesome.

All lay people, for their part, by virtue of their rights and duties in the work of the apostolate, should endeavor to act in the same way.

Finally, it is necessary to remind everyone of the words of the Second Vatican Council: "This Holy Synod likewise affirms that children and young people have a right to be encouraged to weigh moral values with an upright conscience, and to embrace them by personal choice, to know and love more adequately. Hence, it earnestly entreats all who exercise government over people or preside over the work of education to see that youth is never deprived of this sacred right."[45]

At the audience granted on November 7, 1975, to the undersigned Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Sovereign Pontiff by Divine Providence Pope Paul VI approved this Declaration "On certain questions concerning sexual ethics," confirmed it and ordered its publication.

Given in Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on December 29th, 1975.

Franjo Cardinal Seper
Prefect

Most Rev. Jerome Hamer, O.P. 
Titular Archbishop of Lorium
Secretary

---

ENDNOTES

1. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Constitution on the Church in the Modern World "Gaudium et Spes," 47 AAS 58 (1966), p. 1067.

2. Cf. Apostolic Constitution "Regimini Ecclesiae Universae," 29 (Aug 15th, 1967) AAS 89 (1967), p. 1067.

3. "Gaudium et Spes," 16 AAS 58 (1966), p. 1037.

4. Jn 8:12.

5. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration "Dignitatis Humanae," 3 AAS 58 (1966), p. 931.

6. I Tim 3:15

7. "Dignitatis Humanae," 14 AAS 58 (1966), p. 940; cf Pius XI, encyclical letter "Casti Connubii," Dec 31st, 1930 AAS 22 (1930), pp 579-580; Pius XII, allocution of Nov. 2nd, 1954 AAS 46 (1954), pp 671-672; John XXIII, encyclical letter "Mater et Magistra," May 15th, 1961 AAS 53 (1961), p. 457; Paul VI, encyclical letter "Humanae Vitae," 4, July 25th, 1968 AAS 60 (1968) p. 483.

8. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration "Gravissimum Educationis," 1, 8: AAS 58 (1966), pp. 729-730; 734-736 "Gaudium et Spes," 29, 60, 67 AAS 58 (1966), pp. 1048 1049, 1080-1081, 1088-1089.

9. "Gaudium et Spes," 51 AAS 58 (1966), pp. 1072.

10. Ibid; cf also 49 loc cit, pp. 1069-1070.

11. Ibid, 49, 50 loc cit, pp. 1069-1072.

12. The present Declaration does not go into further detail regarding the norms of sexual life within marriage; these norms have been clearly taught in the encyclical letter "Casti Connubii" and "Humanae Vitae."

13. Cf. Mt 19:4-6.

14. I Cor 7:9.

15. Cf. Eph 5:25-32.

16. Sexual intercourse outside marriage is formally condemned I Cor 5:1; 6:9; 7:2; 10:8 Eph. 5:5; I Tim 1:10; Heb 13:4; and with explicit reasons I Cor 6:12-20.

17. Cf. Innocent IV, letter "Sub catholica professione," March 6th, 1254, DS 835; Pius II, "Propos damn in Ep Cum sicut accepimus." Nov 13th, 1459, DS 1367; decrees of the Holy Office, Sept 24th, 1665, DS 2045; March 2nd, 1679, DS 2148 Pius XI, encyclical letter "Casti Connubii," Dec 31st, 1930 AAS 22 (1930), pp. 558 559.

18. Rom 1:24-27 "That is why God left them to their filthy enjoyments and the practices with which they dishonor their own bodies since they have given up Divine truth for a lie and have worshipped and served creatures instead of the Creator, Who is blessed forever. Amen! That is why God has abandoned them to degrading passions; why their women have turned from natural intercourse to unnatural practices and why their menfolk have given up natural intercourse to be consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameless things with men and getting an appropriate reward for their perversion" See also what St. Paul says of "masculorum concubitores" in I Cor 6:10; I Tim 1:10.

19. Cf. Leo IX, letter "Ad splendidum nitentis," in the year 1054 DS 687-688, decree of the Holy Office, March 2nd, 1679: DS 2149; Pius XII, "Allocutio," Oct 8th, 1953 AAS 45 (1953), pp. 677-678; May 19th, 1956 AAS 48 (1956), pp. 472-473.

20. "Gaudium et Spes," 51 AAS 58 (1966), p. 1072.

21. ". . . it sociological surveys are useful for better discovering the thought patterns of the people of a particular place, the anxieties and needs of those to whom we proclaim the word of God, and also the opposition made to it by modern reasoning through the widespread notion that outside science there exists no legitimate form of knowledge, still the conclusions drawn from such surveys could not of themselves constitute a determining criterion of truth," Paul VI, apostolic exhortation "Quinque iam anni." Dec 8th 1970, AAS 63 (1971), p. 102.

22. Mt 22:38, 40.

23. Mt 19:16-19.

24. Cf. note 17 and 19 above Decree of the Holy Office, March 18th, 1666, DS 2060; Paul VI, encyclical letter "Humanae Vitae," 13, 14 AAS 60 (1968), pp. 489-496.

25. Sam 16:7.

26. Paul VI, encyclical letter "Humanae Vitae," 29 AAS 60 (1968), p. 501.

27. Cf. I Cor 7:7, 34; Council of Trent, Session XXIV, can 10 DS 1810; Second Vatican Council, Constitution "Lumen Gentium," 42 43, 44 AAS 57 (1965), pp. 47-51 Synod of Bishops, "De Sacerdotio Ministeriali," part II, 4, b: AAS 63 (1971), pp. 915-916.

28. Mt 5:28.

29. Cf. Gal 5:19-23; I Cor 6:9-11.

30. I Thess 4:3-8; cf. Col 3:5-7; I Tim 1:10.

31. Eph 5:3-8; cf. 4:18-19.

32. I Cor 6:15, 18-20.

33. Cf. Rom 7:23.

34. Cf. Rom 7:24-25.

35. Cf. Rom 8:2.

36. Rom 6:12.

37. I Jn 5:19.

38. Cf. I Cor 10:13.

39. Eph 6:11.

40. Ct Eph 6:16, 18.

41. Ct I Cor 9:27.

42. Lk 9:23.

43. II Tim 2:11-12.

44. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council decree "Inter Mirifica," 6 AAS 56 (1964), p. 147.

45. "Gravissimum Educationis," 1: AAS 58 (1966), p. 730.

200,000 march for marriage in Taiwan protesting proposed same-sex ‘marriage’ law

Dec 3, 2013 LIFESITE

原始網路：https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/200000-march-for-marriage-in-taiwan-protesting-proposed-same-sex-marriage-l

TAIPEI, Taiwan, December 2, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – About 200,000 people marched in front of Taiwan’s Presidential Office on Saturday, according to organizers or the march. The crowd was protesting a proposed law that would allow same-sex couples to ‘marry’ and adopt 

"God created human beings as male and female. Only the union of a man and a woman can create the next generation, and the ability to create offspring is an important function of a family," said 40-year-old Ann Huang, who joined the rally with her friends, reported Focus Taiwan. 

The protesters, consisting mainly of families with their children, held signs that read "Made by Daddy and Mommy”, "Defend Marriage”, and "Oppose Amendment to Civil Code Article 972”, the current law which holds that marriage is between a man and woman.  

The event was organized by The Coalition for the Happiness of Our Next Generation.  

“We worry that this alternative family formation idea will confuse children's concepts on education and sexual identity,” said Yu Yen-hung, one of the founders of the organization, to The China Post. “Therefore, we decided to stand up and fight against this bill that will affect the next generation.” 

The organization said that any changes to marriage should come from the people by way of a referendum.  

But the Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights, the group responsible for proposing the same-sex ‘marriage’ amendment in October, says that it does not want the amendment to be put to a referendum since the current law involves the “restriction and denial of basic rights for minorities”. 

President of the Control Yuan party, Wang Chien-shien, marched with the protesters, saying that while he has  “respect and support all homosexual people,” he fears that amending the marriage laws will “affect the healthy marriage system and healthy families, which are the foundations of a stable country,” reported The China Post.  

The ruling Kuomintang party (KMT) urged in a Nov. 29 press conference for a postponement in the review of the amendment. 

"The KMT do not oppose gays or lesbians and we want to treat them legally and protect their human rights as well. But we need to be more careful when it comes to our traditional virtues that concern our families," said KMT spokesperson Lin Te-fu, reported Want China Times.

Taiwan is the latest in a series of nations and states targeted by gay activists for radical social change despite massive public opposition.  

Most recently the Hawaiian legislature rammed through a bill redefining marriage despite an estimated 10,000 people — one of the largest crowds recorded in state politics — sending a clear message of opposition days before at a rally at the capital of Oahu. 

“Rarely has such a huge public opposition to a bill been so blatantly ignored by politicians,” stated Brian Camenker, President of the pro-family group MassResistance, in reference to the Hawaii situation. “It certainly took enormous arrogance for the politicians to ignore these people.” 

In April the French National Assembly — with the backing of President François Hollande’s Socialists —voted to legalize same-sex marriage despite numerous protests by hundreds of thousands of citizens. In January the government ignored an estimated one million people demonstrating in Paris against the proposed measures.  

The U.K. passed its gay ‘marriage’ law in July under David Cameron’s Conservative Party. The bill was pushed through despite well over half-a-million petitioners opposing the move and despite dissent over the matter in Cameron own party, what critics called the “biggest Tory rebellion in modern times”.  

A similar story of government pushing same-sex marriage despite massive resistance by the people can be found in Scotland, Tasmania, New Zealand, and Estonia. 

包容的新定義 正面/負面包容 (II)

2013年12月18日中華家庭方舟協進會

原始網址:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dVDZXW5_ks

麥道衛(Josh McDowell,1939-)，多年來於學園傳道會事奉，出版了超過115本書籍，在全世界主講超過100個國家，百萬場以上的青年佈道會。

首先提到，我們正處於一個後現代基督教的時代。

1968以前 現代主義-猶太基督教文化
最棒的美德是正義
最常被引用的經文是約翰福音3:16
------------------------------------
1968以後/後現代主義-反猶太基督教文化
最棒的美德是包容
最常被引用的經文是你們不要論斷人，就不被論斷

實踐基督的愛(行公義，好憐憫，存謙卑的心，與你的神同行。)=反對包容者
因為:每一個人的信念 價值觀 生活型態
真理宣稱 都是平等的

--------------------------------------------------
至於什麼是後現代呢?
文學有文學的後現代，哲學有哲學的後現代，藝文美學，建築，都有後現代。

後現代基督教時代是老詞新用。它並非意味著基督教的上帝已死，而是表明它在美國政治和文化中的影響力日漸式微。

後現代主義的基本特點，催生了後基督教時代。
1.反二元論：（真/假，對/錯），試圖尋找"另一方面"的利益。

2.語言的轉變：後現代主義認為，語言形成了思維。如果沒有語言，人們就沒有思想。因此，就真如從字面上說的，語言創造了真理。因此真理是被創造出來的而非被發現的。就像尼釆(Friedrich Nietzsche)所言，"世界上沒有永恆的事實，就如沒有絕對的真理。
所以世界上沒有真理，道德和人類尊嚴的公認根據。

3.真理就是觀念：其次，真理是關乎一種觀念或是一種背景，而非公認的東西。

包容的新定義-正面/負面包容 (I)

2013年12月18日中華家庭方舟協進會

原始網址:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW0kKTJtL7U

演講者:麥道衛(Josh McDowell,1939-)，多年來於學園傳道會事奉，出版了超過115本書籍，在全世界主講超過100個國家，百萬場以上的青年佈道會。

負面包容/傳統包容:有道德基礎
(父母觀念)

定義:承認和尊重 認同他人的信仰和行為
承擔或忍受某人或某事，尤其是輕微的事件

反對者:我們不同意你，但你被允許可以這樣做

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
現在是正面包容:
(學校教育)

定義:每一個人的信念 價值觀 生活型態
真理宣稱 都是平等的
反對者:不包容 偏執 異端

實踐基督的愛(行公義，好憐憫，存謙卑的心，與你的神同行。)=反對包容者
因為:每一個人的信念 價值觀 生活型態
真理宣稱 都是平等的

沒有所謂的道德基礎，客觀的上帝已經不存在

38,000 signatures against same sex ‘marriage’ delivered to Estonian parliament

 May 21, 2013 LIFESITE

原始網址:https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/38000-signatures-against-same-sex-marriage-delivered-to-estonian-parliament

TALLINN, Estonia, May 21, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An Estonian pro-family organization delivered over 38,000 signatures opposing same-sex "marriage" to the country's parliament last week. 

Spokesman for the Estonian Foundation for Defense of Family and Tradition, Slawomir Olejniczak, told LifeSiteNews that the petition campaign was the largest and most successful collection of signatures ever carried out in the country of 580,000 households against a proposed change of law.

Olejniczak said that despite a blackout of coverage about the petition by the nation's government media, "the petitions were delivered to all households and 6.5% of the population reacted in favor of natural marriage in such a liberal country like Estonia." 

"The National Broadcasting Union (ERR) completely boycotted covering our petition - I mean totally, - but it has now published a small news article in its English language based portal, which is meant to give information to foreigners about Estonia," said Olejniczak.

The Estonian public broadcaster noted in itsarticle that under Estonian law, "same-sex couples have no right to wed. The situation is unlikely to change before the next parliamentary elections in 2015 as the two coalition partners are at odds over gay rights."

The ERR report cited a study conducted by Turu-uuringute AS last September which found that 60 percent of Estonians are opposed to same-sex "marriage."

“We should be working hard to restore the moral traditions that are the foundations of our culture, and a culture centered on the family, which is grounded on those traditions - otherwise, our culture and people will decay,” Varro Vooglaid, who heads the Estonian Foundation for Defense of Family and Tradition, told the Delfi news service last week after delivering the petitions. 

Estonia is one of the many Soviet satellite states that found independence after the collapse of communism. It is suffering from a “confused” social and moral state, said the founder of the pro-life organization, the Institute for the Culture of Life, in the capital Tallinn. 

"Estonia is a micro-experiment in Europe’s extreme secularization, and is reaping the demographic consequences," said Maria Madise, pointing out that Estonia’s economic prosperity has had the adverse effect of eating away at the social fabric by rampant divorce, abortion and suicide. 

"What Estonian general moral and social attitudes are reluctant to adopt – but hopefully will eventually – is that the remedy for the past lies not in hedonistic indulgences, that are inducing now another sort of deadly culture, but in rediscovering the faith and re-establishing the institution of the family. Only a return to its Christian roots will save this heavily secularized country," said Madise. 

A short video of the presentation of the Estonian Foundation for Defense of Family and Tradition pro-family petitions to the Chief of the Parliament on May 14th may be seen here. 

Related: 

Only a Return to Christian Values Will Save Secularist Post-Soviet Estonia: Local Pro-Life Leader

The debate that wasn’t: New Zealand’s rushed marriage revolution

原始網址:失效 https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-debate-that-wasnt-new-zealands-rushed-marriage-revolution

April 19, 2013 (Mercatornet.com) - Wednesday night (April 17) 77 people changed the institution of marriage in New Zealand from a conjugal union with the potential for generating children and providing them with the nurture of their own mother and father into “a union of 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity” with the potential for systematically depriving children of their mother or father, or both. All in the name of “love”. Starting in August.

Actually, just 17 people managed to do that, because the New Zealand Parliament currently has 121 members and if 17 of the 77 who finally voted for the “definition of marriage” bill had voted against it and with the 44 who opposed the move, this South Sea revolution could have been put down and time taken to properly discuss the whole idea. The notion put about by MPs and journalists that there has been a “fierce debate” on same-sex marriage over the past seven or eight months is sheer fantasy.

The truth is that those in favour of law change didn’t want a public debate. They didn’t broach the subject in the last election campaign (nor the one before) but sprang it on us through a private member’s bill -- fortuitously drawn from the ballot soon after it was introduced by lesbian MP Louisa Wall. Calls for a referendum -- taken up by New Zealand First, a minor party in the government, and by a few other MPs -- were rejected by the majority in the House on grounds that include: it would be difficult for people to exercise an informed vote (of course, if you won’t give them time to be informed) and “minority rights issues” should not be the subject of a referendum (even though no-one has shown us how people incapable of marriage can have a right to it).

What many politicians appear to want most of all is to show that “we are modern/tolerant/compassionate too”. This applies to the several MPs whose first -- and last -- word on the subject was “It won’t affect my marriage” or some similar statement. Prime Minister John Key led the way here and other National (“conservative”) members followed suit. Key himself took his cue from Barack Obama, declaring his support for gay marriage the day after Obama announced his, and also from British Prime Minister David Cameron who nailed his rainbow colours to the mast some time ago, causing a mutiny in his Conservative Party’s ranks.

The refusal of NZ politicians to give any real thought to the issue has been the most frustrating aspect of the process. At the moment of final defeat Wednesday night one National MP mournfully said, “What we should be discussing is what marriage is and what it is not.” Yes, that is precisely what has not been thoroughly discussed. Before marriage can be claimed as a right we have to know what it is. Claims that it is not essentially about conjugal and procreative love but just about “love” have not been defended with intellectual rigour but only with sentimental appeals to the anguish of individuals who don’t feel recognised and so on.

Philosophical discussion in the media has been almost zilch (Rex Ahdar’s piece is one exception). There are few independent think tanks in this country and academics seldom address moral issues. Opposition has focused too much on personal religious faith and protecting the conscience rights of ministers and other marriage celebrants. Children’s rights and interests (and the bill in effect formalises a situation in which same-sex couples can already adopt and use reproductive technology) have been scandalously neglected.

Furthermore, most of the MPs who voted against the bill never came to the House to explain their opposition, presumably because they couldn’t or thought the game was already lost. Only three of them spoke Wednesday night.

But the game wasn't lost until they gave it away. Despite mantras about public opinion “evolving” and “a sea-change” in attitudes to gay relationships, New Zealanders have far from made their minds on this issue. Although an opinion poll in the middle of last year put public support at 63 percent, that figure has fallen steadily to below 50 percent; a March poll which asked whether marriage should be between a man and a woman, or changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, showed 48 percent for the first option and 49.6 for the second. Informal polls have tended to show significant majorities against same-sex marriage.

An online poll in the NZ Herald Thrusday shows only 45 percent support for Wednesday night's vote, 44 percent against and 11 "don't cares". A poll taken on the Campbell Live TV show just before the debate, however, showed a whopping 78 percent against the "marriage equality bill" (note the wording) and only 22 percent for it. The 17,000 votes sent in were the second biggest poll return ever for NZTV3, said surprised show host John Campbell.

Reprinted from Mercatornet.com under a Creative Commons License.The longer Kiwis have had to think about the steaming great contradiction which is “same-sex marriage” the less convinced of its validity they have become -- but time is precisely what most MPs did not want to give us. Hopefully, this has made enough people angry enough to teach the pollies a lesson at the next election.