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.
Cider said:
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.
Click to expand...
Abyssnia posted another article that states that he never did such a thing. I sure hope that one is the correct one.

Oh wait, you are referring to Akin’s explanation. And I totally agree with you. It reminds me of a contortionist.
 
I doubt that HH supports civil unions, and my assumption is that the liberal media has once again fabricated a story to throw the Church into confusion and disorder.

However, even if the Cardinal-Archbishop of Buenos Aires did at one time support civil unions, that doesn’t make a whole lot of difference at this time. As Pope he is unable to teach doctrinal or moral error. Even if he were to retain it as a private opinion it is not in his power to teach it. The Church does not and cannot recognize any legitimization of homosexual relationships, nor their protection under civil law.
 
Cider said:
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.
Click to expand...
What’s not to understand about how Jimmy Akin explained it? My analogy is if a fire is already going, and it’s not currently possible to put it out at least try to take steps to lessen the damage it can cause and keep it from getting worse until the time comes when it is possible to put it completely out. Pope Francis’ actions as a Cardinal were not against Catholic teachings. But what matters more is what his actions will be as the Pope, and I have complete confidence in him. He will prove himself as the Vicar of Christ, and remember that the Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit against teaching heresy. Don’t lose faith in that promise. As Catholics, we should have complete confidence in our Pope and not give in to the gossip and innuendo of the secular media.
 
livingwordunity said:
What’s not to understand about how Jimmy Akin explained it? My analogy is if a fire is already going, and it’s not currently possible to put it out at least try to take steps to lessen the damage it can cause and keep it from getting worse until the time comes when it is possible to put it completely out.
Click to expand...
I agree with Tigg " I think I prefer doctrinal purity."

Having said that, the Catholic Church presumes that marriages between a man and woman are valid unless proven otherwise, even the marriages of non Catholics and non Christians. They have valid natural marriages. That is not possible for 2 men or two women.

The CCC says that homosexuality is disordered and homosexuals are called to chastity

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. **Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. **They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Supporting same sex civil unions is certainly not a way to slow the spread, it does the opposite and by lending an air of legitimacy.
 
_Abyssinia said:
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
Click to expand...
I’m glad for this, it seems more and more that every possible “problem” with the former Cardinal Bergoglio is being refuted. I’m beginning to wonder if such dirt-digging is usually done immediately after a papal election.

At any rate, even if His Holiness made a mistake during his time as Cardinal, he must not be judged by them as the papacy is a new identity.
 
Cider said:
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.
Click to expand...
Who do you mean?
 
CmGuy89 said:
I’m glad for this, it seems more and more that every possible “problem” with the former Cardinal Bergoglio is being refuted. I’m beginning to wonder if such dirt-digging is usually done immediately after a papal election.

At any rate, even if His Holiness made a mistake during his time as Cardinal, he must not be judged by them as the papacy is a new identity.
Click to expand...
Even if he changed his mind (which I place at about 0%), we are told by gay marriage proponents that it was noble for Senator Portman to do so.
 
Tobias22 said:
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.
Click to expand...
👍 No matter what he said in the past that might be troubling if true, I stand by the pope, Pope Francis!
 
I think everyone seriously needs to relax when it comes to folks worrying that Pope Francis is somehow going to change the doctrine of the Church. He’s radical in his actions and radical in his preaching. But his radical nature is simply a model of Christ.

Look at what he told a bunch of diplomats today:
… there is no peace without truth! There cannot be true peace if everyone is his own criterion, if everyone can always claim exclusively his own rights, without at the same time caring for the good of others, of everyone, on the basis of the nature that unites every human being on this earth.
Click to expand...
Does this sound like a leader who will kowtow to the tyranny of relativism? I think not. It’s a change in style and tone he brings but the message is the same.
 
we are reacting exactly the way the secular media and homosexual activists want us to react.its been barely a week since Pope Francis was elected and we are all letting these rumours confuse us.Unless that “civil union thing” is backed by an official statement from the pope himself or the vatican i will choose not to believe it!
Pope Francis is our beloved Pope and he asked us from the first moments of his pontificate to pray for him so thats what we should be doing!And we catholics should get used to the fact that due to the spiritual nature of the catholic church(the true church of Christ) our pope will ALWAYS BE A SIGN OF CONTRADICTION to the world!(Luke 2:34;Acts 28:22)
 
_Abyssinia said:
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
Click to expand...
The quote from the homosexual advocate/activist/whatever is enough to discredit the whole thing. The gay lobby is delusional. Years ago, I was told by a purported leader of a gay organization that he forced our bishop to stop preaching against homosexuality by marching into his office with an entourage and threatening to “out” him. The fact was that they never got past security at the front door. Yet he told his story just as proudly as if it were true.
 
stellina said:
The quote from the homosexual advocate/activist/whatever is enough to discredit the whole thing. The gay lobby is delusional. Years ago, I was told by a purported leader of a gay organization that he forced our bishop to stop preaching against homosexuality by marching into his office with an entourage and threatening to “out” him. The fact was that they never got past security at the front door. Yet he told his story just as proudly as if it were true.
Click to expand...
This is a typical, a vicious, and a current tactic. Just today I was reading about such a situation in a diocese not even in my State. Since I will be traveling there in the near future, I was looking up info on local parishes and Mass times. I stumbled quite by accident on a rant by a homosexual activist in the diocese (who by the way used a phony title of “Father” when he has never been a priest but only a layperson). The rant tried to destroy one of the pastors in the diocese, and threatened to “out” that pastor – with no evidence, by the way – as well as “most of the clergy and hierarchy” (and he included Cardinals and archbishops specifically). And this wasn’t “years ago,” but just last year.

So here’s the thing: the homosexual world assumes that “everyone” (or most people) are homosexual – privately, secretly, in the closet – OR, “they don’t really know they’re gay.” And if you think I’m exaggerating about this last comment, that one comes straight from the mouth of a close firend of mine, an active Catholic priest in an Order, and in very good standing with the Church. He is heterosexual. He said he has been approached often by homosexuals who declare to him that he must actually also be, but “just doesn’t know it yet.”

So if anyone here thinks that Catholics are delusional about aggressive conversion attempts by homosexual activists, I suggest that person get an education in the real world. Homosexuals specifically target the Catholic Church in their bullying activity, using phony “blackmail” for allegations which the target of the blackmail has no resources in which to verify denial. It’s all destruction by dark defamation, otherwise known as calumny. “J’accuse.” It’s the work of the Devil.
 
stellina said:
The quote from the homosexual advocate/activist/whatever is enough to discredit the whole thing. The gay lobby is delusional. Years ago, I was told by a purported leader of a gay organization that he forced our bishop to stop preaching against homosexuality by marching into his office with an entourage and threatening to “out” him. The fact was that they never got past security at the front door. Yet he told his story just as proudly as if it were true.
Click to expand...
this:thumbsup:
 
We are holding a debate and we want your participation. #uqgaymarriage

A cohort of MBA students from University of Queensland are conducting a closed debate on the subject of “Same Sex Marriage – battle for equality, political leverage or institutional trademark?”. Whilst the debate will not be publicly broadcast, we will be running a live Twitter feed both prior to and during the debate. We are seeking a range of views via this Twitter feed.

The debate will commence from 9:00am Brisbane (Australia) time on Sunday 24th March. Contributions can be made on Twitter via #UQgaymarriage. Leading questions will include:
  1. What doe marriage mean?
  2. With legal rights having been broadened for same sex couples, why is same sex “marriage” an issue now and how it has been successfully made an issue?
  3. Whilst there is attention and momentum in the societal debate, why can’t same sex advocates break the legislative dead-lock?
    The feed will be broadcast live to the cohort. We welcome all comments, opinions and insights. We welcome debate amongst Twitterers, all we ask for participants to be respectful of all others opinion. As the debate won’t be broadcast live, we will be encouraging your Twitter feeds to generate more debate.
 
My opinion is that the pope is like any other human being and can fail, ie sin, and as such may have said something in the aforementioned meeting without thinking something through.

Now just like most of us Christians who stumble generally we repent and Jesus gets us back on track. Therefore, if Pope Francis shows by his actions that he opposes every form of the recognition of homosexual rights, etc I would say he is “back on track” and that is all that matters.
 
He has also said: “There have always been homosexuals. The island of Lesbos is known as a place where homosexual women lived. But never in history has anyone sought to give it the same status as marriage. Whether it was tolerated or not, whether it was admired or not, no one regarded it as equivalent. We know that in moments of great change, the phenomenon of homosexuality increased. But this is the first time that anyone posed the legal possibility of equating it with marriage. I regard it as a retrograde step, anthropologically speaking. I am saying this because it transcends the religious question; it is an anthropological one. If a union is private, no third parties or society are affected. But now that it has been given the status of marriage and given facilities for adoption, children will be affected. Everyone needs a masculine father and a feminine mother to help them shape their identity.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top