On Gay Unions, a Pragmatist Before He Was a Pope

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCRanger03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Robyn_p said:
… You’re right, papers are going to twist whatever he said or did into their own agenda.
Instead of worrying about what he might have said to an anonymous source “behind the scenes” lets focus on what he’s actually done. And so far from just the last week…I love him!😃
Click to expand...
Amen!
 
I agree with Bishop Chaput’s opinion on gay civil unions - basically…NO.
 
The Vatican needs to be all over this stuff, and be ready to clarify and reject when necessary. When the whole “Dirty Wars” attack was unleashed last week, the Vatican jumped on top of it. Why let something like this simmer? Either he supported them or he didn’t.

I think that advocating for them is a tremendously bad idea, although there might be some moral wiggle room if it was a stop-gap measure to stop same-sex marriage. Even then it doesn’t seem right. Either way, I hope the Pope deals with the issue with candor and clarity.

There is so much stuff out there about what the new pope believes about a whole variety of issues. I agree that a lot of it is just the secular media’s crazy-talk. Nevertheless, I was reading today a biography of St. Josemaria Escriva, who was dismayed at the media’s hijacking of Vatican II. The media basically built a narrative around Vatican II that actually persists today–one of heterodox reform and progressivism.

If the Vatican just shrugs its shoulders at the secular media, then the impression will be that Pope Francis was a “pragmatist” on gay rights and that the Church is changing its views on homosexuality. Does that not concern anyone else?

I trust God very much that the magesterial teaching will be consistent and true. Reading about this stuff and watching the media go to town, however, makes me nervous. Pray for my faith, and pray for our Holy Father.
 
hank3fan said:
I don’t really see what the problem is. There is nothing objectionable about supporting someone’s legal right to enter into a contract by consent. This is not the same as morally approving of it and it is definitely not the same as supporting same-sex marriage. A civil partnership is largely a matter of tax credits and inheritance rights- it certainly never does nor ever can approach anything resembling the sanctity of Holy Matrimony. .
Click to expand...
Yes I sorta see what you’re saying , it seems if you just re-work things, give it a different name, separate the Church from the State, there’s some rhyme and reason to it. Maybe even making it acceptable as a whole to the Church.
Fortunately we have the guidance and the voice of reason in the Vatican that will not only give us it’s position, but it will define things in detail, biblicaly and rationally . Skip to section III. if you want to jump to the topic, here’s an excerpt:

“The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law” .

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

They were pretty clear in this document released in 2003, just those 2 sentences is enough reason for me to agree, that what seemed ok(civil unions) isn’t kosher or any more acceptable than homosexual marriage. The media and secular world have this notion that our doctrines and practices will flip on a dime with a new Pope in the chair. Notice also in the document how it advises Catholic politicians. All this will be squashed and worked out, and the seeds of doubt the media attempts to plant won’t sprout a bud.
 
Colorad007 said:
The Vatican needs to be all over this stuff, and be ready to clarify and reject when necessary. When the whole “Dirty Wars” attack was unleashed last week, the Vatican jumped on top of it. Why let something like this simmer? Either he supported them or he didn’t.

I think that advocating for them is a tremendously bad idea, although there might be some moral wiggle room if it was a stop-gap measure to stop same-sex marriage. Even then it doesn’t seem right. Either way, I hope the Pope deals with the issue with candor and clarity.

There is so much stuff out there about what the new pope believes about a whole variety of issues. I agree that a lot of it is just the secular media’s crazy-talk. Nevertheless, I was reading today a biography of St. Josemaria Escriva, who was dismayed at the media’s hijacking of Vatican II. The media basically built a narrative around Vatican II that actually persists today–one of heterodox reform and progressivism.

If the Vatican just shrugs its shoulders at the secular media, then the impression will be that Pope Francis was a “pragmatist” on gay rights and that the Church is changing its views on homosexuality. Does that not concern anyone else?

I trust God very much that the magesterial teaching will be consistent and true. Reading about this stuff and watching the media go to town, however, makes me nervous. Pray for my faith, and pray for our Holy Father.
Click to expand...
Believe you me, it does. I certianly hope that the Pope comes out and explains LOUD and CLEAR, so there is NO confusion or misunderstandings. I know he’s only in office for a week now, but really this isn’t something that can wait too long IMO.
 
Colorad007 said:
The Vatican needs to be all over this stuff, and be ready to clarify and reject when necessary. When the whole “Dirty Wars” attack was unleashed last week, the Vatican jumped on top of it. Why let something like this simmer? Either he supported them or he didn’t.

I think that advocating for them is a tremendously bad idea, although there might be some moral wiggle room if it was a stop-gap measure to stop same-sex marriage. Even then it doesn’t seem right. Either way, I hope the Pope deals with the issue with candor and clarity.

There is so much stuff out there about what the new pope believes about a whole variety of issues. I agree that a lot of it is just the secular media’s crazy-talk. Nevertheless, I was reading today a biography of St. Josemaria Escriva, who was dismayed at the media’s hijacking of Vatican II. The media basically built a narrative around Vatican II that actually persists today–one of heterodox reform and progressivism.

If the Vatican just shrugs its shoulders at the secular media, then the impression will be that Pope Francis was a “pragmatist” on gay rights and that the Church is changing its views on homosexuality. Does that not concern anyone else?

I trust God very much that the magisterial teaching will be consistent and true. Reading about this stuff and watching the media go to town, however, makes me nervous. Pray for my faith, and pray for our Holy Father.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. And I’m very concerned…both in how the media will label, him, that he will have the strength to resist the temptation to be liked and applauded by the media for being a pragmatist, thus influencing positions on issues like civil unions, and that, to be honest, the sacredness of the Liturgy Pope Benedict worked so hard to bring back is not lost. Trusting in the Holy Spirit through it all. As Pope Francis has said many times, pray for him . The wolves are out and they are both inside and outside the church in numbers greater than ever.
 
Colorad007 said:
If the Vatican just shrugs its shoulders at the secular media, then the impression will be that Pope Francis was a “pragmatist” on gay rights and that the Church is changing its views on homosexuality. Does that not concern anyone else?
Click to expand...
I wish more Catholics would recognize this, but I see a good number who practically act like doormats, or just act oblivious to the media’s rhetoric and that it has no connection between the mediocrity that is modernity. Sometimes I think my fellow Catholics need to learn about, and practice, agency.
The media and secular world have this notion that our doctrines and practices will flip on a dime with a new Pope in the chair.
Click to expand...
That tells me that those who are secular and liberal truly don’t understand the RCC. For all their bragging about being intelligent and carrying college degrees from prestigious universities, living in cosmopolitan cities, knowing about high end fashion and watching ‘realistic’ film, and all the talk about being “with it” and modern, they sure are rather daft.
 
Frank_Drebin said:
He’s been a Priest, Bishop, and Cardinal, where his views are formed, for over 50 years.

I am not worried about him, since if he errs in teaching the fullness of truth, he will not remain as Pope.

Let’s assume for a minute the article is accurate. How on earth can the head of the Church be non-judgemental on civil unions? Lots of state run matters do not involve the Church per se, abortion being foremost among them. Either the Church believes they are proper, or she doesn’t.

Plus, he railed against the Argentinian govermnment when it sought to legitimize same-sex adoption, and described it as child abuse. Doesn’t really make sense to believe he is okay with civil unions, but not gay adoption.
Click to expand...
Dear Frank Drebin,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. A warm welcome to the world of CAF and I hope that you will find your time here informative and spiritually profitable.

Leaving aside that article, dear friend, the fact is that had not homoexual aberrant acts been decriminalized both in the US and Britian, talk of being “non-judgemental on civil union” would not now be an issue. Legalizing unnatural homosexual vice was a grave error of judgement, for such vice should have remained the proper concern of the law, being as it is contrary to the common good.

It was, dear friend, naive of men to think that once such detestable deviant behaviour was decriminalized homosexuals would live happily ever after and that we would never hear from them again. Man is a fallen being and it would not be long before homosexual activists would be vociferously demanding their so called ‘gay rights’ and that the sort of troublesome issues that now beset us would soon emerge.

It admits of no serious doubt, dear friend, that the rot set in the moment that homosexual acts of depravity ceased to be a criminal offence. Legalizing this unnatural vice verily opened up a can of worms and consequently our plight in both America and Britian is very desperate indeed, especially for Christians who, because of deeply held religious convictions, cannot and will not accept this ‘alternative lifestyle’. It is surely manifestly obvious that homosexuals would never be satisfied with merely having their unnatural acts decriminalized. At length they would want to give the public social demension to a personal union the status of marriage. Moreover, they would also, as has happened, want to assume the roles of ‘parents’, which must surely represent the ultimate discrimination against normal marriage, ordained by God for the procreation of children and to provide for them to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord.

Of course, dear friend, we must live with the situation as it now is, but if homosexual deviant acts had remained the subject of the criminal law, punishable by a term of imprisonment, it would have at least semaphored to homosexuals, and those who champion their cause, that such unnatural vice would never be sanctioned or tolerated by the state. This would have prevented the spread of homosexual vice and, if we had remained steadfast and unmoveable, we would not be plagued today by the unrelenting clamour for ‘gay rights’ or approval of ‘civil unions’. More importantly, America and Britain would be more God-fearing countries than they are today - “Righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14: 34). When vice of any sort is allowed by the state to reign in any nation it puts a disgrace upon it. We have, alas, forsaken God and have given legal sanction to the sin of sodomy and this has undeniably been a ‘reproach’ in the eyes of many men. It is the duty of the state to use their powers for the supression of vice and the support of virtue, otherwise increasing moral degeneration will ensue and finally overwhelm. Those countries that have decriminalized homosexual vice should be admonished by the Church to make such acts of depravity illegal again, so as to halt the spread of this evil in our midst and ‘exalt’ the nation to the favour of God.

How our new Holy Father needs the ardent prayers of the faithful in these very troublous times in which our lot is cast.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
I might be missing something here. What exactly is the difference between a civil union and a marriage in the eyes of a government?

If there is essentially no difference, then I oppose any civil union between people of the same sex.

If there is a distinctive difference, I’d like to know what that is so I can discern my own position on this.

Thanks!
 
aciprensa.com/noticias/director-de-agencia-catolica-argentina-el-papa-nunca-aprobo-uniones-gay-41335

Bergoglio didn’t suggest endorsing homosexual civil unions in 2010, says confidant of new pope
Miguel Woites, a confidant of Pope Francis while he was archbishop of Buenos Aires, is denying a widely publicized claim that the then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio suggested the endorsement of gay civil unions as an alternative to “homosexual marriage” during a private meeting with fellow bishops in 2010.
Click to expand...
In an interview granted to the Catholic news agency ACI Prensa, Woites said that the story “isn’t true. It’s a complete error.”
Click to expand...
The principle source of the claim, Bergoglio biographer Sergio Rubín, “never said who told him, when they told him,” said Woites. “It’s not correct to write something like that out of thin air. That (New York Times) article was very criticized by the bishops. He certainly would have referred to unions of convenience but not that anything be legalized.”
Click to expand...
Woites, who is the director of the Argentinean Catholic Information Agency (ACIA), has regularly conferred with the bishops of Agentina, including Bergoglio while he was still archbishop, ACI Prensa reports.
Click to expand...
Woites’s statements contradict a New York Times article published yesterday stating, “Faced with the near certain passage of the gay marriage bill, Cardinal Bergoglio offered the civil union compromise as the ‘lesser of two evils,’ said Sergio Rubin, his authorized biographer. ‘He wagered on a position of greater dialogue with society.’”
Click to expand...
Rubin’s words carry some weight, because he is the one of the two individuals who co-authored the only authorized biography of the current pope, entitled The Jesuit, published by Ediciones B in 2010. The biography was based on conversations with Bergoglio.
Click to expand...
The claim has been seconded by homosexual activist Marcelo Marquez, who told the Times that Bergoglio “told me that homosexuals need to have recognized rights and that he supported civil unions, but not same-sex marriage.”
Click to expand...
 
hank3fan said:
I don’t really see what the problem is. There is nothing objectionable about supporting someone’s legal right to enter into a contract by consent. This is not the same as morally approving of it and it is definitely not the same as supporting same-sex marriage. A civil partnership is largely a matter of tax credits and inheritance rights- it certainly never does nor ever can approach anything resembling the sanctity of Holy Matrimony.
Click to expand...
This bishops don’t agree with you:

old.usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexfaqs.shtml

In 2003 a statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated: “Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. Laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex” (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons, n.6).

usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm

What about “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” between two persons of the same sex?
Marriage is a unique good in itself. Nothing compares to the unique partnership of husband and wife, who through their sexual difference form a life-giving communion. No relationship between persons of the same sex can be the same as that between a man and a woman, nor should they ever be treated as analogous to marriage in any way. Thus, legal categories such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” that claim equivalent or analogous status to marriage are wrong and unjust, harmful both to the person and to society. Legal categories such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” should never be treated as analogous to marriage. Such legal approval of “civil unions” contributes to the erosion of the authentic meaning of marriage. As such, they are never acceptable. Basic human rights are not protected but violated by the erosion and redefinition of marriage.

old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2011/11-134.shtml

WASHINGTON— Bishop Salvatore J. Cordileone, the Chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, has denounced the passage of a civil unions bill in Rhode Island.

The Rhode Island legislature enacted a statute this week creating a new legal status deemed to be parallel to marriage, thus allowing two persons of the same sex to obtain all of the rights of spouses by forming what the new law designates to be a civil union. In response, Bishop Cordileone reiterated that “marriage, the communion of husband and wife, is a unique reality that has no true parallel. The exclusive and permanent bond of a man and woman joined in marriage offers to the couple and to society a preeminent value that should not be eclipsed by governmental attempts to redesign fundamental realities by legal dictate.”

Bishop Cordileone stated that elevating same-sex relationships to marital status with all of the rights of marriage, even if the new status is not called marriage, “fails justice because now the government is treating as similar two different realities that cannot be considered as analogous or equivalent in any way.” Bishop Cordileone reaffirmed the remarks of Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, who after the civil union vote indicated that “a civil union can never be accepted as a legitimate alternative to holy matrimony” because it promotes an unacceptable lifestyle, undermines marriage, and causes confusion and scandal. “As pointed out by Bishop Tobin,” Bishop Cordileone said, “the legalization of civil unions in Rhode Island further erodes marriage’s unique status and meaning and promotes the crossing of moral boundaries. In no way can civil union measures be considered a permissible compromise or a step in advancing the common good; instead, they directly violate principles of justice and accelerate the push to redefine marriage itself.”
 
Tigg said:
Jimmy Aiken’s explanation aside, I think I prefer doctrinal purity.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I’m not sure I liked/bought his explanation.

I’d rather believe that the Pope never endorsed/encouraged, etc civil unions at all…no ifs, ands, or buts.
 
Lucky7 said:
Agreed. I’m not sure I liked/bought his explanation.

I’d rather believe that the Pope never endorsed/encouraged, etc civil unions at all…no ifs, ands, or buts.
Click to expand...
CA, Jimmy and EWTN are taking a supportive role of the new Pope as they should. They must, given what some of the blogs are saying. Even Fr. Z’s posts I have found troubling. Moreso comments there - people saying they are ready to leave for the SPPX and such.

Some of the stuff being posted by some conservative Catholics is doing the Pope and the church a dis-service. It can at time come across as pitting the new Pope vs B16. This is what the secular media wants to see happen. Don’t fall for it.

Kudos to Jimmy, EWTN and Catholic radio for supporting the Pope and the church at this time.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Jimmy Akin:

Pope Francis on Homosexual Unions
Click to expand...
Wow. I’m not liking what I read there at all. Not only does he fail to refute the story that support of civil unions was discussed but he actually is an apologist for the concept by rationalizing a lesser of two evils excuse? Is anyone deluded enough to actually believe that once civil unions were allowed that marriage wouldn’t be the logical next step. Using a drug abuse metaphor, civil unions are the gateway drug to same sex marriage.

extremely disappointed.
 
I would agree with Jimmy’s reasoning.

Civil unions are already in existence and mean nothing from a religious viewpoint (although some christian denominations may endorse them), as they are a ‘legally recognised’ union between two adults instigated by governments.

Legalising homosexuality came first and there were humane reasons for this, i.e. to stop prejudice and bullying of homosexuals however this does not in any way change the church’s viewpoint about homosexual acts, they will always be an abomination in the eyes of God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top