Pope Francis calls for civil union law for same-sex couples

  • Thread starter Thread starter Polak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

Interesting notes from this article. Mixed messages from director, saying the Pope told him this directly and then, when pressed, dodging the question. Also the refusal by the Vatican to answer questions.
One of Francis’ top communications advisers, the Rev. Antonio Spadaro, insisted the pope’s comments were old news, saying they were made during a May 2019 interview with Mexican broadcaster Televisa.

“There’s nothing new because it’s a part of that interview,” Spadaro told The Associated Press as he exited the premiere. “It seems strange that you don’t remember.”

But Televisa didn’t air those comments when it broadcast the interview — nor did the Vatican when it put out its recordings of it. The broadcaster has not commented on the intrigue.
Click to expand...
The official 2019 Vatican News transcript of that interview, as well as the official Vatican edit, contains no such comment on the need for legal protections for civil unions. The official edit does include his comments on the need for gay people to feel they are part of a family, as he has said previously.

Further muddying the waters is the fact that Afineevsky, when pressed by reporters late Wednesday, said the pope made the comments to him directly, through a translator, but declined to say when.

When The Associated Press interviewed Afineevsky on Oct. 14, the director was asked if he realized at the time that Francis’ comments were going to grab headlines.

Afineevsky dodged the question about the origin of the quote and seemed to not appreciate its significance. But he said that he hoped journalists would take more away from the film.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Pope Francis calls for civil union law for same-sex couples Catholic News
There are plenty of examples in the gospels of the Apostles being confused about something Jesus said. The Bread of Life discourse is one example. There are several other parables which the Apostles expressed confusion about their meaning. So, I don’t think your blanket statement about confusion is correct.
Click to expand...
I think there is a difference between Jesus teaching and introducing a message of the fullness of Faith versus the Church proclaiming a well defined and millennia old dogma of the Faith.
 
Polak said:
Mexico broadcaster: Pope's civil union quote not broadcast

Interesting notes from this article. Mixed messages from director, saying the Pope told him this directly and then, when pressed, dodging the question. Also the refusal by the Vatican to answer questions.
One of Francis’ top communications advisers, the Rev. Antonio Spadaro, insisted the pope’s comments were old news, saying they were made during a May 2019 interview with Mexican broadcaster Televisa.

“There’s nothing new because it’s a part of that interview,” Spadaro told The Associated Press as he exited the premiere. “It seems strange that you don’t remember.”

But Televisa didn’t air those comments when it broadcast the interview — nor did the Vatican when it put out its recordings of it. The broadcaster has not commented on the intrigue.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting this - I know this won’t get nearly the amount of coverage as the initial reporting of his remarks did, but it’s good to see that at least some segments of the media are realizing that the Pope’s comments are more nuanced than the first soundbites suggested.

It sounds like though based on this article that the Vatican is refusing to clarify his remarks, which is not good news, though not unexpected. I think it’s probably too late to backtrack at this point. Coming out and saying that the Pope did not actually endorse civil unions (if that is true) would be a blow to the gay lobby inside and outside of the Church given how much ecstasy there has already been over this interview. These comments can’t be clarified without disappointing someone though - either supporters of gay marriage get brought back down to reality, or faithful Catholics get another slap in the face if he really did come out and support civil unions. So the likely outcome is that the Vatican says nothing, or at most they say something that says nothing, essentially, “No comment.” The damage has already been done in either case, and it’s not possible to repair.
Click to expand...
 
A follow up article on the subject from CNA, yet again showing the director most probably lied to journalists, claiming the Pope made the comments in an interview he conducted. I assume he wanted people to think these were comments made to him, to make them more current. When people realise these were comments the Pope made over a year ago, it loses that feel of ‘the Pope has just announced’.

On Wednesday, the documentary’s director, Evgeny Afineevsky, told CNA and other journalists that the pope’s statement in support of legalizing same sex civil unions was made during an interview the director himself conducted with Pope Francis.

But the interview Pope Francis gave to Televisa’s Alazraki is shot in the same place, with the same lighting and the same appearance as the pope’s comments on civil unions that were aired in “Francesco,” suggesting that the remarks came from the Alazraki interview, and not an interview with Afineevsky.
Click to expand...
 
It is possible to repair if he comes out and says he misspoke, or he was in error, or was misinterpreted. I don’t understand why they won’t do this.

Ugh, this is really hard for a lot of us. I know this isn’t an official teaching, but the idea that the Pope himself is saying things that appear to be contrary to the magisterium, and will issue no clarification is really hard to deal with.

If this becomes an official teaching, I feel like I have to leave the church
 
Polak said:
When people realise these were comments the Pope made over a year ago, it loses that feel of ‘the Pope has just announced’.
Click to expand...
This is sort of true. It seems the Pope said this in an interview more than a year ago, but that this portion of the interview did not air at that time. So it is “new” only in the sense that it is the first time most people have seen it. The Pope’s support for civil unions is also not new, I believe that has been his position since long before he was Pope.
 
Sure but most people just skimming over the headline are probably assuming he just made some grand statement about it.
 
HopingforGodtohelp said:
It is possible to repair if he comes out and says he misspoke, or he was in error, or was misinterpreted. I don’t understand why they won’t do this.

Ugh, this is really hard for a lot of us. I know this isn’t an official teaching, but the idea that the Pope himself is saying things that appear to be contrary to the magisterium, and will issue no clarification is really hard to deal with.

If this becomes an official teaching, I feel like I have to leave the church
Click to expand...
I would like the same thing is you - but my guess it that it’s not going to happen. Pope Francis has been loath to even slightly offend the gay community throughout his papacy, and coming out and saying “the Pope didn’t actually support civil unions” (if that’s true) is the kind of correction that has rarely been done during his time as Pope. I hope I’m wrong though and they do clarify - but then a part of me thinks that a clarification could make things worse so maybe be careful what you wish for.

As for supporting civil unions as Church teaching, such a viewpoint could never rise to the level of Church teaching or doctrine. This is merely the Pope’s opinion and nothing more. Given that the CDF put out a document in 2003 that states the exact opposite, and the fact that it is more clearly in line with the constant teaching of the Church with regards to marriage and homosexual relationships, I don’t see this comment getting any attention in official Church documents or the like. Also given that several bishops have already spoken up disagreeing with the Pope here I would expect the Vatican to avoid the topic as much as possible given the division that has already been caused.
 
TMC said:
t
Click to expand...
OK, but if he didn’t, and this isn’t what he meant, isn’t it his responsibility to clarify that this is not what he meant promptly?

I don’t understand. This is one of the four sins that “cries out to heaven for vengeance.” Condoning it is not a light matter. Why won’t he correct it?
 
joyfulandactive said:
As parents we are working hard to be loving and teaching our children and teens the eternal teaching of the Church regarding sexuality and marriage. It just feels like Francis keeps pushing us under the bus.
Click to expand...
Well, what would you do if one of your kids came home to say he/she was gay or trans and has a partner? I think you’d probably end up giving what the Holy Father says a second think. Because life has a funny way of pushing us under the bus.

It’s happened to us. Twice. Trans and gender non-conforming.

The only things I can suggest in such a case is to 1) Love them to pieces, they’re your flesh-and-blood, 2) pray for them, 3) accept them as they are, 4) keep including them in all family activities, 5) if they have one, show kindness and Christian hospitality to their partner.

The alternative, having our kids exclude themselves from our lives, is just to horrible to contemplate.

 
HopingforGodtohelp said:
OK, but if he didn’t, and this isn’t what he meant, isn’t it his responsibility to clarify that this is not what he meant promptly?

I don’t understand. This is one of the four sins that “cries out to heaven for vengeance.” Condoning it is not a light matter. Why won’t he correct it?
Click to expand...
I’m confused, what do you think “he didn’t” or that he should correct. He is in favor of civil unions for gay people, and has been for a long time. There is not much to clarify, in my opinion.
 
Give a second look? No. I don’t have kids, but the truth isn’t determined by your personal experience.

The fact is, if I have a child and he/she is gay, I will still love them. I will still pray for them, and pray that they remain celibate. If “accept them as they are” means accept that they will never marry and never bear children, sure. If it means accept their sins, no, you cannot do that. Of course I would include them in family activities. And you should show kindness towards their partner. But that doesn’t mean we should accept that they have a partner. It is sinful for them to have a partner, and civil unions are condoning that.

Trans is a different issue, as that is more of a mental problem. The Pope said “you cannot pick your gender”
 
I agree 100%. I don’t understand the people who think he was wrongly quoted or something.

He very likely is. The issue is that this is contrary to the magisterium of the Church
 
As someone with same sex attraction (or gay, whatever your preferred terminology) I have to say I find it hilarious when people think gays are these delicate little flowers who need protection from all the mean nastiness that life throws at people in general.
 
HopingforGodtohelp said:
If it means accept their sins, no, you cannot do that.
Click to expand...
You have to accept that you have no control over their sins, nor do they over your own. “Truth” besides theological Truth, means the actual facts. The facts, the truth, may just be that your child is LGBQT with a same-sex partner, and is sexually active. Moreover as we are all sinners, our behaviours all deviate from Truth to some extent. Log in my eye vs speck in the other’s.

As my spiritual director says, “acceptance does not mean approval”. It means accepting a situation you are unable to change and making the best of it.

If you keep hammering an LGBQT child his or her sins, however, do not be surprised if they decide to have nothing more to do with you.
 
Weserthy said:
As for supporting civil unions as Church teaching, such a viewpoint could never rise to the level of Church teaching or doctrine. This is merely the Pope’s opinion and nothing more. Given that the CDF put out a document in 2003 that states the exact opposite, and the fact that it is more clearly in line with the constant teaching of the Church with regards to marriage and homosexual relationships, I don’t see this comment getting any attention in official Church documents or the like.
Click to expand...
Hopefully you’re right and I hope the LGBT communities that are ‘cautiously optimistic’ (emphasis on cautiously) about this, are so with good reason (that nothing is going to come of it).
 
You don’t have to “hammer them” all the time, but you can never approve of their sins, appear to, or help them sin. You must make clear that you do not approve their sins. If their partner visits your house, they stay in separate rooms, or they do not stay. If they have a “marriage”, you do not go. You do not support the fact that they have a partner, you pray for them to stay celibate, and you do not support the law being changed to recognize their partner.
 
OraLabora said:
You have to accept that you have no control over their sins, nor do they over your own.
Click to expand...
This statement is quite simply, false. It’s effectively telling a sinner they are doomed to sin and have no way of being saved. Simply untrue.
 
That was the original definition of tolerance, you know. You tolerated something that was morally dangerous without accepting it in the least. To tolerate meant that since you could not do anything that would not itself be a moral wrong equivalent to the ‘tolerated’ behaviour, it was allowed to exist. It still meant that you did not have to accept it; you could certainly still speak against it, but you wouldn’t for example, go out and bomb an abortion clinic even though you did not accept that it saw the slaughter of children. However, the slaughter of even those who killed children would be an action of guilty wrong.

Not bombing abortion clinics means we tolerate their existence. But we sure as heck don’t ‘accept’ that they are here; we work on getting them removed legitimately, we pray for those involved, we have peaceful protests and rosary rallies, etc.

Unfortunately for too many people today, tolerance means some waffle like, “We accept that these evils exist and we can only pray’. No, we do not ‘accept’ that these exist in the sense then ot ‘tolerating’ them. We ‘tolerate’ them, acknowledge (not ‘accept’ that currently we cannot remove them, and pursue every possible legitimate channel (including prayer) to get them gone in the end.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top