Posted on 10/29/2020 2:43:19 AM PDT by Cronos
As protests against a near-total ban on abortions gripped Poland, Pope Francis urged the people of the country to defend life.
Addressing Polish pilgrims during his weekly general audience Oct. 28, the pope invoked the memory of St. John Paul II, who “always urged a privileged love for the least and the defenseless and for the protection of every human being, from conception to natural death.”
The pope prayed, through the intercession of Mary and of St. John Paul, that God would “arouse in everyone’s hearts respect for the life of our brothers and sisters, especially of the most fragile and defenseless, and would give strength to those who welcome and take care of them, even when it requires a heroic love.”
Poland’s Constitutional Court ruled Oct. 22 that a clause in Poland’s 1993 abortion law allowing pregnancy terminations in cases of “severe and irreparable fetal damage” was unconstitutional.
The decision provoked outrage from some women’s rights groups in the country against the governing Law and Justice party, as well as against the Catholic Church.
Demonstrators entered churches during Masses Oct. 25 in Warsaw, Krakow, Poznan and other cities to protest the court’s ruling, drawing criticism from the Polish bishops’ conference.
Acknowledging that the ruling “has caused unusually emotional reactions,” Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki of Poznan, conference president, said in a statement Oct. 25 that “the vulgarities, abusive daubings, service disruptions and profanations seen in recent days are not a proper form of action in a democratic state, however much they may help certain people relieve their emotions.”
While appealing for dialogue “on how to protect the right to life and women’s rights,” Gadecki said that the church’s stance on abortion is “unchanging and publicly known.”
“The church cannot stop defending life or give up proclaiming the need to protect every human being from conception to natural death,” he said. “On this question, we can accept no compromise.”
Calling for homosexual civil unions, so he’s already supporting abortion.
Been a long time since a pope was assassinated. Just sayin’.
let’s be specific, nick - he didn’t “call for” anything. It was an off-hand remark in an interview - the text was spliced and edited out, putting sentences that weren’t together, together.
So you think he will be assassinated over his support for life?
That’s a load of BS!
I thought it was a document. But he’s done things by trial balloon before. Civil unions are already a dead issue.
LOL. I see we still have posters here who still have their heads firmly entrenched in the sand.
If true, which it is not, why hasn't Bergoglio made a public correction, Cronos?
Firstly - I’m not in Pope Francis’ board of confidantes.
Secondly - it is true - that’s already verified that this was
1. an off-hand remark
2. there were two interviews
3. the sentences were spliced and edited
Now as to why he hasn’t made a public correction is a separate point and does NOT negate any of the above FACTS.
1. The interview from which the film clips of Pope Francis are in the news today is actually from Late May/June 2019. (youtube link)
2. The first clip, when speaking of a "right to a family," very clearly means that parents shouldn't disown their gay children.
3. The 2nd clip, which was spliced into the (apparent) documentary clip, does NOT appear anywhere in the aired interview/transcript. But the film places the two clips together to create the appearance that PF was endorsing same sex "convivencia civil" in a very broad sense
.Either way, we have no context whatsoever for that clip – it could very well be about Amoris Laetia for all we know! 4. At 1:00:06 there is a jump in the clip in a context that makes the comment even remotely probable. The clip wasn't aired, I venture to guess, because it was liable to be taken out of context or very easily misunderstood – likely at the request of PF or the Vatican. But that's also general speculation on my part. (Moreover, PF also spoke against the "incongruity" of same sex marriage right around the cut.)
5. So where did that clip on civil unions appear from? Seems unlikely that the Televisa station would secretly hold that clip from a long interview to spring up now. So how did the documentarian get it? Clearly he's also using it in widely deceptive framing
----------
he interview lack a reference to civil unions for homosexuals. It seems most likely it was cut after about 1:00:08. At this point he is critiquing the problems with “gay marriage,” then there is a cut almost mid-sentence to another topic. I suspect someone asked then that this clip be removed to avoid being taking out of context, but the documentary filmmakers found the unedited video and then took this line out of context. The exact words before the cut are: “I always defended the doctrine, right? Curiously, in the ‘gay marriage’ law, I always defended [doctrine]: ‘gay marriage’ is incongruous.” If the quote above (“What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered.”) came right after or soon after that – especially if proceeded by a phrase like “instead” – it is clear the goal is civil unions instead of “gay marriage.”
p>Gerard O’Connell got the precise transcript for America. (Red is the original 2019 interview and green is the documentary released this week.)
I have always defended the doctrine. And it is curious that in the law on homosexual marriage…. It is an incongruity to speak of homosexual marriage. But what we have to have is a law of civil union (ley de convivencia civil), so they have the right to be legally covered.
You will notice only “but” is not in either. I had guess “instead” which in this context means almost the same thing. We can clearly see Pope Francis is putting these two in opposition. (Side note: Gerald and I translate slightly differently, but this is clearly the same text and I think Gerald’s translation is fine.)
You will notice only “but” is not in either. I had guess “instead” which in this context means almost the same thing. We can clearly see Pope Francis is putting these two in opposition. (Side note: Gerald and I translate slightly differently, but this is clearly the same text and I think Gerald’s translation is fine.)
Gerald’s story indicates that cutting out the black and green above would have been with Francis’s permission as “as a matter of general principle, the Vatican did not edit or remove any part of what Francis said in the interview without his prior agreement.”
Also, the same story indicates the documentary filmmaker lied about the context. He claimed it was an interview he conducted when it has been shown to be this 2019 interview for Mexican television.
This was a documentary that spliced together random sentences from two different interviews.
It would be like you saying "I agree with you that we completely and utterly oppose gay marriage as that is against God's law. However I do believe that gay children should not be thrown out of families but encouraged not to sin and to pray to God not to sin as they need a family"
And someone editing out everything but the bold portions.
I oppose civil unions and campaign against them.
Also of recent years I've realized that with gays we cannot give an inch as it just gets more and more until "unless you openly shout out your support for them, you are against them" -- so now I say I support the delegalization of homosexuality. Make it illegal like in Victorian times.
Your first link is not in English and you’re second link is broken.
Proof that Pope Francis’ comments approving of gay civil unions were translated accurately
It’s an irrefutable fact Pope Francis is in favor of same-sex civil unions.
So every prelate that has called him out on this was.....wrong. Mmmmmkay.
I don't know which prelates called Pope Francis out on what exactly
But if they called him out on saying ANYTHING positive even off-hand about civil unions they are correct - he should have not said anything positive even in an off-hand comment about civil unions.
However if they "called him out" (and I'd suggest you post what exactly they said about what exactly) on any "declaration" - they are wrong, he didn't "declare" anything.
I agree that Francis should leave, but on this particular matter, get the facts right
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.