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.
40.png
Pope Francis calls for civil union law for same-sex couples Catholic News
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...
If we trust the Holy Spirit, we know that the real Church dogmas and truths of the Faith can’t be abandoned. This is regardless of personal inclinations of various Popes.

We’d be screwed though without the Holy Spirit…but that can be said about all existence in general. 🙂
 
Polak said:
40.png
OraLabora:
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.
Click to expand...
No it’s not. It’s saying to oneself - I can’t change this situation.
 
If, this many years into the pontificate, after example after example, one still thinks these repeated episodes are accidents/misinterpretations, etc., I have a very nice bridge to sell you. Cf. when Cdl. Sarah merely suggested that priests try offering Mass ad orientem during Advent (IIRC), the correction and clarification was swift and definitive. If PF wants something clarified, it gets clarified.
 
Rau said:
No it’s not. It’s saying to oneself - I can’t change this situation.
Click to expand...
Yes I just realised that I misread the comment. I thought it said ‘they have no control over their sins’.
 
Feanor2 said:
I’ve always supported the same sex civil unions idea. I believe if the Church had come out allowing this maybe we wouldn’t have the same sex marriage laws we do now.
Click to expand...
It’s strange that you linked approval by the Church of allowing same sex unions and the same sex marriages that would not happened.

It’s non sense, because same sex civil unions were not an idea of the church ant were fighted by the Church.
But political authorities does not need the Church to pass laws. They only need the power (thanks to elections or dictature).

It’s wrong because countries who have adopted civil unions (for both sexs or only for same sex) years ago have now same sex marriage too. Look for UK, France, Nordic European countries and many more.

The goal of civil unions is to compete with marriage and weaken it by offering an cheaper and less engaging alternative. It’s a step to prepare the population’s minds. But the ultimate goal is always complete equality, so with marriage, adoption and even more than others with artificial reproduction and surrogacy legal and paid by the society.
OraLabora said:
That’s essentially what happens in France and other countries. It wouldn’t be an innovative solution, but it is a solution!
Click to expand...
civil marriage as a solution because it allowed same sex marriage without forcing church to perform them?

Well, it depend on what you call a solution.

Unless you are in a country where civil marriage does not exist (such as Lebanon and some arabic/muslin countries) there is always a possibility of a civil marriage without a Church one, even if the Church weedings are legally recognized.

I know that some countries put pressure on Church to perform same sex marriage, as they have a legal dimension with legal backmail and claiming homophobie . But it is not necessary and scandalous discrimination toward religious freedom.

Marriage is not only a civil solution and us Catholics only spiritual souls who are completely disengaged and don’t care the evils that are happening on the earth, because we are not from this “world”.
No. Marriage concerned us and we are concerned by people. We are concerned by children who are part of marriages.

In France there were big social movement when the laws were changing. The catholics and the Church were the first on fight.
Marriage means the legal right to adopt (we have to be married to adopt at “two”), filiation rights with the other spouse. It also mean teaching in school. It also now means that parents are to be legally registred are “parents 1 and 2” in school. It will mean very soon that women will be able to have artificial procreation without a man offered and paid by the society. Tomorrow it will be surrogacy as a matter of non discrimination over men.
 
Last edited:
Polak said:
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.
Click to expand...
We never can control the actions of another and it is very unlikely that they will change.
 
In willing the good of others, I should see it as an omission not to warn of the perils to the soul by making a mockery of the Holy Sacrament by this act. Further, a civil contract opens up for him to compounding of this initial act, such as artificial conception and all other deviant methods in emulation of what is Holy to gain what seems like familial normalcy.

It should be taken in the light that governments of today see no wrong in taking upon themselves responsibilities that solely belong to the Church.
 
The first thing every Catholic needs to remember is these quotes were some sort of early release , edited, out of context statements, where verycleverly, the questions were omitted.

The second thing every Catholic needs to remember is did the Pope come out with any statement in support of homosexual union, NO.

I call publicity stunt since the movie is about to bereleased and its creator is homosexual.
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe you’re just too young to have lived during a time when gay men were regularly harrassed by the police and when they got rounded up in some gay bar and had their names published in the newspaper usually lost their jobs and shamed their families. John Geddes Lawrence Jr. was arrested in 1998 and charged with having “deviate sex” with another man in his own bedroom. It was his appeal of the charges against him which resulted in the landmark Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 striking down all sodomy laws in the US in cases involving sex between consenting adults.
 
Yes I’m familiar with that case. You’re just really proving my point. You’re attempting to speak for gays instead of letting them speak for themselves.

There used to be a time when ‘breeders’ were looked down upon as well as their conventions. Gay represented freedom from those conventions. Nowadays it’s about conforming to the bourgeois notions prevalent in our society. In my opinion gay is boring nowadays.
 
StudentMI said:
Yes I’m familiar with that case. You’re just really proving my point. You’re attempting to speak for gays instead of letting them speak for themselves.
Click to expand...
I’m not “attempting to speak for gays”. I’m just pointing out that what I and a lot of other gay men experienced was not the average “mean nastiness that life throws at people in general.” And although things are much better now for gay men than what they were thirty or more years ago, many of the gains that have been made could be lost.
 
Last edited:
A lot of different groups were persecuted at a lot of different times. As you yourself said, things are much better now and some people not believing in gay marriage or civil unions for gays isn’t going to make the lives of gay people any more dangerous.
 
humilityseeker said:
I call publicity stunt
Click to expand...
You’re absolutely right on that part. How it is being spun in the media should not be disregarded, however. From everything I’ve been reading here and in other places, the first statement, about a right to a family, was taken deliberately out of context. The second part about recognizing civil unions was not, and is problematic. Combined with such statements as, “who am I to judge?”, I think there are going to be a lot of very confused people out there.
 
My understanding is the press translated it incorrectly. I don’t speak Spanish, but my iTranslate app shows this translation:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
MikeInVA said:
From everything I’ve been reading here and in other places, the first statement, about a right to a family, was taken deliberately out of context. The second part about recognizing civil unions was not, and is problematic. Combined with such statements as, “who am I to judge?”,
Click to expand...
If I am reading your post correctly you literally just did the very thing that you are criticizing the documentary for doing…combining statements from different times.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
If I am reading your post correctly you literally just did the very thing that you are criticizing the documentary for doing…combining statements from different times.
Click to expand...
No, there is a difference between different contexts and different times.
 
Translating from one language to another is difficult - more so when only snippets are entered into the translation engine. In the context that the Pope appeared to be speaking, it was definitely about civil unions. “Civil coexistence”, whatever that means, would have been non-sequitur.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top