Pope approves of same sex civil unions

[sdifox]

Pope Francis is alright in my books.

 

[Puffnstuff]

now that is funny@@!!! Church sponsored....says who?

Well they are paying for it aren't they? Isn't that a form of sponsorship?

 

[Ajay]

Well they are paying for it aren't they? Isn't that a form of sponsorship?

Lol, just punishment != sponsorship.

 

[Ajay]

Pope Francis’ homosexuality comments heavily edited in documentary, no Vatican comment on civil unions

www.catholicworldreport.com

CNA has bolded the appearance of those words in an excerpted translation of the pope’s remarks during his 2019 interview:


“I was asked a question on a flight – after it made me mad, made me mad for how one news outlet transmitted it – about the familial integration of people with homosexual orientation, and I said, homosexual people have a right to be in the family, people with homosexual orientation have a right to be in the family and parents have the right to recognize that son as homosexual, that daughter as homosexual. Nobody should be thrown out of the family, or be made miserable because of it.”

Well, that's just a clarification of existing teaching. What a freaking mess the media has made out of this.

 

[Ajay]

TBH, what I want him to do is say abortion is AOK. Woman's choice.

That would violate the core principles of the church. The Catholic church would be the salt that lost its flavor; as Jesus taught. In other words, the Church would cease to be the Church.

 

[Muse]

That would violate the core principles of the church. The Catholic church would be the salt that lost its flavor; as Jesus taught. In other words, the Church would cease to be the Church.

no comprendo. It would be the church that changed. BFD. We all change. If we don't, we're good as granite, no more.

 

[Ajay]

no comprendo. It would be the church that changed. BFD. We all change. If we don't, we're good as granite, no more.

The 5th commandments - thou shall not kill. The Church cannot be in opposition to its own teachings. The Church does change - in its understanding of what these teachings mean, for example, abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy is allowed because it is clearly not a viable pregnancy. The embryo cannot be brought to term and the mother will suffer severe health consequences, including death. This is a case where developments in science helped the church understand the whole substance of the issue.

 

[Muse]

The 5th commandments - thou shall not kill. The Church cannot be in opposition to its own teachings. The Church does change - in its understanding of what these teachings mean, for example, abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy is allowed because it is clearly not a viable pregnancy. The embryo cannot be brought to term and the mother will suffer severe health consequences, including death. This is a case where developments in science helped the church understand the whole substance of the issue.

I'm sorry, but the 10 commandments cannot be the bedrock of our society. Yes, they have a lot of gravitas, but what judge would write an opinion quoting a biblical commandment as the basis of their reasoning? This is the 21st century and we are faced with existential crises. Survival is paramount, not ancient scripture of dubious origination.

Edit: The persons (probably a single person) who created the 10 commandments had something completely different in mind than abortion with the thou shalt not kill edict. Using that to justify Papal anti-abortion stance is outright prevarication. The pope could say so and not raise many eyebrows.

 

[Ajay]

Papal anti-abortion stance is outright prevarication. The pope could say so and not raise many eyebrows.

There is not 'Papal' anti-abortion stance. The Church, in her teaching, rejects abortion as an acceptable human choice in almost all cases. The pope, as the leader of the faith, is ordained to promulgate such truths, not arbitrarily depose of them on a whim. I don't think you understand the structure of the Church or it's why is was founded by Christ. You are free to disagree, but you may want to read up a bit, if you care to have such debates.

 

[senseamp]

Good to see the Catholic Church finally accept that sex us not only for priest and altar boy.

 

[Cozarkian]

So did God have a bad policy and decide to change it, or were all the other Popes ignorant of God's will?

 

[Muse]

There is not 'Papal' anti-abortion stance. The Church, in her teaching, rejects abortion as an acceptable human choice in almost all cases. The pope, as the leader of the faith, is ordained to promulgate such truths, not arbitrarily depose of them on a whim. I don't think you understand the structure of the Church or it's why is was founded by Christ. You are free to disagree, but you may want to read up a bit, if you care to have such debates.

What you call truth is anything but. You are a true believer. You accept things on faith and insist they're true when they don't deserve it.
This:

 

[Ajay]

What you call truth is anything but.

Nice attempt at pigeonholing me. You do not, in fact, know who I am and what I believe.
Have a nice Day Muse.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Nice attempt at pigeonholing me. You do not, in fact, know who I am and what I believe.
Have a nice Day Muse.

your posting history is a factual record of what you believe! Are you claiming that your posts do not reflect your true beliefs?
It seems to me that you know little if anything about what the Pope actually said it the implications of what the Pope said....
A Civil Union is quite a bit different than endorsing Gay Marriage!

Pope Francis indicates support for same-sex civil unions

"They are children of God and have a right to a family," Pope Francis says in a new documentary.

www.bbc.com

Pope Francis has said that he thinks same-sex couples should be allowed to have "civil unions".
He made the comments, which observers say are his clearest remarks yet on gay relationships, in a documentary directed by Evgeny Afineevsky.
"Homosexual people have a right to be in a family," he said in the film, which premiered on Wednesday.
"They are children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or made miserable over it.
"What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered."
He added that he "stood up for that", apparently referring to his time as Archbishop of Buenos Aires when, although opposing same-sex marriages in law, he supported some legal protections for same-sex couples.

 

[Ajay]

your posting history is a factual record of what you believe! Are you claiming that your posts do not reflect your true beliefs?
It seems to me that you know little if anything about what the Pope actually said it the implications of what the Pope said....
A Civil Union is quite a bit different than endorsing Gay Marriage!

Feel free to summarize what you think I believe base on my posting history. I have made no such claim, what I write here is often the influenced by my immediate emotional reaction to some news event - and not what I believe after careful reflection. Think of me what you may vis-a-vis what the Pope said, and it's implications. As to Bergoglio's commentary on civil unions, the shortest summary I could find is excerpted here from cruxnow.com:

In A Future of Faith: The Path of Change in Politics and Society, a book-length series of conversations with the French sociologist Dominique Wolton, the two spoke about gay marriage and civil unions in the context of a discussion about tradition, modernity and truth.

“‘Marriage’ is a historical word,” the pope said, in the book published in French in 2017. “Forever, throughout humanity and not only in the church, it’s been between a man and a woman. You can’t change it just like that. It’s the nature of things. That’s how they are. So, let’s call them ‘civil unions.'”

In a 2014 interview published in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, Pope Francis was asked about moves across Europe to legalize gay marriage or adopt civil union laws.

“Marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said. “Secular states want to validate civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, driven by the need to regulate economic aspects between people, such as ensuring health care. These are cohabitation pacts of various kinds, of which I could not list the different forms.”

“It is necessary to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety,” he said, implying that some forms of civil unions would be acceptable.

According to The Great Reformer, a biography of Pope Francis by Austen Ivereigh, then-Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio went head-to-head with the government in 2010 when it began a drive to legalize gay marriage.

“He told a Catholic gay activist, a former theology professor named Marcelo Marquez, that he favored gay rights as well as legal recognition for civil unions,” Ivereigh wrote. “But he was utterly opposed to any attempt to redefine marriage in law.”


The future pope, the book continued, “had not raised strong objections to a 2002 civil unions law that applied only to Buenos Aires and that granted rights to any two people cohabitating for more than two years, independent of their gender or sexual orientation. He regarded it as a purely civic, legal arrangement that left marriage unaffected.”

The difference is Pastoral behavior vs the Church's teaching authority.

To be clear, I have a sister-in-law who is married to another woman and a nephew (my Godson) who is in a committed gay relationship. I love them both. I have never nor do I reject them. They both know my stance on their relationships. Their partners were never Catholic, and have issues with the views of our catholic family members, that's unfortunate. For whatever reasons (science hasn't found a definitive answer yet), some people are attracted to the same sex - nothing I can do about that. I choose not to have any animus towards homosexuals, what would be the use of that.

 

[ralfy]

To recap, here's the context of what Pope Francis said before the quote shared in the feature: "...homosexual people have a right to be in the family, people with homosexual orientation have a right to be in the family and parents have the right to recognize that son as homosexual, that daughter as homosexual. Nobody should be thrown out of the family, or be made miserable because of it.”"

What, then, does he mean by "civil union law." According to Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, it's "'"civil union" [unión civil] or "law of civil coexistence" [ley de convivencia civil], not marriage.'”

 

[JEDIYoda]

To recap, here's the context of what Pope Francis said before the quote shared in the feature: "...homosexual people have a right to be in the family, people with homosexual orientation have a right to be in the family and parents have the right to recognize that son as homosexual, that daughter as homosexual. Nobody should be thrown out of the family, or be made miserable because of it.”"

What, then, does he mean by "civil union law." According to Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, it's "'"civil union" [unión civil] or "law of civil coexistence" [ley de convivencia civil], not marriage.'”

Exactly!! But some posters on these forums only reacted to what they be;lieved the Pope said and not to the facts as you presented them!!!

 

[1prophet]

To recap, here's the context of what Pope Francis said before the quote shared in the feature: "...homosexual people have a right to be in the family, people with homosexual orientation have a right to be in the family and parents have the right to recognize that son as homosexual, that daughter as homosexual. Nobody should be thrown out of the family, or be made miserable because of it.”"

What, then, does he mean by "civil union law." According to Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, it's "'"civil union" [unión civil] or "law of civil coexistence" [ley de convivencia civil], not marriage.'”

Churches coffers must be running low so this pope is trying to get some of that gay money without actually accepting their lifestyle but burdening his parishioners to do so.


Nothing more than weasel words by a pope that likes to play both sides of the fence on the very issues that the Catholic Church created itself, they are the ones that indoctrinated all these families to shun homosexuality and now he throws the burden back on them to accept homosexuality while the Catholic Church still considers it a grave sin, if he was truly genuine he would say he believes it should be removed from the list of official sins while advocating for change in Church doctrine over women priests and women's rights over their bodies.

 

[Ajay]

To recap, here's the context of what Pope Francis said before the quote shared in the feature: "...homosexual people have a right to be in the family, people with homosexual orientation have a right to be in the family and parents have the right to recognize that son as homosexual, that daughter as homosexual. Nobody should be thrown out of the family, or be made miserable because of it.”"

What, then, does he mean by "civil union law." According to Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, it's "'"civil union" [unión civil] or "law of civil coexistence" [ley de convivencia civil], not marriage.'”

This first part does reinforce Catholic teaching, and is necessary to move the laity to loving acceptance (without condoning). But in some church documents, active homosexuality is equated with 'deviant' acts. Unfortunately, the word deviant tends towards shunning and shame - which is psychologically harmful. The allegory of Jesus not breaking off a bent reed comes to mind.

As to the second part, for many theologians and bishops, the promotion of civil unions over marriage is a distinction without difference. Hence the rejection of incorporation into church teaching.

Edit: Dyslexic I guess.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Churches coffers must be running low so this pope is trying to get some of that gay money without actually accepting their lifestyle but burdening his parishioners to do so.


Nothing more than weasel words by a pope that likes to play both sides of the fence on the very issues that the Catholic Church created itself, they are the ones that indoctrinated all these families to shun homosexuality and now he throws the burden back on them to accept homosexuality while the Catholic Church still considers it a grave sin, if he was truly genuine he would say he believes it should be removed from the list of official sins while advocating for change in Church doctrine over women priests and women's rights over their bodies.

It wouldn`t matter to people like you what the Pope said! You would put your own conoluted spin on it! I bet your voting for Trump...

 

[JEDIYoda]

This first part does reinforce Catholic teaching, and is necessary to move the laity to loving acceptance (without condoning). But in some church documents, active homosexuality is equated with 'deviant' acts. Unfortunately, the word deviant tends towards shunning and shame - which is psychologically harmful. The allegory of Jesus not breaking off a bent reed comes to mind.

As to the second part, for many theologians and bishops, the promotion of civil unions over marriage is a difference without distinction. Hence the rejection of incorporation into church teaching.

That is so full of Bull shit I am sure you have no clue other than you are trying to bail yourself out of your total lack of understanding on the subject!

 

[JEDIYoda]

This first part does reinforce Catholic teaching, and is necessary to move the laity to loving acceptance (without condoning). But in some church documents, active homosexuality is equated with 'deviant' acts. Unfortunately, the word deviant tends towards shunning and shame - which is psychologically harmful. The allegory of Jesus not breaking off a bent reed comes to mind.

As to the second part, for many theologians and bishops, the promotion of civil unions over marriage is a difference without distinction. Hence the rejection of incorporation into church teaching.

That is so full of Bull shit I am sure you have no clue other than you are trying to bail yourself out of your total lack of understanding on the subject!

 

[Ajay]

That is so full of Bull shit I am sure you have no clue other than you are trying to bail yourself out of your total lack of understanding on the subject!

So, are you a catholic? Otherwise, wtf are you droning on about vis-a-vis my bullshit. No specifics, again. I'm also not talking about how people behaved or what they believed 50 years ago. There is a difference in what constitutes the magisterial teaching of the church and what is popularly believed.

 

[ralfy]

Churches coffers must be running low so this pope is trying to get some of that gay money without actually accepting their lifestyle but burdening his parishioners to do so.


Nothing more than weasel words by a pope that likes to play both sides of the fence on the very issues that the Catholic Church created itself, they are the ones that indoctrinated all these families to shun homosexuality and now he throws the burden back on them to accept homosexuality while the Catholic Church still considers it a grave sin, if he was truly genuine he would say he believes it should be removed from the list of official sins while advocating for change in Church doctrine over women priests and women's rights over their bodies.

Not weasel words but the rest of the speech that wasn't mentioned. That also means he wasn't playing both sides of the fences or indoctrinating anyone. Read the article for more details.

The rest of your post is wrong for the same reasons: there is nothing in the speech that called for removing homosexuality as a sin.

 

[ralfy]

This first part does reinforce Catholic teaching, and is necessary to move the laity to loving acceptance (without condoning). But in some church documents, active homosexuality is equated with 'deviant' acts. Unfortunately, the word deviant tends towards shunning and shame - which is psychologically harmful. The allegory of Jesus not breaking off a bent reed comes to mind.

As to the second part, for many theologians and bishops, the promotion of civil unions over marriage is a distinction without difference. Hence the rejection of incorporation into church teaching.

Edit: Dyslexic I guess.

The rest of the speech does not even refer to "active homosexuality" or even refer to "civil unions over marriage."