Tuesday, June 13, 2006

From Our Bulging "What I Meant Was..." Files

Washington's soon-to-retire Theodore Cardinal McCarrick was quoted on CNN recently, as seeing no problem with the idea of "civil unions" in light of some proposed legislation. The archdiocesan website has published a clarification of his remarks: "In trying to reply to a question, I mentioned people who may need the right to take care of each other when they are grievously ill and hospitalized, but it was always in the context of the proposed legislation and in no way in favor of a lifestyle that is contrary to the teaching of the Church and Scripture. I realized that my words could have given the wrong impression to someone who did not take my remarks in context."


A lot of things can seem reasonable enough, when there's an understanding of where the limitations are. If all we were talking about was the ability for two bachelor or spinster roommates to have power of attorney in a hardship situation, that would be one thing. If no one ever gave any public indication of re-defining marriage, to be something that no known civilization ever meant it to be, that would be one thing also.

No one could be that naive -- including, one should think, His Eminence.

At least one historic figure was in favor of same-sex marriage. It was the Emperor Nero, who for one occasion was the bride, and for the other the groom. Should our society ever adopt a provision such as "civil unions," it should be clear not only what it is, but what it is not.

And what are the chances of that?

No comments: