Ann,
I get the impression you just disregard Church teachings and documents that seem inconvenient to your beliefs. That is why I quoted article [46] of Redemptionis Sacramentum above.
I would guess that it is easy to pick an choose what to believe when the only authority you show obedience to is yourself.
Lord, have mercy on both our souls.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio, hi, I'm aware of the semantical differences with EMHC vs. EM, but the cow's been out of the barn a long time. At my church, they've been saying "E.M." which can mean either Eucharistic Minister or Extraordinary Minister, and it seems to satisfy the issue of terminology. With the declining number of priests in most diocesan parishes, it's hard to imagine a place where E.M.'s aren't truly necessary, with the exception of some small places. Then, if the norm is that E.M.'s are usually needed, how "extraordinary" are they, really? I guess ontologically they might be considered so, but if in actual practice they are of necessity put into frequent use, in one sense they are indeed ordinary, in that they are called into service more often than not. On any given Sunday, I would hazard a guess that most Catholics throughout the world receive communion from a non-ordained person; hence there is at least a little confusion with regard to calling the practice "extraordinary." I understand that the word is being used to reinforce the fact that this is a clerical role, but it does so imperfectly.

JustMe,
A - absolutely.
B - not so sure, Ron Paul is a little to comfortable with gay marriage for me, and well, he's a little looney. He also seems to suggest that abortion regulation is a matter of states rights. Sorry, the protection of life and equal protection trump the right to kill your child in any state.
Look at Huckabee, not only strongly pro-life, but pro-traditional marriage, and actually supports a constitutional amendment on both of those issues. He would also not surrender in the war in Iraq and against the Islamo-fascists elsewhere. He will not abandon our friends either. He will not abolish the FBI and leave us unprotected from terror at home.
God Bless,
Matt

A) If we bring back (kneeling at) altar rails to receive Him, we all might remember better that it is indeed Jesus that we are receiving; no offense to EMHCs, but that would turn Communion folly back onto the truly foolish. That would catechize better than any refresher course of words. Let's push for that sane return--we know (as do the Bishops) it's only going to get worse.
B) Many good people have done my Catholic homework for me: Ron Paul is the best man for the job. (We can't simply vote for the "most likely to win" pro-respect-life candidate, else we are truly sheeple -- and rather undemocratic (small d) ones at that!) If we could mobilize the Catholic base into supporting Paul, we'd at least be sending an honest message.

Ann,
"As a Eucharistic Minister, I would be very hesitant to deny communion to anyone."
The name “minister of the Eucharist” or "Eucharistic Minister" belongs properly to the Priest alone. You are an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
As Redemptionis Sacramentum states:
[156.] This function [EMHC] is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

I realize the title is long but that is because it is supposed to an extraordinary function and not an ordinary one.
[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.

The document also states:
[46.] The lay Christian faithful called to give assistance at liturgical celebrations should be well instructed and must be those whose Christian life, morals and fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium recommend them. It is fitting that such a one should have received a liturgical formation in accordance with his or her age, condition, state of life, and religious culture. No one should be selected whose designation could cause consternation for the faithful.

Giving the Holy Eucharist to a person who is obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin is sacrilegous and scandalous and a person should stop being an EMHC if they do not understand that fact.
To anyone who is an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion I would highly recommend reading Redemptionis Sacramentum especially articles 43-47 and 154-159.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Ann,
Charles never claimed to be Catholic, but in any event, he has not demonstrated "manifest grave sin".
If you give communion to someone who is in a state of grave sin, do you know that they are drinking judgement on them? Would you really want to help someone do that?
I'm sure your sympathy has to do with your own dissent of the teachings on homosexuality, I pray you reconsider that position.
God Bless,
Matt

I promised to butt out for a while since this conversation was going so off-thread. Going back to the outset, this was about the question of whether or not to deny communion to persons. As a Eucharistic Minister, I would be very hesitant to deny communion to anyone. I could not envision a situation in which I would deny communion to a person who presents her/himself to me. Whatever her or his situation, it is not for me to judge. I'm glad I am not an EM in St. Louis, because I find that most of the bishops (unlike the minority, R.B. and his ilk) seem much more pastoral with regard to this matter. You guys who have a disagreement with Charles, would you be so bold as to refuse him communion if he presented himself to you? I would stop being an EM if I was forced to deny communion to people.

Charles,
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.

zzzzzzzzzzzz
wake me up when you actually read this. No further exegesis is necessary.
God Bless,
Matt

Matt, the document speaks for itself. Anything and everything you add to it, your paraphrases, your selection of quotes, your "demonstration" and opinion that it's ample is your own. The document does not give you authority to do that nor has anyone qualified you to do it. I respect your opinion, but that's what it is.

Charles,
you have read the document right? Are you denying it's authority? Because we have amply demonstrated that it applies to your notional civil union.
God Bless,
Matt

Civil union laws privelage unions which are not marriages in similar ways to how marriage is privelaged, thus they violate the teaching of the Church
Unfortunately, you haven't proven your claim that it violates Church teaching. But I'll give you that the privileges are "similar." After all, even the sun and moon are similar in ways.
No need for me to convict you
I never said you could.
Again, in the legal forum, the fact that there is actual protection afforded to the heinous act, in effect, legitimizes said act.
Yes, as I've said, that's one of several definitions.
There is nothing you have said thus far that has rendered that null.
I hope not as I've never attempted to render it null. I've been agreeing from the beginning. It's one of several definitions. Just not the one I was using.

Charles Shurman:
I'm as much the audience as you. I'm not interested in offending the audience. So recheck your evidence before you convict, or you may well find you've convicted yourself. Fair warning.
No need for me to convict you --
Your own words do that and, in particular, the specific choice of example:
"Example: You're legally protected to penetrate your wife with a crucifix if that's what the two of you wish, but that protection doesn't legitimize it."
Again, in the legal forum, the fact that there is actual protection afforded to the heinous act, in effect, legitimizes said act.
There is nothing you have said thus far that has rendered that null.

The issue here is not the absence of a proscription (ie. laws against homosexuals living together or passing on their inheritence etc.) but not allowing laws which enshrine the union and make it equivalent in any legal sense to marriage.
The absence of a proscription against a thing does not necessarily legitimize it, but it is when the thing is specifically privelaged. Civil union laws privelage unions which are not marriages in similar ways to how marriage is privelaged, thus they violate the teaching of the Church, which doesn't matter to Charles anyway but it does to us.
God Bless,
Matt

Esau, here's a legitimate definition:
le·git·i·mize
tr. v.
-- to make legitimate
le·git·i·mate
adj.
1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.
2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.
3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
4. Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.
5. Born of legally married parents: legitimate issue.
6. Of, relating to, or ruling by hereditary right: a legitimate monarch.
7. Of or relating to drama of high professional quality that excludes burlesque, vaudeville, and some forms of musical comedy
Definition #3 is a form of definition #2, assuming your established or accepted standard is logic and reason.
You have shown by your own words just how wrong your understanding is of Catholic teaching and state law.
No, you've only shown yourself how wrong your own understanding is of my words.
Please don't attempt to insult the intelligence of the audience even further.
I have no need to do that.
It is quite evident by the very nature of your example that your intent was indeed to offend the audience.
I'm as much the audience as you. I'm not interested in offending the audience. So recheck your evidence before you convict, or you may well find you've convicted yourself. Fair warning.
I repeat -- the fact that protection is afforded to such heinous acts actually legitimizes the act by virtue of the protection of said act!
I repeat, that is not the definition I was using. But I also repeat, that too is a possible definition.

Charles Shurman,
I had no intent to be offensive.
Please don't attempt to insult the intelligence of the audience even further.
It is quite evident by the very nature of your example that your intent was indeed to offend the audience -- you stated quite plainly:
"Example: You're legally protected to penetrate your wife with a crucifix if that's what the two of you wish, but that protection doesn't legitimize it."
The fact that you specifically chose something that would be as offensive to a Catholic audience demonstrates that your intent was indeed to offend.
I repeat -- the fact that protection is afforded to such heinous acts actually legitimizes the act by virtue of the protection of said act!

Charles Shurman,
You have shown by your own words just how wrong your understanding is of Catholic teaching and state law.
As for your offensive comment if that is the only example you can think of you are a very disturbed person.
You have my pity and my prayers.
Take care and God bless,
Inocecnio
J+M+J

Esau, to understand him, look at everything he posts from the point of view of justification.

Charles Shurman,
Do you even know the meaning of "legi-ti-mize"?
Here, allow me to assist in your education:
legitimize:
a accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements
b conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards
Thus, the very protection afforded to such heinous acts actually legitimizes the act by virtue of the protection of said act!

I believe Mr. Shurman's intent was to submit something as offensive to the Catholic audience as to distract them from the fallacious nature of his poor arguments.
People believe all sorts of crazy things. But the truth will set you free. I had no intent to be offensive. I was giving a clear example of something unreasonable / offensive with the intent to show that protection doesn't change its color.

Esau, if by "legitimize" you simply mean to make legal, then yes, it's legitimate to do all sorts of horrendous things. But that's not what I'm saying when I speak of "legitimize." Rather, the word has many meanings, including to make in accord with logical reasoning; reasonable. If you want to claim genocide is legitimate because someone passes a law saying so, I'll leave you to ponder.

I would gather that the intellectually-challenged Mr. Shurman would say that a Law that permits the mass murder of Jews merely protects people to commit such horrible acts but does not actually legitimize it.
Again, the fallacious and defective nature of his poor intellect, no doubt.

...not to mention, delete the vulgar comment.
I believe Mr. Shurman's intent was to submit something as offensive to the Catholic audience as to distract them from the fallacious nature of his poor arguments.

I think it's time for Jimmy to unsheath Glamdring. (not to mention, delete the vulgar comment).

Example: You're legally protected to penetrate your wife with a crucifix if that's what the two of you wish, but that protection doesn't legitimize it.
1. That's a rather horrendous example.
2. With this example, you just proved that the legal protection actually legitimizes the act!
For example, say I am legally protected to kill you because your last name is "Shurman".
The fact that the act of murder is protected actually legitimizes it by virtue of the act in itself!

Le-git-i-mi-za-tion. The wording of a particular law recognizing 'civil unions' may not specifically require that the united perform homosexual acts, but everyone knows that it is intended for 'homosexuals'.
The intent of the law is to protect people, to include (but not limited to) homosexual persons. Protecting homosexual persons is not the same as legitimizing homosexual acts. Example: You're legally protected to penetrate your wife with a crucifix if that's what the two of you wish, but that protection doesn't legitimize it.
Just to show how wrong your understanding is:
Inocencio, must I remind you, you are not qualified to speak in regard to my understanding. You have your understanding, not mine. Do you understand? If you had my understanding, you'd see that nothing you posted is contrary to anything I've said. What you've posted collaborates my posts. It is simply your own understanding that is in conflict.
Vermont law requires that "The couple must be of the same gender
Am I now in Vermont? If I were, I'd know from the statement of Vermont law you've quoted that civil unions are clearly not defined to be marriages, just as I said: "People in civil union are not married. Civil union and marriage are different." I wouldn't advise anyone with a Vermont civil union to go around claiming to have a marriage. It's just not so.
Also please read carefully section #6. It states quite clearly that the legal consequences are to the same degree and in the same manner as prescribed under law for married persons.
Inocencio, saying something doesn't always make it so, even if you're the State of Vermont. Vermont talks big, but it's a small state without even the power to mandate that persons within its own geographic boundaries give the same social and legal status of marriage to civil union. In fact, not even the federal government has the power to do that. It requires the assent of the entire nation, if not a large chuck of the world. If your thinking is limited to a statement by the State of Vermont, your understanding of this issue is very limited. Just as one simple example, if you had a Vermont civil union, you could go to countless employers even within Vermont and quickly discover that a civil union does not carry the same weight as a marriage even though that law you claim makes it seem like it should. You might even be able to just knock on a neighbor's door to find that out. And that's with everyone obeying the law.
"Marriage" is a very special word, a gateway to innumerable benefits, not only legally but socially, culturally, etc. as well. For all its might, Vermont law can't even make the legal aspects of civil union match those of marriage. It only makes a Vermont sized step toward it without reaching it. As I said, Vermont [or fill in the blank] law does not give the social and legal status of marriage to civil union. It doesn't have the power to.

Charles Shurman,
"In addition, the law does not give the social and legal status of marriage to civil union. People in civil union are not married. Civil union and marriage are different."
Just to show how wrong your understanding is:
“Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under Vermont law, whether they derive from statute, policy, administrative or court rule, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage.”

Vermont Act 91, 2000 Session
"Since July 2000, Vermont has permitted eligible couples of the same sex to be joined in civil union. Since the passage of the civil union law 1,286 Vermont couples have joined in civil union. In addition, more than 8,058 couples from all over the country – and all over the world have obtained a Vermont civil union."

Vermont law requires that "The couple must be of the same gender
Also please read carefully section #6.
It states quite clearly that the legal consequences are to the same degree and in the same manner as prescribed under law for married persons.
Well clear to everyone but you for some reason.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

notice he couldn't simply say: "yes, I assent", he only said that his argument was based on that premise.
God Bless,
Matt

Charles Shurman,
Unfortunately, a Google popularity search and someone's interpretation of it are about as relevant and valid as reading the entrails of a goat sacrifice.

It is good to know that there is hope that you will see just how wrong and irrelevant your interpretation is in deciding the matter.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Le-git-i-mi-za-tion.
The wording of a particular law recognizing 'civil unions' may not specifically require that the united perform homosexual acts, but everyone knows that it is intended for 'homosexuals'. Pretending otherwise is just silly and certainly won't fool anyone who is paying attention, which fortunately includes most of the folks here.

homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered... If you assent to that please indicate it, otherwise further discussion is a waste of both your time and mine.
Every point I've made has already been conditioned on the logical premise that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. Further assent is what would be a waste of my time. It adds nothing and detracts nothing from what I've posted.
The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.
By law, civil union is not a "form of cohabitation." Cohabitation is not even a requirement for civil union. In addition, the law does not give the social and legal status of marriage to civil union. People in civil union are not married. Civil union and marriage are different.
Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens.
As I've already made clear, (1) civil union is not the same as "homosexual union," (2) the law does not give legal recognition with respect to any sex act, sexual orientation, or lack thereof, and (3) it's not about "simply living together" as made obvious by the fact that cohabitation isn't even a requirement.
It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society
That does not describe civil union, as for example, civil union is not simply about protecting personal goods.
Also if you Google "civil unions" the information is almost exclusively about granting legal recognition to homosexual unions
Unfortunately, a Google popularity search and someone's interpretation of it are about as relevant and valid as reading the entrails of a goat sacrifice.

Inocencio,
thanks, that ends the lesson.
Matth

Charles Shurman,
May I ask how you reconcile your understanding of civil unions with this quotation from the document?
The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Or this quotation?
Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.

Since it is a matter of justice to deny "legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital" and all citizens can make use of the provisions of law to protect their rights it would be unjust to sacrifice the common good by recognizing any union other than marriage between a man and a woman with marital rights.
Also if you Google "civil unions" the information is almost exclusively about granting legal recognition to homosexual unions. Which whether you accept it or not is against Church teaching.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Charles,
Before you can assent to the Church's teachings on civil unions between homosexuals, you need to first understand and assent to the Church's teachings on homosexual acts and behaviour, that they are immoral.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

If you assent to that please indicate it, otherwise further discussion is a waste of both your time and mine.
God Bless,
Matt

a union between two homosexuals
Sorry, but the "Church refuses to consider the person as a 'heterosexual' or a 'homosexual'."
Nothing in the document suggests that it has a sex act requirement
Not so. How could you miss the many statements, among which are: "Homosexual acts 'close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved'." And, "homosexual practices are 'sins gravely contrary to chastity'." And, "Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted... by approval of homosexual acts." And, "it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State."
Over and over it again, the document refers to approval and recognition of sexual acts. And as I have very clearly pointed out, civil unions do not provide "specific and categorical legal recognition by the State" of any sexual acts.
Do you assent to the Church's teaching on homosexual behavior?
I am sharing that teaching with you. Do you assent to the Church's teaching?

Charles,
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.

You must be confused about which document I was referring to. Since this document refers to unions between homosexual persons. Since the "civil unions" you refer to would apply to homosexual persons it seems plain English to interpret it as applicable. Nothing in the document suggests that it has a sex act requirement, simply the legitimization of a union between two homosexuals which gives them rights akin to marriage.
Do you assent to the Church's teaching on homosexual behavior? I know that if you don't we have to talk about that before you could understand the Church's teaching on unions between homosexuals.
God Bless,
Matt

Any law put in place that gives special rights for those who engage in such things would legitimize them and as such be contrary to the natural law and Catholic teachings JUST AS CIVIL UNIONS FOR HOMOSEXUALS OR OTHER NON-MARRIED PEOPLE IS.
Civil union does not give any special rights for engaging in such things. The rights of civil union are not conditioned upon or a product of sex acts between persons of the same sex. No sexual behavior rewards anyone with the rights of civil union.
Did you read the linked document at all? Do you care what the Church teaches on this? Do you consider homosexual behaviour to be immoral?
The only union referred to in that document is a sexual union between persons of the same sex. A civil union is not a sexual union, and therefore not the subject of that document. There is, by law, no sexual activity scope or requirement to a civil union. If persons in a civil union choose to engage in sexual activity, that is an independent choice not conditioned upon or necessitating civil union.

Charles,
Civil union as it's defined no more legitimizes homosexual acts than civil marriage as it's defined legitimizes the choice of millions of married people to engage in sexually open relationships, 3-ways, spousal abuse, abortion, the Pill or whatever.
Any law put in place that gives special rights for those who engage in such things would legitimize them and as such be contrary to the natural law and Catholic teachings JUST AS CIVIL UNIONS FOR HOMOSEXUALS OR OTHER NON-MARRIED PEOPLE IS.
Did you read the linked document at all? Do you care what the Church teaches on this? Do you consider homosexual behaviour to be immoral?
God Bless,
Matt

Civil union legitimizes the homosexual relations between two such individuals.
As a legal construct, civil union is independent of the two individuals' sexual activity or lack thereof, and as such it no more legitimizes homosexual relations than it does celibacy or birdwatching. If persons in a civil union choose to engage in sexual activity, that is an independent choice not conditioned upon or necessitating civil union. Civil union as it's defined no more legitimizes homosexual acts than civil marriage as it's defined legitimizes the choice of millions of married people to engage in sexually open relationships, 3-ways, spousal abuse, abortion, the Pill or whatever.
they go to the extent of re-categorizing a sinful act as something permissible and legitimate.
The "re-categorizing" is confounding a sinful act with civil union.

That may well be, but when it comes to civil union, it has not been proven to be evil, any more than a knife or baseball bat or civil marriage is evil.
Civil union legitimizes the homosexual relations between two such individuals.
In that case, they are evil to the extent that they call 'evil' 'good'; that is, they go to the extent of re-categorizing a sinful act as something permissible and legitimate.

It's a quasi-marriage-like condition that ignores the fact that marriage necessarily involves a sexual relationship and can, in both civil and canon law, be annulled for the lack of sexual relationships.
No, that is not the fact. In the civil law of my state, lack of a sexual relationship is not sufficient grounds for annulment of a marriage. Rather, in that regard, it requires a -concealed- intent not to consummate the marriage. A marriage cannot be annulled simply because the parties enter with no intent to consummate or even a premeditated (not concealed) intent not to consummate the marriage.
The state has no interest in such non-sexual relationships that justifies the price it would inflict on the rest of us: higher prices for insurance, loss of estate taxes, etc.
The state, from the people to the legislature to the courts, says otherwise.
legal contracts can be drawn up between two private parties for almost any purpose.
Civil union, like marriage, provides benefits that contracts between two persons cannot provide.
The civil union concept is being used as the point of the spear to eventually secure state recognition of homosexual "marriage".
Some, perhaps many, are, but the fact is, not all people are using or will use civil unions for that purpose. There are many people who are or would use a civil union without any desire whatsoever that they be considered "married" or have their sexual interests or lack thereof recognized.
The purpose of this is to open the door to legal homosexual marriage down the road.
That is but "a" purpose of some, not all, not "the" purpose.
Just because Law & Government protects it and declares it LEGAL doesn't actually mean it's NOT EVIL.
That may well be, but when it comes to civil union, it has not been proven to be evil, any more than a knife or baseball bat or civil marriage is evil. Even civil divorce is not intrinsically evil.

If by "homosexual union" / "evil" we are referring to a sexual act, then as I said, it's already legally recognized in civil society and protected by the Constitution no less.
Charles,
Just because Law & Government protects it and declares it LEGAL doesn't actually mean it's NOT EVIL.
Take, for example, SLAVERY!

I believe that a will can be made out to benefit anyone at all - even dogs, apparently. Same thing with life insurance policies, etc... and legal contracts can be drawn up between two private parties for almost any purpose.
The civil union concept is being used as the point of the spear to eventually secure state recognition of homosexual "marriage". The asexual nature of *current* civil union laws (if that is the case) is a red herring. The point is, they are trying to redefine "family" and "household" in completely novel terms, maintaining that it should be open to any two people (well, two for now), regardless of their relationship. The purpose of this is to open the door to legal homosexual marriage down the road.
I do think that no-fault divorce has done far more damage to the family than would homosexual unions at this point. No-fault divorce should be taken right up to the Supreme Court and completely overturned. It is inherently unjust. Civil unions would be another nail in the coffin of the nuclear family, making it that much harder to reverse the damage.

No, it is quite the opposite. Legally, a civil union does not recognize the sexual orientation or sexual activity of the persons. And it can be a sin against charity to assume persons in a civil union are sexually active, because in fact a civil union is not defined as a sexual relationship.
It's a quasi-marriage-like condition that ignores the fact that marriage necessarily involves a sexual relationship and can, in both civil and canon law, be annulled for the lack of sexual relationships.
The state has no interest in such non-sexual relationships that justifies the price it would inflict on the rest of us: higher prices for insurance, loss of estate taxes, etc.

Charles,
ok, I think we understand where you are coming from. Good luck with that.
God Bless,
Matt

By definition the type of union you are referring to it would provide for legal recognition of homosexual "civil unions" which the Church has condemned
No, it is quite the opposite. Legally, a civil union does not recognize the sexual orientation or sexual activity of the persons. And it can be a sin against charity to assume persons in a civil union are sexually active, because in fact a civil union is not defined as a sexual relationship.
Do you assent to the Church's teaching on homosexual acts?
I do not deny the Church's true teaching on homosexual acts by pointing out the fact that a civil union is not defined by homosexual acts.

Charles,
The Church is condemning civil recognition for unions between homosexuals
Civil unions are not defined as "unions between homosexuals." They may be between persons of any sexual orientation or lack thereof, including heterosexuals if that be their choice. A civil union is not a sex act, is not dependent upon a sex act and does not necessitate a sex act of any kind.

By definition the type of union you are referring to it would provide for legal recognition of homosexual "civil unions" which the Church has condemned, like it or not you are in opposition to the Church.
Do you assent to the Church's teaching on homosexual acts?
God Bless,
Matt

The Church is condemning civil recognition for unions between homosexuals
Civil unions are not defined as "unions between homosexuals." They may be between persons of any sexual orientation or lack thereof, including heterosexuals if that be their choice. A civil union is not a sex act, is not dependent upon a sex act and does not necessitate a sex act of any kind.

bill,
thanks! It's really just the clarity of our current Holy Father being echoed here. If only the dissenters would read the plain language of the Church they would either be Catholic or not Catholic rather than cafeteria Catholics.
God Bless,
Matt

Charles,
The Church is condemning civil recognition for unions between homosexuals. That would apply regardless of the label and "inclusiveness" you wish to apply.
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.

God Bless,
Matt

Matt, you nailed it. The non-answer was an answer. You wrote clearly. The one who accused you of "confound(ing)" did the confounding. After all, one must justify one's dissent to oneself.