The issue is my use of the broadly quoted Cardinal Archbishop Rainer Maria Woelki of Berlin who reportedly said this of homosexual unions in 2012.
“If two homosexuals take responsibility for each other, if they are loyal to each other over the long term, then one should see this in the same way as heterosexual relations.”
After deriding me for my post, Diane accuses me of gossip and using an inaccurate quote. Regardless whether if a critic is kind or derisive, I certainly do not want to do a disservice to anyone, let alone a Cardinal, by using an inaccurate quote particularly one that seems to put the quoted in opposition to the Church’s teachings.
Diane suggested that the quote had been truncated and that the Cardinal’s office had issued a correction. I followed her links to the articles referenced to find the correct text and the correction.
Spokesman Stefan Förner stated that media reports have strongly gathered these statements. It was the Cardinal a concern that homosexuals are “discriminated against”. Spokesperson said then literally over KATH.NET: “Cardinal Woelki has lasting homosexual relationships where two people are willing to take on a life long responsibility for each other, set in relation to heterosexual relationships, so not in every case, in the Catholic order ‘are (unmarried, binding, etc.). A comparison with the sacramental marriage between man and woman was not his subject. ” Förner then drew attention to the Catechism (KKK 2358), where known, it is proven that a “have,” “no small number of men and women” “homosexual tendencies so that you can not pretend there is not, and that they have to live with respect is , to hats, they unfairly reset in any way. ” Spokesman Förner declared finally over KATH.NET: “The sacramental marriage between man and woman retains its special role. Occasion for an irritation I can not see.
The Cardinal’s spokesman says that the Cardinal was concerned that homosexuals are not “discriminated against.” Of course, any good Catholic should be opposed to unjust discrimination against homosexuals. But the Cardinal’s intentions are not at issue here, but rather what he said.
The Cardinal’s spokesman says that the Cardinal did not compare ong-standing homosexual relationships to ‘sacramental marriages’ but rather long-standing heterosexual relationships that are not sacramental marriage, such as unmarried heterosexual cohabitation.
So that is the correction. The Cardinal did equate long-standing homosexual relationships to long-standing heterosexual relationships.
Since my article made no reference to sacramental marriages and the the Cardinal’s spokesman confirms the Cardinal equated long-standing homosexual relationships to long-standing heterosexual relationships (even if unmarried ones), I think that my article is entirely accurate and fair.
I am unsure why Diane felt she needed to take me to task over this, particularly in the way she did it, since the Cardinal’s spokesman confirms the quote. Either way, I thank Diane for bring the additional clarification to my attention, as I surely want to be fair and accurate. In this case, I continue to believe I have been.