Pope civil unions comment appears to be an edited mashup, and not in original transcript from 2019

  • Thread starter Thread starter Genesis315
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
goout said:
Because this Pope is not the same man. His pastoral approach is different. His first concern is to go to the peripheries to bring in the wounded. He subordinates clarity to that first concern. Does that make everyone comfortable? No. Is the Church part of a confused mish-mash in popular dialogue. Yep. Maybe this is the carrying of the cross that Jesus was talking about.
Click to expand...
Or it could just be he’s terrible at public speaking and/or holds views that are not reconcilable with Catholic doctrine. Why do people see the need to make excuses all the time for him?
 
Genesis315 said:
It does seem to be from the same interview, but it is a mashup of two quotes.
Click to expand...
Wait so the Pope did say both of these in one interview, but he said them in 2019? That doesn’t seem as manipulated as taking one thing he said last year and inserting it right before a comment he made this.

As I said, it often isn’t standard for those interviewed for a documentary or article to get a look at the final piece and give permission for publication or screening. I get where you are coming from though. I am surprised the Pope agreed to do it, given the film director is a gay himself.

Here is a little from the director talking about how he managed to get the Pope to agree to appear in the documentary.

Francesco arrives two years after the release of another film about the pontiff, Pope Francis: A Man of His Word , directed by German filmmaker Wim Wenders. The Wenders film earned more than $8 million worldwide, taking a theological approach to examining the pope’s teachings. The Vatican approached Wenders, a former Catholic who now attends a Protestant church, to make Pope Francis . By contrast, Afineevsky, a practicing Jew, pressed the Vatican diligently to gain extraordinary access to the pope.

“Slowly, slowly I opened a lot of doors. It not was easy,” Afineevsky admitted. “It’s never happened before, that a not Catholic guy, outsider, came and did something [with the pope].”

Part of what convinced the pope to agree to the film was the director’s preparation, Afineevsky says.

“He saw that I went through the entire world, to follow his steps. I’ve been also in Rohingya [refugee] camps, also in Armenia, also in the prison in Buenos Aires [that the pope has visited]. Also in Chile,” Afineevsky commented. “So he saw that it’s not like I’m trying to make [the documentary] out of a room. I am doing hard work, to follow his steps, to bring these elements to the screen.”
Click to expand...
Yes the fact that bishops are also coming out saying this quote must be clarified as it goes against teaching, is a concern. It isn’t good when the Pope is saying things confusing and/or asking for clarification from his own bishops.
 
BartholomewB said:
it seems the legal term for that stable relationship is convivencia
Click to expand...
I looked at some Spanish translations of Australian government documents, and they use convivencia to translate the legal term ‘de facto relationship’, which is distinct from both civil unions and marriages. More-or-less, in Australia a de facto relationship is any state of prolonged (a year or more?) cohabitation, and such a relationship has most (if not all) the privileges and responsibilities (including tax) accorded to marriages.
 
humilityseeker said:
No idea what the question was then?
Click to expand...
Can you provide the question, please? It was asked in Spanish? My Spanish is not fluent but I am conversational. The phrase la “ley de convivencia civil“ probably would be civil unions. La ley is “the law.” Convivencia would be a conjunctive word combining ‘con‘ (in English, “with”) with what is, I suppose, a present participle of the verb infinitive ‘vivir’ (in English, “to live”). So, ‘vivencia’ would be living. Altogether, “the law of living-with, civilly.” Or, more naturally in English, the law of civil union.

But, can you provide the question in Spanish (or the clip and I’ll listen and translate)?
 
Ok, just watched the twitter clip. He says, “Lo que tenemos hacer en una ley de convivencia civil. (Tiene?) derecho a estar cubierto legalmente.” I put “tiene” in parentheses bc he’s speaking fast and nearly slurring the word there. But that full quote in context provided clarity.

A rough translation would be “What we have to make is a law of civil union. (He has) a right to be covered legally.”
 
goout said:
Maybe this is the carrying of the cross that Jesus was talking about.
Click to expand...
I think of it more in terms that I have heard from Fulton Sheen. Wherever there is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit there will soon after be a manifestation of the evil one.

So many times the Pope says something, then people come out of the woodwork to criticize him, or go on and on about how they don’t like him, or even worse, calling him a heretic and asking questions like, “If the pope says something heretical, is he still the pope”…just an innocent question mind you.
 
Last edited:
Polak said:
Wait so the Pope did say both of these in one interview, but he said them in 2019? That doesn’t seem as manipulated as taking one thing he said last year and inserting it right before a comment he made this.
Click to expand...
One quote from Pope Francis was that parents shouldn’t disown their children for being gay.

The other was regarding civil unions for legal issues like next of kin and inheritance.

They were mashed together to make the first quote “people have a right to family” sound like it was being used as a justification for civil unions and same sex sexual relations.
 
Magnanimity said:
The phrase la “ley de convivencia civil“ probably would be civil unions. La ley is “the law.” Convivencia would be a conjunctive word combining ‘con‘ (in English, “with”) with what is, I suppose, a present participle of the verb infinitive ‘vivir’ (in English, “to live”). So, ‘vivencia’ would be living. Altogether, “the law of living-with, civilly.” Or, more naturally in English, the law of civil union.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not that. Please see my post #24 and @Bithynian’s post #48, both in this thread. Convivencia, as a legal term, refers to what in English is usually referred to as a “stable relationship” or a “de facto relationship.” In Argentina, a couple who are already in a relationship of that kind may then apply for legal recognition of a civil union, for which the legal term in Argentina is unión civil.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
No, it’s not that.
Click to expand...
See my next post above where I translate the portions before and after the phrase in question. In the context of his comments, it seems fairly clear. The specific context is in talking about “homosexuals.”

“What we have to make is…right to be legally covered…”
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure that makes things better, it still reads as if he wants to send LGBTQ+ people to “conversion” therapy. Disappointing if the recent quote regarding civil partnerships was and editing trick, I was almost thinking he’d dragged the Church into the 21st century, no matter, I’d still put money on the Church supporting same sex civil partnerships by mid century.
 
Irrelevant excuse for Pope Francis I no longer buy. Shouldn’t a bishop be clear enough on sensible issues so that his flock is lead the rigjt way towards God?
It’s easy to be confusing and vague and when things heat up claim your words were misinterpreted. This is okay for a 14 yr old trying to grasp life but for an old man bishop of the Church of Christ is pathetic. This is why the Synods were created also, not just to cast out heresies but also to discourage mild confusing mediocre spirituality that some might consider “more Christian” or “more loving” just because it is confusing. Real love is NOT confusing at all and the real Holy Spirit inspires confidence not confusion.
 
StudentMI said:
Or, you know, it conflicts with what the Church teaches.
Click to expand...
So you are the authority on Church teaching over and above the Pope? Good to know. So which of the things I listed have you decided the Church should not teach, because they are all Church teaching.
 
StudentMI said:
Or it could just be he’s terrible at public speaking and/or holds views that are not reconcilable with Catholic doctrine. Why do people see the need to make excuses all the time for him?
Click to expand...
I dont think it’s quite that simple. There have been significant changes in both the news media and social media since St. JP II was pope. In his day, after an inspiring early-mid career in which he survived an assassination attempt, forgave his would be killer, then was instrumental in the fall of communism, he was able to coast through his latter years despite some real doozies. There was a more orderly media process which could be controlled, resulting in him having his own hagiographer while still alive, and a worldwide network of Catholic opinionmakers who fell over themselves to shout “instant classic” everytime he wrote anything. So he was able to maintain a good reputation despite being at the helm for the bulk of the pedophile scandals and protecting the legionaires of Christ. People were already calling him “the Great” while he was still alive and large segments of the church were imploding due to scandals occurring on his watch.

Even so, he started to take some heat in his final years from the growing Catholic internet outrage machine for kissing a koran, and not clearly articulating his position of the extremely important issue of whether or not he liked Mel Gibson’s Passion.

No argument from me that Benedict XVI was clear about where he stood. That said, I don’t think it’s realistic to expect all Popes to have a brain like his, any more than it would be to set a seven foot minimum height requirement.

Francis arrived once the social media monster had assimilated all, and the mainstream media had declined to the point of being little different from a supermarket tabloid. Everything he says is taken out of context and commented on (histrionically). I really dont think he’s much different from St. JP II. It’s just harder to communicate now, people are dumber, and the same segment of the Catholic world that used to turn their brains off to fawn over all things JP II now turn them up to 11 to flip out about all things Francis.

Cliffs:
-all 3 r fine some good, some bad
-Benedict is the outlier not Francis or JP2
-Glad JP2 is a saint, hope they all will be.
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
40.png
goout:
Because this Pope is not the same man. His pastoral approach is different. His first concern is to go to the peripheries to bring in the wounded. He subordinates clarity to that first concern. Does that make everyone comfortable? No. Is the Church part of a confused mish-mash in popular dialogue. Yep. Maybe this is the carrying of the cross that Jesus was talking about.
Click to expand...
Or it could just be he’s terrible at public speaking and/or holds views that are not reconcilable with Catholic doctrine. Why do people see the need to make excuses all the time for him?
Click to expand...
You see people making excuses for Pope Francis? If so you are making an assumption:
Pope Francis needs to be excused for something.
 
TMC said:
So you are the authority on Church teaching over and above the Pope? Good to know. So which of the things I listed have you decided the Church should not teach, because they are all Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Yes I am the authority! You found me out!
 
Thanks for posting that. It’s good to know what he said, and what he did not say.
 
So apparently Francis is quite the confused fool in some eyes.
What kind of a shepherd, trusting the flock to be fine, goes to the peripheries to find that sheep who is not part of the fold (Mt 18)? A fool, that’s who. By any worldly measure, a shepherd does not do such foolish things.

But Francis goes to the peripheries to find that lost sheep. He is not primarily concerned with clarity for dogmatic sensitivities. I give him a lot of credit for living an explicitly Christ-like life.
Christ did the same thing, without concern for what religious establishment thought of his fastidiousness to dogma (Christ is, of course, dogma incarnate).
 
Last edited:
Yes the sole problem people have with Francis is that he tries to find the lost sheep. Nothing else whatsoever.
 
StudentMI said:
Yes the sole problem people have with Francis is that he tries to find the lost sheep. Nothing else whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Yes that may be the source of the angst. Very perceptive thought.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top