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.
Hot off the presses, guys:


Look at the jump in the timestamp.
 
Last edited:
MarkRome said:
I don’t speak Spanish but unión convivencial is not the same as convivencia civil.
Click to expand...
I get what you’re saying. Earlier above I said,
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…”
Click to expand...
So, he says that what we have to do is make a [insert your translation] because they have a right to be legally covered. You could also say legally “protected.” As with all translating, the immediate (and broader) context guides the translation.
MarkRome said:
Don’t alienate them.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Civil coexistence is bare-bones stuff. That’s toleration—the business of governments to oversee. We need our pope to tell us that we should tolerate each other?

He begins by saying that “homosexuals” have the right to be part of the family. They are children of God, shouldn’t be kicked out or their lives made impossible because of that.
MarkRome said:
He also mentioned coexistence five times in his encyclical Fratelli tutti.
Click to expand...
More times than that, I believe. But I just looked at the encyclical in Spanish. I don’t see the phrase “convivencia civil” anywhere in it.

When we start talking about “gays” and the law and civil living-together and rights, I’m not sure all that fits with what you’re trying to make it fit into.
 
Magnanimity said:
More times than that, I believe. But I just looked at the encyclical in Spanish. I don’t see the phrase “convivencia civil” anywhere in it.
Click to expand...
Right, and I didn’t say that he did. But he uses the term convivencia. At other times in other places he uses the words Civil Coexistence and it has nothing to do with gay unions. I posted a tweet and also a talk about artificial intelligence in another thread.
 
Catholics can disagree about the state legalizing civil unions.

But the Pope didn’t endorse civil unions, only that it would be preferred that the state go that route instead of making same-sex marriage legal.
 
If you look at the video I posted, it looks like while he said those words, the clip was spliced. The timestamp jumps between his two sentences.
 
CathBoy1 said:
40.png
goout:
Christ did the same thing, without concern for what religious establishment thought of his fastidiousness to dogma (Christ is, of course, dogma incarnate).
Click to expand...
Yes, Christ went to meet sinners where they were, however He told them to “go and sin no more” He did not say “hey I’m gonna change the rules to make it OK for you guys to keep on sinning”.
Click to expand...
Of course.
 
I agree the media interprets his words to be as sensational as possible. But I find it hard to believe that the Pope doesn’t support same-sex civil unions given that he won’t make a clarifying statement.

This is not small potatoes. This is condoning the sin of the sodomites, which is one of the four which cried out to heaven for vengeance. If this is not what the pope meant, then it is his responsibility to make that clear.
 
HopingforGodtohelp said:
I agree the media interprets his words to be as sensational as possible. But I find it hard to believe that the Pope doesn’t support same-sex civil unions given that he won’t make a clarifying statement.
Click to expand...
How do you know he “won’t”?
 
upant said:
40.png
goout:
You speak as if the Pope is pro-sin.
Click to expand...
No, don’t put your meaning in my text
goout said:
Did you see the actual words he spoke, or are you depending on secular spin for your point of view?
Click to expand...
Have you read the secular view? That is the scandal
Click to expand...
Well you did say this, which seems to imply that the Pope tolerates or promotes sin.
upant said:
Christ always condemned the sin and said sin no more, why do we forget this
Click to expand...
Is the Pope is responsible for ignorance or ill will on the part of the press?
Can you clarify? 😉
 
Last edited:
I mean, it’s been a day. Bishops have come out with statements already. Time is of the essence. One would think it would be done already.
 
The video is 19 seconds long and shows the time stamp.
HopingforGodtohelp said:
I mean, it’s been a day. Bishops have come out with statements already. Time is of the essence. One would think it would be done already.
Click to expand...
This is the Vatican. The notoriously slow Vatican. Either way, just because they’re being slow doesn’t mean they won’t.
 
Last edited:
When it goes from 56:29:10 to 57:34:05. It’s the same interview, but we have no idea what he said in between that gap.
 
So Pope Francis took over a minute to finish that sentence and say he supports gay unions? The unions part doesn’t have a timestamp. We have no idea where that was in the overall interview.
 
Last edited:
Even if he DOES mean “Two people living together in a long-term relationship, whether I would approve of it or not, should be legally protected to the extent of being able to visit each other in the hospital and inherit property and so forth,” what exactly is wrong with that?
 
HopingforGodtohelp said:
I mean, it’s been a day. Bishops have come out with statements already. Time is of the essence. One would think it would be done already.
Click to expand...
We don’t have a God given right to information. And demanding instantaneous access to information is not very prudent.
And we also do not have a right to clarification of things we might not understand.
 
Those aren’t the seconds. I doubt this interview was 58 hours long anyway, that would be spanning days. And they do move. They go from 10 to 5 to 10 again. It’s pretty quick.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top