Posted on 03/05/2014 9:41:00 AM PST by tomsbartoo
Pope Francis has said that he could support civil unions between members of the same sex; but could not support same-sex marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...
My wife is Italian so I may ask her to translate for us if a reliable translation doesn't show up. But we are both quite busy, so there may not be time for this foolishness.
The following isn't directed towards you, Jvette, but to anyone who is indeed doing what I describe.
It's been shown time and time again that the press RIPS his comments out of context, so I submit a reasonable person (one without an agenda such as a blindly devoted "traditionalist", to a rabid anti-Catholic, both who apparently hate him just for breathing) should now patiently wait for such a translation/transcript and until then be confident in the conclusion he has been taken out of context, again.
Why is this so difficult for FReepers (especially)'to believe? That a leader of an organization (here the Church) can and WILL be taken out of context, REPEATEDLY, to support a leftist agenda in the media? How many times was Reagan so excoriated? How many times was Sara Palin? Now suddenly, because it's the Pope (apparently) the KNOWN leftist agenda is somehow nonexistent? Not as PERSISTENT as we know it to be in other arenas?
Does Pope Francis share some of the blame for this? YES. He should realize he's no Pope Benedict XVIth and at least be more careful with his words. But it's quite disheartening, to say the least, to see FReepers so willing to gobble up the media's take on the Pope.
THIS IS THE MEDIA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE! Have we learned nothing from websites like Newsbusters, and how REPEATEDLY devoted they are in their pursuit of their agenda, no matter how many times they are exposed?
< /rant >
I was referring to St. Malachi, not Malachi Martin.
When you look up references to the Saint, the “i” vs. “y” thing is inconsistent.
I enjoyed listening to Fr. Martin and still have a couple of his books on my bucket reading list.
I attempted to include much more, but the site prevented me from doing so. Regardless, there was a link to the complete article, and what I had posted was a quote from the article itself. It was not taken out of context and I’m sorry you have suggested that it was.
There is validity to complaints when the pope is taken out of context by the liberal media, but please don’t do the same thing to me. You may not like what he said, and you may wish he had said something else, but this is not a “language” issue––it is a moral issue.
His “clarification” adds or changes nothing. It is a given that the pope cannot say that the sin sodomy is not a sin. But what the pope can do is to cause great confusion, and that is precisely what he is doing. Do you not realize that many other priests and bishops support so-called “same-sex unions”? Do you not realize that they do so without changing one whit of Catholic doctrine? This is precisely what the Modernists did in the Second Vatican Council; they sewed the landscape with utter confusion and ambiguity. Sadly enough, it continues today with the support of many white-hearted Catholics.
But what did Francis say? He said that the Church will have to “look at different cases [of homosexual relationships] and evaluate them” each on their own. He went on to say that states sanction civil unions as a means of providing health care benefits and the like. Can you read that as anything other than supporting homosexual unions under certain circumstances? He seems to be saying that it may not be sinful if the state is tying in “benefits” to homosexuals living in same-sex unions.
But the question is not one of the Church “sanctioning” same-sex unions; it is one of the Church “accepting” them as being legitimate and non-sinful. That is clearly what was being implied if not directly said. If you can read that in some other way, please share that interpretation with me. But the only reasonable way to read what he said is that he believes the Church could support same-sex unions (the sin of sodomy) under the right circumstance.
This Church, and countless souls, are in serious spiritual jeopardy because of the unwillingness of faithful Catholics to stand up and condemn the sinful teachings of Modernist popes and bishops who are leading so many souls to eternal damnation. When Pope Francis is taken out of context by the liberal media (and I’m sure he has been), the record should be corrected. But faithful Catholics defending him when he’s absolutely wrong is, in my view, a much greater error.
Sodomy under what circumstances? Or does it matter?
They may well be, but on the other hand, he himself definitely sends out mixed signals. Is he trying so hard to avoid offending his world-wide audience that he is confusing them all instead?
I don't know about the "sad and strange" but he was an imperfect person, as we all are.
Exactly! Which is why I asked if SAM could speak or read Italian.
Verify! DO NOT TRUST THE SOURCE!
There can be no denying it. He is pro-queer.
I wouldn't go nearly that far, not even close.
But he seems to consistently fail to lay down the (church/natural) law that they have to stop (mortal) sinning before they can be in full communion with the Church. Way too much on the "We'll agree to tolerate your living arrangements and sexual depravity as long as you'll listen to our homilies".
Well thought-out comments.
I hope that the (knee-jerk) papal apologists can begin to discern what is really go on here.
Who would ever have thought than Francis would make us long for the days of Paul VI?
The gates of Hell did not prevail against even the Borgias, who were merely content to loot the temporal treasury of the Church, but Francis is making bold to loot its spiritual treasury with comments like this.
you don’t seem to understand the history of the holy roman empire or the united states. you can’t compartmentalize religious life and secular life. it’s why things degrade and societies that start out based on God’s laws, collapse.
you also forget God instituted government to perform certain functions according to the law of God, Godly justice, Godly protection of the weak - not to be the force to oppose God’s laws.
and, per your example, tax policy isn’t the same kind of issue as a clear moral issue like abortion, or government actively persecuting christians for trying to live their faith in every aspect of their lives when the very Constitution says government cannot restrict a person’s freedom of religion, but they ignore it and do it anyway.
The link in the CNN blog leads to the (apparently) original article yes, but it’s a pay site so can’t be accessed without paying. Quite frankly I’m going to wait until it becomes more publicly available before making any judgements, “pro” or “con”. I’m not going to let CNN’s “faith matters” blogger TELL me what he said and what he meant. I’m going to wait to determine that for myself. And if it’s never possible to determine for myself what he said, I’m going to STILL conclude that the CNN blogger is twisting his words to support the gay agenda. I think that’s pretty reasonable, because I know for a fact how the media operates against conservatives (both fiscal and moral conservatives) everywhere.
Don’t you? Don’t you know how the media operates? Don’t you think it’s reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt to Pope Francis, until (and unless) such a supposition is demonstrated to be incorrect, objectively? Or do you have a previous “reason” to doubt his orthodoxy?
PLEASE! IMPORTANT VATICAN ANNOUNCEMENT:
This is not what El POpe said!!!
This was a bad translation from the Vatican translation team. Really, we consider it a job training program for Rome’s homeless. Be patient. We add new “translators” every week. They use Google translate and then try to smooth it out. You know how Google is! In the meantime, give thanks that these dear people are now off the streets.
Stand up and you will likely be ignored.
Call for removal of Boston pastor who put gay couples at parity with Holy Family As news spreads of the Norwood, MA pastor who preached and published a letter in his bulletin putting homosexual couples on par with the Holy Family and saying we should admire the virtues of same-sex-parent families, calls are growing for the removal of the pastor. Watch the first 4 minutes of this video from ChurchMilitant.tv....
For those who are unaware, Cardinal O'Malley is a member of Pope Francis' "Gang of Eight". Regarding the Garrity, affair, still waiting to hear from the Cardinal...
You have a point, but consider this.
Bob and Steve are married, and have an adopted child. Bob wants that child to got to St Mary’s school, and he is a member of the parish.
How does Father John handle that can of worms if the Pope’s statement is correct? Does he deny Bob communion?
Precisely. And it is perfectly acceptable even as a Catholic to criticize him for that.
What some around here though, are apparently too willing to do, is to equate that carelessness on his part with heterodoxy.
For what twisted, agenda-driven reason only God knows.
Vatican denies pope is open to recognition of gay civil unions
Jan 5, 2014
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/05/us-pope-homosexuals-idUSBREA040BX20140105
The Vatican on Sunday denied Italian media reports that recent comments by Pope Francis signaled his openness to the legal recognition of same-sex unions in Italy.
Francis, in a conversation with leaders of religious orders published by a Jesuit journal on Friday, said the Catholic Church had to try not to scare away children who live in complex family situations, such as those whose parents were separated and those living with gay couples.
Francis gave the example of a little girl in Buenos Aires, his former diocese, who confided to her teacher the reason she was always sad was that “my mother’s girlfriend doesn’t like me”.
The pope told the leaders of religious orders that a great challenge for the Church would be to reach out to children living in difficult or unorthodox domestic situations.
“The situation in which we live now provides us with new challenges which sometimes are difficult for us to understand,” the pope said, according to the transcript of the conversation.
“How can we proclaim Christ to these boys and girls? How can we proclaim Christ to a generation that is changing? We must be careful not to administer a vaccine against faith to them,” he said.
“MANIPULATION”
Italian media on Sunday ran headlines saying the pope’s words were an opening to legal provision for civil unions for gay couples, a subject of debate in Italy.
Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi told Vatican Radio that media interpretations were “paradoxical” and a “manipulation” of the pope’s words, particularly as some media quoted him as speaking specifically of homosexual unions, which he did not.
Lombardi said the pope was merely “alluding to the suffering of children” and not taking a stand on the political debate in Italy.
Since his election in March, however, the pope has avoided repeating the denunciations of homosexuality pronounced by his two immediate predecessors, Benedict XVI and John Paul II.
Last month, The Advocate, the oldest gay rights magazine in the United States, named him ‘Person of the Year’. It hailed as a landmark his response last July to a reporter who asked about gay people in the Church: “If a person is gay and seeks God and has goodwill, who am I to judge?”
The Vatican has stressed the pope’s words did not change Church teachings that homosexual tendencies are not sinful but homosexual acts are.
Still, the gay community and many heterosexuals in the Church have welcomed what they see as a shift in emphasis and a call for the Church to be more compassionate and less damning.
He says the state may have various reasons for doing this, such as for health coverage. In essence, he says that he’d have to look at a specific example before evaluating it.
The point is that he didn’t say anything along the lines of support.
He’s really in an impossible situation here. If he doesn’t condemn all situations other than male / female marriage, then you have a case, like right here, where people are going to say he’s pro homosexual. If he does condemn, then somebody is going to drag a case where a guy has his 80 year old mother on his insurance and claim that he hates widows.
Arthur McGowan pointed this out the other day and he is 100% spot on. This is like in the 60s, when all the spin was that Paul VI was going to OK the pill and was going to approve allowing already ordained priests to marry.
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.