‘If this is what the legislation would provide for, I think we can live with that.’ '''
"I added, ‘If you fool around with the whole nature of marriage, then you are doing something which affects the whole culture and denigrates what is so important for us. Marriage is the basic foundation of our family structure and if we lose that, then I think we become a society that is in real trouble.’"
“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."
However, I believe the confusion is about his narrow scope of defining our acceptance of what we're able to "live with". Any legal word manipulation that gives the appearance that adultery and/or preferences with sexual pleasures are new classifications of race that are gentic mutations of humanity is unacceptable.
I realized that my words could have given the wrong impression to someone who did not take my remarks in context.
There is no other context.
If new legisltation were advancing that made civil rights classifications for masturbators, the absurdity of what he is saying we are willing as Roman Catholics to "live with" would be ever so clear.