Posted on 03/05/2014 9:41:00 AM PST by tomsbartoo
I doubt that he said he would “support” civil unions - probably simply not oppose, since they are purely a civil matter and not something that will affect the Church or its teachings.
BTW, when “civil unions” were first proposed, they were meant to cover any two people living together in a household - could be a mother and adult daughter, for example, or simply two friends - in order to consolidate tax and other matters. That said, of course, the only people who would do them now are gays, and even though they can make of it what they will, it’s still just a civil law formulation and NOT called officially called “marriage.”
Here it is from the original:
Molti Paesi regolano le unioni civili. È una strada che la Chiesa può comprendere? Ma fino a che punto?
«Il matrimonio è fra un uomo e una donna. Gli Stati laici vogliono giustificare le unioni civili per regolare diverse situazioni di convivenza, spinti dall’esigenza di regolare aspetti economici fra le persone, come ad esempio assicurare l’assistenza sanitaria. Si tratta di patti di convivenza di varia natura, di cui non saprei elencare le diverse forme. Bisogna vedere i diversi casi e valutarli nella loro varietà».
He doesn’t say a damned thing about the Church supporting anything, to include “civil unions”. He says the State had various reasons for doing so.
And, of course, Freepers will buy into this line by CNN, hook, line, and sinker.
One or two isolated instances of the Pope’s own words being taken out of context would be believable.
But this guy regularly and routinely comes up with more and more WTF comments, quotes and remarks.
There can be no denying it. He is pro-queer.
I do not believe for two seconds that a Pope said anything like this. Wait for correction.
He’s said it before — like another commenter pointed out — some time ago in Argentina.
The so called “prophecies” attributed to St. Malachi are fake. St. Malachi existed, he was (is) a real saint but the prophecies that he supposedly wrote did not exist until they were “discovered” 400 years later.
Many agree now this infamous line of Popes was cooked up to support a particular man who was vying for the Papacy (again as I’ve posted before, the history of the Church is replete with scandal far worse than anything to flow from Francis’ lips, much of it “pre-conciliar” and yet She still remains)
“Given the very accurate description of popes up to 1590 and lack of accuracy after that year, historians generally conclude that the alleged prophecies are a fabrication written shortly before they were published. The Roman Catholic Church also dismisses them as forgery.[1][2] The prophecies may have been created in an attempt to suggest that Cardinal Girolamo Simoncelli’s bid for the papacy in the second conclave of 1590 was divinely ordained.”
From Wiki: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes
See here for a more scholarly debunking of the “prophecies” if you so desire. http://books.google.com/books?id=qIZVuIhz06cC&hl=en
Put no more stock in these “prophecies” than you would Dan Brown.
Malachi vs Malachy. One an Old Testament prophet, the other not. So certainty vs uncertainty in the prophecy arena.
not really accurate.
“i can support civil unions” isn’t the same as telling people they can secularly do what they want to do. he didn’t have to SUPPORT it.
massive difference.
misquoted, okay thanks. im sitting here eating lunch and shocked at this headline. i’ll bookmark to follow later.
yeah because government policies and laws on social issues never affect the church or christians....
are you serious?!?
did he at least say the church regards the states reasons for doing so to be incorrect or invalid?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/05/us-pope-interview-idUSBREA2410Z20140305
Did he actually say that(I can support civil unions) or is that CNN’s take on what he said? I don’t read or speak Italian so I can’t say with any accuracy. Can you?
You may find this surprising, but you'll get no argument from me there.
There are a lot of fake "prophets" floating around both in history and today, "Catholic" and non-Catholic. The point to remember is that there is no longer any public revelation binding on the Church Universal today. That ended when the Canon was established. That is why the Church even today does not compel Her members to believe in any present day prophecy (such as Fatima, for example). That is private revelation, even though some events associated with it were quite public.
And to be clear, St. Malachi is not considered a false prophet since the prophecies were attributed to him falsely. The forgers that made it up are the false prophets in this case.
I am not surprised. It's Word of God vs 'word' of man/men/unknown source etc. It's a pretty easy choice.
I seem to remember someone in the Bible saying something like, “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and what is God’s unto God.” Christ was not going to be drawn into the morass that was Roman law in the Holy Land. The Jews hated Romans taxes but Christ was perhaps saying we need to worry more about God.
Father Malachi was a sad and strange person, as one would expect a retired exorcist to be much of the time. I used to hear him talk to Art Bell on the radio. There will always be the question on circumstances of his death; did he fall or was he pushed? I used to think he was exaggerating about the Gays seeking to influence every decision or non decision of the Vatican.
Many posters posit the idea that this pope is “misquoted” a great deal. And it seems he is. But perhaps there is a another reason. Just maybe the MSM and liberal media are playing us. By that I mean they are misrepresenting this pope’s words in the effort to perhaps move the discussion to the point where many believe the pontiff does favor these liberal ideas. Remember the big lie. The left uses it to great affect.
Let’s suppose they are using the big lie with this pope? He is new and people are unfamiliar with his ideas. Repeat the lie often enough an voila’ you have your liberal pope that the left wants.
Also by constantly pushing this agenda of agitprop they may think they can move the church into their way of thinking by
making the majority of Catholics think this is church policy. Let’s face it there are elements in the church that want it to be more “democratic.”
Just some thoughts outside the box.
The whole point of this is that if you call it “marriage,” then gays will start demanding that the Church marry them. If it’s a civil union, obviously, the Church couldn’t do it for them in the first place, so this leaves the Church completely outside of it. It’s simply a civil arrangement.
There is no place in which he “supports” this or says he thinks it’s a good thing. But it then becomes a private moral issue for the people involved. This is something the Church might actually be able to point out is NOT the same as a true marriage between one man and one woman, and an simply economic arrangement that is purely the concern of the State.
Gays who identify as such are already living outside of the Church, the society that adores their every little fit of pique is certainly already outside of the Church, and keeping the Church from being dragged into it by calling it
“marriage” is a prudent policy.
However, that horse is already out of the barn. The US calls it “marriage” and believe me, Italian gays are not going to stop at anything less because they see it as a way to destroy the Church.
I think
I am very familiar with that information and have quoted the exact information myself, from wikipedia.
As I said, whether some were forged or not, the latest may be accurate.
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.