Bishop Schneider to Pope Francis: For the Sake of Your Soul, Retract Approval of Same-Sex Civil Unions

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
upant said:
Yet, he hasn’t said anything to counter the media’s claim
Click to expand...
You don’t give them the benefit of the doubt especially when they peddle it as a change in Church teaching.
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
What claim? The claim that the Pope supports civil unions - that is true. Is there some other media claim that is troubling you?
Click to expand...
The RSS feeds show all kinds of support for the popes acceptance of gay unions, even those trying to explain it away are causing confusion
VanitasVanitatum said:
You don’t give them the benefit of the doubt especially when they peddle it as a change in Church teaching.
Click to expand...
It is the scandal it is causing that is the issue, that is why it needs to be clarified
 
They said Church teaching was not changing so at the core that should be kept in mind.
 
TMC said:
Has it? There was a CDF document. Many Catholics on this forum do not even accept encyclicals as “official,” some deny that even councilar documents are “official,” some go so far as to call parts of the Catechism optional, but a note from the Pope’s staff is binding teaching?
Click to expand...
Ive not mentioned binding teaching. There have been a number of “official” statements put out by the church. A number on the authority of the Pope of the day.
TMC said:
I think he has been pretty explicit
Click to expand...
Perhaps you feel that way because you agree with him? A couple of sentences made at two different time points, glued together and quoted in a documentary? If he wants to retract the prior official written statements, I think he needs to do a little more.
 
upant said:
48.png
Motherwit:
I’m wise, scholarly and holy enough to know better than all the Popes about things,
Click to expand...
That is the rub, his statement goes against other documents. It isn’t just someone claiming they know better
Click to expand...
That’s right. On occasions, Francis 1 seems to take positions in opposition to prior Popes. And he does it in a superficial, confusion-generating manner, and then moves on. Anyone remember Zika ?
 
Rau said:
Ive not mentioned binding teaching. There have been a number of “official” statements put out by the church. A number on the authority of the Pope of the day.
Click to expand...
So what is your point? You agree that there is no binding teaching on this point, but still somehow think the Pope is violating that non-existent teaching?
Rau said:
Perhaps you feel that way because you agree with him? A couple of sentences made at two different time points, glued together and quoted in a documentary? If he wants to retract the prior official written statements, I think he needs to do a little more.
Click to expand...
I think it is explicit because it is explicit, and its not just two sentences glued together, whatever that is supposed to mean. This has been his consistent position for many years.
 
TMC said:
So what is your point? You agree that there is no binding teaching on this point, but still somehow think the Pope is violating that non-existent teaching?
Click to expand...
Stop making up stuff. I’ve said no such thing. What I have said is that the Church, on authority of prior Popes has issued clear, thought out and unambiguous statements defining a basis for rejection of civil unions and similar arrangements. If this Pope wants to retract those, he should adopt a similarly formal means to do so.
TMC said:
I think it is explicit because it is explicit, and its not just two sentences glued together, whatever that is supposed to mean.
Click to expand...
Now I understand. You’re not reading the material posted on the thread. You weren’t aware that the “statement” reported by the media was not a single utterance, but two quite separate utterances, from two widely separated time points, and thus conveyed a meaning he did not intend (about family). Regardless - he is supporting civil unions to some degree, hence my prior point remains.
 
Rau said:
Stop making up stuff. I’ve said no such thing. What I have said is that the Church, on authority of prior Popes has issued clear, thought out and unambiguous statements defining a basis for rejection of civil unions and similar arrangements. If this Pope wants to retract those, he should adopt a similarly formal means to do so.
Click to expand...
OK, now you are just confusing me. I said there is no binding Church authority on this topic. You said that you never said there was. I know that the CDF opined on the topic during the JPII papacy, but that is not Church teaching - I thought we agreed on that?
Rau said:
Now I understand. You’re not reading the material posted on the thread. You weren’t aware that the “statement” reported by the media was not a single utterance, but two quite separate utterances, from two widely separated time points, and thus conveyed a meaning he did not intend (about family). Regardless - he is supporting civil unions to some degree, hence my prior point remains.
Click to expand...
No, I am reading the material posted on the thread. I am aware that the Pope’s statement was edited twice - once by the Vatican to remove his statement altogether, and once by a filmmaker to arguably make his statement seem stronger than it was. But, at the end of the day, there is no question that the Pope unambiguously spoke in favor of civil unions for gay people. The Vatican clarification said as much - that the Pope was referring to state sanctioned unions, but not to sacramental marriage. Again, this has been the Pope’s position for many years, so no one should be surprised by it.
 
Rau said:
You are having a difficulty following - I’m afraid I can’t help you further.
Click to expand...
Please don’t take the cheap route of simply claiming I am too dumb to understand you, its beneath both of us.

Let me agree with you to a certain degree. I agree that it would be better if the Pope put out something that laid out his position more formally, like the old CDF statement. I don’t think he is obliged to, and I don’t think that the fact that he has not changes the reality of what he said and what that means. But it would be better.
 
TMC said:
Let me agree with you to a certain degree. I agree that it would be better if the Pope put out something that laid out his position more formally, like the old CDF statement.
Click to expand...
Wow. Now you demonstrate you really did understand!
 
upant said:
48.png
mary77:
The Pope is not condoning same sex behavior.
Click to expand...
Where has he condemned it as sin?
farronwolf said:
For non Catholics, it can be done at the JP’s office and is a simple paper indicating a legal contract between the two. IE civil union.
Click to expand...
Isn’t the sex act even between heterosexuals in civil unions still a sin? That is the issue

Civil unions foster sin
Click to expand...
So why isn’t the Church thunderously demanding Catholics not support governments or politicians that advocate legal recognition of such oposite-sex civil unions?

Not every sin has to be condemned or penalised.by secular aw as well
 
Last edited:
LilyM said:
So why isn’t the Church thunderously demanding Catholics not support governments or politicians that advocate legal recognition of such oposite-sex civil unions?
Click to expand...
Good question? Some bishops and clergy are, many aren’t. but that doesn’t make the sin okay. Why didn’t the church call out supporters of abortion, the bishops preeminent cause? Why make it preeminent if it means nothing?
LilyM said:
Not every sin has to be condemned or penalised.by secular aw as well
Click to expand...
The concern isn’t secular law but the eternal salvation of the person.

What kind of believer would we be if we allow a person to continue in sin to the detriment of their eternal life? If a person truly believes as ST Paul wrote that these people will forfeit heaven if they don’t repent, how can we not try to help them see the errors of their actions? If we don’t believe the Bible is right in this verse what other verses are wrong and why follow the Bible at all.
 
LilyM said:
Not every sin has to be condemned or penalised.by secular aw as well
Click to expand...
But they shouldn’t be supported.
upant said:
What kind of believer would we be if we allow a person to continue in sin to the detriment of their eternal life?
Click to expand...
Well that likely isn’t going to happen because of the law.
 
Last edited:
‘The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.’

Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, signed by His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, June 2003.

Prayer for the Holy Father:
  • V. Let us pray for our Sovereign Pontiff N.
  • R. The Lord preserve him and give him life, and make him blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not up to the will of his enemies.
Partial Indulgence

Our Faith is not one of contradictions. Previous doctrinal rulings can be expanded upon and have new light shed upon them, but cannot be contradicted. The words of the Holy Father spoken in an informal situation carry no doctrinal weight.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top