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 ...
I wonder if the Pope was a FReeper. How long could he make remarks like he does before he got the Zot?
if my reply was a rant, then i guess i have higher standards for what a rant is. maybe you can’t handle not everyone agreeing with you.
well others have pointed out things get lost - or twisted - in translation. which it does seem to be a problem with some of the us media outlets with Francis. they do SEEM to want to portray him to be a certain way.
Here is a professional translation:
Many nations have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety.
Everyone knows that "gay" refers to homosexual, and "civil union" is a construct enabling homosexuals to contract a legal arrangement that is similar to marriage. A "civil union" with your mother for insurance reasons is not what everyone is referring to, and for clergy to pretend otherwise and support "civil unions" is pure sophistry.
He goes WAY out of his way -- like taking a hike around the perimeter of Vatican City -- to avoid saying anything condemning of sodomite behavior.
Knock it off.
Pope Francis said there may be “different” circumstances in which the Church might have to “evaluate” same-sex unions, but the only concrete example he gave was in the case of where a state was providing health care benefits conditioned on the two persons of the same sex being involved in a “union” or “marriage”. An “evaluation” by the Church would be to no longer consider it as being sinful.
Of course the pope didn’t say those words exactly, he just implied them. This gives him and the Modernists room to wiggle around if someone tries to pin them down. It also gives his apologists something to hang their hat on when they are placed in the regular position of having to defend something “he really didn’t say”.
The problem that is going on is this. Neither this pope nor any bishop has the spiritual courage to stand up strong and say that practicing homosexuality (or many other sins of the flesh) are mortal sins. It’s really as simple as that. If they did, all of these issues would be put to rest. Instead, they say nothing about the sinfulness, so they can never be “quoted” as saying that a particular act or behavior was not sinfull. Consequently, Catholics (and others) walk away trying to figure it our for themselves as to whether something is a sin or not. Understandably, more often than not they conclude it is not sinful.
The evidence of this can be found in the most recent Gallup poll (yesterday, I believe) on homosexual marriages. The finding was that over 50% (I believe the number was 52%) of Catholics support homosexual marriages! Now think about that. This Catholics will be teaching their children and grandchildren that God has no problem with sodomy. This does not have a good ending.
Thanks for posting. A very interesting read in it’s entirety not only the quote in question.
How anyone can get from “Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety.”
To “the Pope could support civil unions” (implying of course the Pope could support civil unions between homosexuals), is beyond me. Honestly, to conclude that would be reading entirely different words into what he said.
” and “civil union” is a construct enabling homosexuals to contract a legal arrangement that is similar to marriage.”
Actually, a woman I work with who has been living with her significant other (male, BTW) used the provisions of Maryland’s former civil union statute to get on her boyfriend’s insurance. Saved them both money.
A guy I go to Mass with is divorced and lives with his girlfriend. He goes to daily Mass and, by the way, never goes up to receive Holy Communion. If I’m not mistaken, he’s on her insurance using that same provision. Strange situation, but I’ve got to respect him for going to Mass while respecting that he is not to receive.
I haven’t looked at all state laws, but where I looked (NV and CO), the law doesn’t specify sex. Yes, we all know why they were put in place, but some people have taken advantage of their existence for purposes other than why they were enacted.
And you don’t think the queer lobby wouldn’t trot exceptions like the above out? Particularly if they could find one where there is cancer or some disability? Are you that naive?
So what if they did? The cases you cited are arrangements also considered immoral by the Catholic Church. I thought the clergy were supposed to oppose living in sin, period. Civil unions are immoral arrangements, aren't they? So what's the problem with the pope coming out and saying so?
The only thing I could maybe agree with (as far as criticism goes) is that he could have added something like “But the Church could never agree there could be a civil union between a homosexual couple” at the end of :
“Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety.”
But here, one could also say two things: 1. He started off, right off the bat, saying “marriage is between a man and a woman”, so for him to, essentially, restate that at the end of what he said would be repeating himself.
2. More generally speaking, if we’re going to go down this road, then why shouldn’t he have also said, “the Church in no way agrees there should be civil unions between any un-married couple, homosexual or otherwise.”
Well, to me I think the answer is clear: I think prof.h.mandingo made a good point when he said that this pope seems to assume too much traditional Catholic knowledge on the part of his audience. That is, he assumes everyone already knows the Church doesn’t approve of any kind of civil union, for the purposes of sexual gratification, homosexual or heterosexual (because remember, it’s also a sin for a heterosexual couple to live together as husband and wife without getting married)
Also, the point of the question was not to get him to comment on civil unions between homosexuals, but on civil unions generally speaking. Again, the question asked, “Many nations have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?”
This doesn’t say “Many nations have regulated HOMOSEXUAL civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?” (Emphasis added) it’s just “civil unions”. You have to realize, in places like Italy for example, there’s not only raging debate about homosexual civil unions but actually in Italy for example, there are a LOT of HETEROSEXUAL couples who only get civilly “married”. A lot more than here. Many heterosexual people get the unions some for economic benefit but others because they just don’t like church teaching, and want to be “married” outside the church.
So like he said simply, it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. If there’s a real need there (such as a couple gets a civil union so as to preserve some economic benefit, from tax benefit to health benefit) then the Pope would probably be all for it. (As long as they don’t live as husband and wife) But if they are doing so as a substitute for marriage, living as man and wife after only a civil union, he’d be against it. And of course he’s against homosexual civil unions for the purposes of sexual gratification.
Why do I conclude this? Or how? Because he’s the Pope! And again, most likely what prof.h.mandingo said about him is right: he seems to assume his audience is more familiar with Church teaching than they are. That, and also he has an incredible emphasis (and apparent devotion towards) charity. Which is a good thing. Something we should all strive for during Lent. At least.
I'm still hopeful that they won't explicitly teach their children that. But remaining silent while the public schools teach them amounts to the same thing.
Pope Francis leaves door open for same-sex unions
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/05/pope-civil-unions/6079507/
IMO it is just odd, so many Unrepentant Sinners love this Pope...Jesus made a point of saying..”If they hated me they will hate you*
2 Times now the Doves when released from the Vatican were attacked...
Peace has been taken from the earth, and the False Prophet and the Beast will be revealed...
‘But this guy regularly and routinely comes up with more and more WTF comments, quotes and remarks.’
FRANK NEEDS TO COME OUT WITH A NO HOLDS BARRED PAPEL ENCYCLICAL ENTITLED..’ ALL YE PEOPLES GO FORTH AND BACK AMERICA THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH TO THE HILT’ IN IT HE NEEDS TO ESPOUSE AMERICA’S ROLE AS GOD’S SHINING EXAMPLE AND HER ROLE AS EARTHLY PEACEKEEPER. ALSO HE NEEDS TO THROW IN A COUPLE OF HARD HITTING PARAGRAPHS LAUDING PROPERTY RIGHTS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND EVERYTHING WRITTEN BY THOS. JEFFERSON.....
FRANK YOU HAVE YOUR MARCHING ORDERS.....’GIT ‘ER DONE’ LAD ‘GIT ‘ER DONE’
The Pope of Satan I guess. This guy is going to bring down the Church Christ started, or at least he will try.
Look for lots of lightening and second coming action on the Church and the Satanic influence within.
That is the problem many Priest are running into today.
Statements like that in the article (which is more likely misrepresented and out of context) are providing a huge headache to those on the ground.
It was a lame joke (my name is Steve).
- The liberal, secular press does its best to distort the pope's statements for propagandistic benefit.
- The pope's statements (even in Italian/Portuguese) are unnecessarily vague and misleading making the above easy.
- The devil also can make use of the pope's inept communications for his own purposes .
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.