Posted on 03/05/2014 2:19:44 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Pope Francis reaffirmed the Catholic Church's opposition to gay marriage on Wednesday, but suggested in a newspaper interview that it could support some types of civil unions.
The Pope reiterated the church's longstanding teaching that "marriage is between a man and a woman." However, he said, "We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety."
States, for instance, justify civil unions as a way to provide economic security to cohabitating couples, the Pope said in a wide-ranging interview published Wednesday in Corriere della Sera, an Italian daily. State-sanctioned unions are thus driven by the need to ensure rights like access to health care, Francis added.
A number of Catholic bishops have supported civil unions for same-sex couples, including Pope Francis when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires in 2010, according to reports in National Catholic Reporter and The New York Time
Pope Francis reaffirmed the Catholic Church's opposition to gay marriage on Wednesday, but suggested in a newspaper interview that it could support some types of civil unions.
The Pope reiterated the church's longstanding teaching that "marriage is between a man and a woman." However, he said, "We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety."
States, for instance, justify civil unions as a way to provide economic security to cohabitating couples, the Pope said in a wide-ranging interview published Wednesday in Corriere della Sera, an Italian daily. State-sanctioned unions are thus driven by the need to ensure rights like access to health care, Francis added.
A number of Catholic bishops have supported civil unions for same-sex couples, including Pope Francis when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires in 2010, according to reports in National Catholic Reporter and The New York Time.
(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...
MORE HERE:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/05/pope-civil-unions/6079507/
Pope Francis leaves door open for same-sex unions
AND HERE:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-pope-francis-open-the-door-to-same-sex-civil-unions/
Did Pope Francis open the door to same-sex civil unions?
More reports here:
Pope Francis: There’s room for non-marital civil unions
AND HERE:
Pope Francis Says Catholic Church May Be Open to Civil Unions
whoooah! Hope he’s being taken out of context.
Male to male sexual contact is a sick and gross sin in any context.
This is appalling.
No he didn’t. It’s an attack on the church. Fingers in your ears brothers WAWAWAWAWAWAWAWA!!!
Why should the church support civil anything??? Render unto God ... let Caesar worry about the rest.
So, Il Papa, what do you say about “common law” marriage (”shacking up”) and pre-marital fornication?
As long as you are opening the floodgates?
/s
Marriage is not only a covenant between one man and one woman, it is an oath before God and witnessed by the respective families, the church, the community and the state.
to be teach against Christ’s teachings or God laws is to be an anti-Christ.
If this is true (and not another distortion by the media) then this “pope” has revealed himself as an anti-Christ
Well, that is officially over.
Headline “Catholic Church willing to accept some evil!”
Once again, his remarks have been taken out of context and spun to mean something he did not say.
RE: Pope Francis reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s opposition to gay marriage on Wednesday, but suggested in a newspaper interview that it could support some types of civil unions.
Not sure how Pope Francis defines the word “support”.
Does it mean simply to “tolerate” but not endorse?
He needs to clarify what he means...
RE: Pope Francis reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s opposition to gay marriage on Wednesday, but suggested in a newspaper interview that it could support some types of civil unions.
Not sure how Pope Francis defines the word “support”.
Does it mean simply to “tolerate” but not endorse?
He needs to clarify what he means...
Disgusting. He will destroy the church with this.
Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?” 38:2
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if you have understanding.” v. 4
Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct Him?
Now I will have MY say: how DARE the pope or anyone else question God! or his righteousness! to try to 2nd guess God's morality is the height of blasphemy!
Has Francis become an Episcopalian?
Guarantee this is a LIE!!! CNN LIES!
RE: Guarantee this is a LIE!!! CNN LIES!
What about the reports from other news sites?
Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
9 Do you have an arm like God’s,
and can your voice thunder like his?
10 Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor,
and clothe yourself in honor and majesty.
11 Unleash the fury of your wrath,
look at all who are proud and bring them low,
12 look at all who are proud and humble them,
crush the wicked where they stand.
13 Bury them all in the dust together;
shroud their faces in the grave.
14 Then I myself will admit to you
that your own right hand can save you.
I think this is where social conservatives made their biggest error, which was in their opposition to civil unions.
No matter what the beliefs about marriage are, and any moral and/or scriptural backing for them, from a framework of secular law for a pluralistic society with respect for separation of church and state, monogamy alone, in one fashion or another is still a preferable condition for any couple, on a number of different levels, beyond all the sciptural and moral reasons for preserving the human historical definition of marriage.
In fact, when it all started, the “gay” movement made the case for civil unions saying “marriage” was not for them. Yes they wanted (and got) civil union laws that provided most or all LEGAL matters equal with marriage, but with no confusion it was not marriage.
But, social conservatives case, and attack, that that amounted to “special rights” switched the debate to a move to change the terms of marriage itself.
It’s not too late, in my view, to get back to that point and get BROAD conservative backing in favor of civil unions. Why? I think the case for that is strong and I think the case for changing the definition of marriage is not as strong as some judges want to make it seem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.