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.
I think the unedited footage needs to be published.
 
Last edited:
HopingforGodtohelp said:
We have a right to be accurately taught the faith
Click to expand...
You have a right to hear the truth from pastors. There’s nothing happened that violates your rights. You do not have the right to clarification of things you might not understand or agree with, whether it’s speedy or not.

Unrealistic expectations is a sure route to disappointment and frustration.
 
Last edited:
Fauken said:
I think the unedited footage needs to be published.
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s clear that there was some manipulation here - how malicious it was has yet to be determined. For all we know, he might not have been talking about homosexual couples specifically before the part where he appears to endorse civil unions. The only way to know for sure is to see the unedited footage.
 
He seems to have thrown a handful of dirt into a clear puddle. IMHO. Instead of “plain english” AKA “plain spanish” or whatever… just dirt and obscurity. Say Yes or No. Sheesh… has he read it… Matthew 5:37… “let your yes be yes” … AKA … keep it simple stupid… gosh it’s not that hard… plainly, clearly, slowly… that’s how you lead a flock of millions and millions… Jesus is Lord.
 
People upset about the this are not understanding what the Pope means to accomplish. He is respecting the need for each person to have family. Gays need love and belonging and deserve dignity about their loved ones and civil union at least offers them legal rights that extend personal protection in basic things family members recieve in heterosexual marriage. The Pope is not confusing Marriage between a Man and Woman with civil union.
 
Being an Spanish-speaker (and an Argentinian) myself, and watching the video @Fauken posted various times, I think what the Pope meant is that homosexual persons should be able to enter a civil union in case their parents kick the person out of the house, or even leave him/her without inheritance.

If that’s the case, that would still be controversial to some, but it would certainly leave out the theory of he directly supporting sin.

We must also remember that Pope Francis was just talking in an interview, and he is a normal person like us, and in that circumstances he can also express himself wrong.

I am not saying that he didn’t meant what he did (the first paragraph), but that his words were improvised (as all conversations) and might not be clear, as happens to all people when they are expressing an abstract thought.
 
Last edited:
adamhovey1988 said:
Y’all may want to check this out:
oralecp So what did the Pope say?
Click to expand...
Fr. Torres says: “He meant civil coexistence”; another native Spanish speaker above says “It was clearly civil union, and all other Spanish speakers would agree with me.”

Once again, the Pope is ambiguous. He has been doing that a lot lately, and it doesn’t serve him or the RC church. If he’s so vague that nobody can find out what he actually means, that’s already a problem.
 
Last edited:
Fauken said:
I think the unedited footage needs to be published.
Click to expand...
Yes. The edited out part could have been the Pope talking about how he’s concerned that some countries in Latin America are moving in the direction of legalising gay marriage, and if the only way to prevent this is to offer some other type of civil union, then that needs to be done.

We just don’t know.
 
On the one hand, Catholic bishops are probably frustrated with trying to explain to their flocks and to the press just what the pope meant by his latest confusing statement. On the other hand, he gives Catholic bloggers and commentators a lot of material to write about. Most regular Catholics just want to be secure in the deposit of Faith, without having to explain to our friends what the pope really meant or didn’t mean.
 
Like everybody on CAF, the bishops are having to spend a lot of time trying to figure out just what he did mean.
 
goout said:
Well you did say this, which seems to imply that the Pope tolerates or promotes sin.
Click to expand...
your interpretation,

you said
Christ did the same thing,
Click to expand...
He did not do the same thing, the pope said nothing about the sin. we don know what he tolerates or promotes we just know he did not mention the sin. why make this more than it is?
goout said:
Is the Pope is responsible for ignorance or ill will on the part of the press?
Click to expand...
has the pope clarified his statement to anyone? it is confusing if even the elect can’t agree on what he meant.
goout said:
And we also do not have a right to clarification of things we might not understand.
Click to expand...
we do not follow blindly
mary77 said:
The Pope is not confusing Marriage between a Man and Woman with civil union.
Click to expand...
the church already has a teaching on civil unions.
 
Odilon said:
40.png
Maximian:
I can’t help noticing how Catholics are always having to say “that’s not what he said, that’s not what he meant” but the damage is done, the rest of the world says “the Pope said!”
Click to expand...
How come the two previous Pope’s never seemed to have this problem?
Click to expand...
Because there was no uproar about JP2 suposedly kissing a Koran, the.multtifaith activities he promoted at the Assisi conference, or Benedict’s speech about Islam in Regensburg? What about Benedicts comments about use of condoms by homosexuals?

Of course previous Popes have had plenty of things they said or did that needed clarification. In a world where the internet was way less of a thing, there was less record as well as less analysis of each detail of each Pontiffs pronouncements is all.
 
Last edited:
I found this in the National Catholic Reporter (would you believe). I don’t normally go there but I am currently looking through a lot of Catholic media on both sides of the political spectrum, to see how they have reacted to this.

A part of the article importantly notes the director’s editorial manipulation.
At least part of the clip in question from the new film appears to be a reusing of material from journalist Valentina Alazraki’s interview with Francis for the Mexican TV network Televisa, which aired in May 2019.

Comparison of the film clip with Alazraki’s interview, which is available online in Europe and as a transcript elsewhere, indicates the film reuses at least a portion of previously aired material, in which Francis says gay people “have a right to be part of the family.”

The material used in that segment of the film and in Alazraki’s interview are identical, with Francis saying the same words in Spanish, using the same gestures, and sitting in the same setting.

The documentary does not use the segment of tape from Alazraki’s interview in which Francis repeats again that gay people “have a right to a family,” before adding: “That does not mean approving of homosexual acts, not in the least.”

The film instead cuts briefly away from Francis, to show images of the Vatican’s Santa Marta residence, before returning back to him. When the film shows the pope again, he is seated in the same setting as before and states: “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered.”

That second portion of Francis’ words in the documentary did not originally appear in the video of Alazraki’s interview.
Click to expand...

Very importantly and conveniently, the gay director took out the part from the interview where the Pope states ‘that does not mean approving of homosexual acts, not in the least’ right after talking about the rights of gay people’s rights to be part of a family.
 
goout said:
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
Click to expand...
That makes eminent sense. Thank you for saying that and those words alone me me look at Pope Francis in a different light. I appreciate the video, I have the utmost respect for Fr. Spitzer.
 
Odilon said:
40.png
goout:
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
Click to expand...
That makes eminent sense.
Click to expand...
No, I think when someone misrepresents what the Church stands for they are causing harm, not good.
 
goout said:
You do not have the right to clarification of things you might not understand or agree with, whether it’s speedy or not.
Click to expand...
Yes we do. Jesus spent most of his time on Earth explaining so that people would understand. I don’t think he commanded anyone to do anything blindly. God gave us free will to understand and follow, not to obey like a robot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top