Det kan inte vara en riktig familj, den som bildas av två män eller två kvinnor, och ännu mindre kan en sådan förening ges rätt att adoptera barn. Ty dessa barn orsakas stora skador, i dessa "alternativa familjer" har de ej en far och mor, men "två pappor" eller "två mammor."
Vi får lita på att parlamenten i länderna i Europa kommer att distansera sig från detta synsätt och, i samband med familjeåret, de kommer att vilja skydda samhällets och nationernas grundvalar sedan urminnes tider från denna grundläggande fara. Det råder ingen tvekan dock att vi har att göra med en fruktansvärd frestelse.
(Angelus 20 februari 1994)
Så sent som 2003 kom Troskongregationen under kardinal Joseph Ratzinger ut med ett dokument kallat Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons. Ur denna saxar vi:
Om äktenskapsliknande förening mellan likakönade:
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
Om konsekvenserna vid barnadoption:
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount
Om alla våra politikers ansvar:
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided. This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.