Pope suggests church could tolerate some civil unions

[holy_face]

Infallible teaching such as Humanae Vitae could help one understand how to better reach eternal salvation though, depends. Whether or not you believe or know about the assumption of Mary is not necessary for salvation but could help enhance one’s faith. The Pope is here to guide us to understand our faith better and to enhance it.

 

[TheAdvocate]

I started this thread precisely because the article made NO reference to gay marriage. Therefore, let’s talk about the what the article is about, and not about what it is NOT about.

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-gives-new-interview-to-secular-newspaper

On behalf of the Vatican, Fr. Thomas Rosica released the following statement regarding certain interpretations of the interview:

"There have been numerous questions, calls and messages throughout the day today regarding Pope Francis’ recent interview in the Italian daily newspaper, Corriere della Sera, particularly referring to the section on marriage and civil unions. Some journalists have interpreted the Pope’s words in the interview to reflect an openness on the part of the Church to civil unions. Others have interpreted his words to be addressing the question of same-sex marriage. I have consulted with Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ, throughout the afternoon and have prepared the following notes on Pope Francis’ interview.

Asked specifically about “unioni civili,” (civil unions), Pope Francis responded:

“Il matrimonio e’ fra un uomo e una donna. Gli Stati laici vogliono giustificare le unioni civili per regolare diverse situazioni di convivenza, spinti dall’esigenza di regolare aspetti economici fra le persone, come ad esempio assicurare l’assistenza sanitaria. Si tratta di patti di convivenza di varia natura, di cui non saprei elencare le diverse forme. Bisogna vedere i diversi casi e valutarli nella loro varieta’.”

My translation:
"Marriage (matrimony) is between a man and a woman. Civil states want to justify civil unions in order to regulate (normalize) different arrangements of cohabitation; - prompted by the necessity of regulating (normalizing) economic aspects among people, for example in providing health insurance or benefits. This consists of different kinds of living arrangements which I wouldn’t know how to enumerate with precision. We must consider different cases and evaluate each particular case.”

[It is important to understand here that “civil unions” in Italy refer to people who are married by the state, outside of a religious context.]

Journalists have asked if the Pope was referring specifically to gay civil unions in the above response. The Pope did not choose to enter into debates about the delicate matter of gay civil unions. In his response to the interviewer, he emphasized the natural characteristic of marriage between one man and one woman, and on the other hand, he also spoke about the obligation of the state to fulfill its responsibilities towards its citizens.

By responding in this way, Pope Francis spoke in very general terms, and did not specifically refer to same-sex marriage as a civil union. Pope Francis simply stated the issues and did not interfere with positions held by Episcopal Conferences in various countries dealing with the question of civil unions and same sex marriage.

We should not try to read more into the Pope’s words that what has been stated in very general terms."
ncregister.com/blog/edwar…ular-newspaper

 

[TheAdvocate]

The pope is only infallible under very strict circumstances, everything the pope says is not doctrine. We have no obligation to believe everything he says is guided by the Holy Spirit.

I would even go as far to say that even if the Pope specifically declared as an infallible statement that civil unions were permissible, it would not be infallible because it would conflict with sacred tradition which carries more weight. A Pope can not make an infallible statement that conflicts with sacred tradition.

The whole teaching behind infallibility concerns how the Holy Spirit would preserve the Holy Father from authoritatively teaching something in error. Therefore:

A. If the pope were to formally proclaim it infallibly, then it would be
B. The pope would never proclaim such a thing infallibly in the first place, because the Holy Spirit would guard him from doing it.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Canon Law states that the Supreme Pontiff teaches infallibly when he proclaims, by a definitive act, a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.

So he must first say that it is church doctrine and it must be a matter of faith or morals.

**And it also must not conflict with sacred tradition, he can’t just make up stuff or change the originals beliefs and practices of Christianity.
**
It really is more limited than many people think, this makes sense because you have to limit the potential for damage when you get rogue popes. We have had a few that were quite controversial and could have done even more damage if they had not had some limits on their powers.

Where does it say that? (see bolded text above) That’s not in canon law.

Here is the attitude of some on these boards: if the pope teaches something that has always been taught, it is infallible; so what’s the point of teaching infallibly then? It’s all been taught before. But when the pope actually teaches infallibly, “I” get to decide whether he is actually teaching infallibly, not the pope.

Also, when it comes to papal encyclicals like Humanae Vitae, then–according to some–it’s infallible–even if it weren’t proclaimed as such; but when the pope suggests there could be a teaching concerning the admission of the civilly married to holy communion, then it’s not infallible–even if it were proclaimed as such.

So, basically, it works like this: when it’s a conservative teaching the pope is proclaiming, it’s infallible. When it’s a more liberal teaching, no matter how authoritatively proclaimed, it is not! (And when I disagree with His Holiness, I get a pass by simply calling my dissent “prudential judgment”!)

 

[holy_face]

traditio.com/tradlib/popelim.txt

It’s easy, conservative teachings are based on sacred scripture and sacred tradition, there is nothing in tradition or scripture that would even come close to supporting civil unions. In order to do so you have to just make it up out of nowhere.

In what universe do you think the Pope has authority to change scripture or the teachings of the apostles? Such an assumption is pompous to the extreme to think that somehow that he would have a new and better understanding of an issue than God himself.

 

[on_the_hill]

Here is the attitude of some on these boards: if the pope teaches something that has always been taught, it is infallible;

I can see where you’re coming from.
Could it also be that the condition/doctrine/whatever it is of infallibility was created not to give the Pope supreme decision making authority, but to protect against rogues? In other words, infallibility puts a check on the Pope’s power. To be infallible he has to meet certain requirements.

 

[on_the_hill]

[It is important to understand here that “civil unions” in Italy refer to people who are married by the state, outside of a religious context.]

This is the **most ****important **part of the entire (and I mean entire worldwide) discussion about the Pope and his statements regarding civil unions.

Thank you.

p.s. is it a sin to be immoderate in one’s use of text effects?

 

[TheAdvocate]

I can see where you’re coming from.
Could it also be that the condition/doctrine/whatever it is of infallibility was created not to give the Pope supreme decision making authority, but to protect against rogues? In other words, infallibility puts a check on the Pope’s power. To be infallible he has to meet certain requirements.

The point, though, is that it is impossible for a pope to formally proclaim a FALSE teaching which requires all Catholics to give their faith assent. The Holy Spirit would prevent him from doing so. It simply wouldn’t happen.

 

[Origen52]

The pope is only infallible under very strict circumstances, everything the pope says is not doctrine. We have no obligation to believe everything he says is guided by the Holy Spirit.

I would even go as far to say that even if the Pope specifically declared as an infallible statement that civil unions were permissible, it would not be infallible because it would conflict with sacred tradition which carries more weight. A Pope can not make an infallible statement that conflicts with sacred tradition.

I guess then you’d no longer be a catholic.

 

[holy_face]

why is that?

 

[holy_face]

The point, though, is that it is impossible for a pope to formally proclaim a FALSE teaching which requires all Catholics to give their faith assent. The Holy Spirit would prevent him from doing so. It simply wouldn’t happen.

I am interested in seeing where that concept originated from and how far back, is it part of the early tradition of the church?

 

[Origen52]

Where does it say that? (see bolded text above) That’s not in canon law.

Here is the attitude of some on these boards: if the pope teaches something that has always been taught, it is infallible; so what’s the point of teaching infallibly then? It’s all been taught before. But when the pope actually teaches infallibly, “I” get to decide whether he is actually teaching infallibly, not the pope.

Also, when it comes to papal encyclicals like Humanae Vitae, then–according to some–it’s infallible–even if it weren’t proclaimed as such; but when the pope suggests there could be a teaching concerning the admission of the civilly married to holy communion, then it’s not infallible–even if it were proclaimed as such.

So, basically, it works like this: when it’s a conservative teaching the pope is proclaiming, it’s infallible. When it’s a more liberal teaching, no matter how authoritatively proclaimed, it is not! (And when I disagree with His Holiness, I get a pass by simply calling my dissent “prudential judgment”!)

I think you’ve got it. People with that attitude progressive or conservative, love not the church but their own opinions.

 

[Origen52]

traditio.com/tradlib/popelim.txt

It’s easy, conservative teachings are based on sacred scripture and sacred tradition, there is nothing in tradition or scripture that would even come close to supporting civil unions. In order to do so you have to just make it up out of nowhere.

In what universe do you think the Pope has authority to change scripture or the teachings of the apostles? Such an assumption is pompous to the extreme to think that somehow that he would have a new and better understanding of an issue than God himself.

The bible is not the final authority for Catholics as it is for Protestants, that’s one of the reasons they separated, they believed no men should be above the bible, which they consider the one and only word of God. That is not what the church teaches. We believe the bible is only one of the ways in which God speaks to us.

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."7

 

[holy_face]

But I’m not making a sola scriptura argument, I’m am saying you can’t change scripture (or sacred tradition) to suit your wishes. I firmly believe more can be revealed by the Holy Spirit, sure, but the Holy Spirit is not going to go "never mind we didn’t really mean that in the bible or through thousands of years of practice, let’s change it now. " It is a ludicrous argument.

 

[holy_face]

I think you’ve got it. People with that attitude progressive or conservative, love not the church but their own opinions.

The traditions and scripture of the church were here long before me so they are not my “opinions” it is those who wish those things to change that are trying to implement their opinions

 

[YoungTradCath]

Ok, I will grant people’s legitimate concerns and put this into some real situations:

I guess what it really comes down to for me, intellectually, is, can there really ever be any situation in which a putative “union” between two non-family-related individuals is non-romantic? I mean, that’s just kind of weird. I have a good friend, let’s call him John. Imagine I say to him, “Hey, John! So, whaddya think about we ‘unioning’ ourselves so we can get a better deal on our health insurance ?” I use a same-sex situation here, but this applies equally for opposite-sex situations. I say, “Hey Alison, wanna ‘union’ ourselves so we can get a better quote on our car insurance policy? I mean, this is strictly non-romantic, you know wink wink ?” That’s still extremely weird and suspect.



But then maybe someone will say, well what about the situation where people band together to get cheaper phone service, like the Sprint Family Plan? Well… still, that’s not really a “union,” although very often these people will be families.

The “union” terminology is what gets me. If it is a “union” then that has extremely romantic connotations. If it’s not a union then why call it a union? Just call it “a group of friends agrees to join together to get health insurance as a corporate body instead of individually so that 1. the company gets more customers and 2. the friends get a better deal.” Wordy, but we avoid this weird situation entirely. We don’t call whole companies’ worth of people who purchase health insurance through their employers “unions” of people (disregard if there is a union in the traditional sense of employment), even though that term may be useful in, say, economics discussions or something. There is no name for that that indicates a “union” of people in any sense. It’s just “a group of people who purchase insurance through their employer.” I mean, I definitely don’t consider myself in “union” with any of my fellow students even though we all purchase insurance through our school for our particular academic program.

But, to cut to the point… for some reason… I don’t really think that’s the motivation behind 99.7% of so-called “unions” being talked about, even in Catholic circles.

So I grant that the Pope sees real (possible) situations where this could apply to real life in a moral(ly neutral) way. I agree, both intellectually and practically. But, these are not really “unions,” they’re just economic situations. I mean, this already exists, so why invent a new word for it? Well, because, in my opinion, that’s really not the motivation in this supposedly “new” situation. I mean come on, to use a term that at this time in history that in the vast majority of popular usage refers to a romantic connection to describe what is, in fact, *simply *an economic phenomenon? That doesn’t show up on any radars? Puh-leeze!

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

traditio.com/tradlib/popelim.txt

It’s easy, conservative teachings are based on sacred scripture and sacred tradition, there is nothing in tradition or scripture that would even come close to supporting civil unions. In order to do so you have to just make it up out of nowhere.

In what universe do you think the Pope has authority to change scripture or the teachings of the apostles? Such an assumption is pompous to the extreme to think that somehow that he would have a new and better understanding of an issue than God himself.

Traditio is a sedevacantist website. They are not to be listened to at all as they are in schism with the Catholic faith. They deny the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass. No Catholic should follow anything that they say.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Ok, I will grant people’s legitimate concerns and put this into some real situations:

I guess what it really comes down to for me, intellectually, is, can there really ever be any situation in which a putative “union” between two non-family-related individuals is non-romantic? I mean, that’s just kind of weird. I have a good friend, let’s call him John. Imagine I say to him, “Hey, John! So, whaddya think about we ‘unioning’ ourselves so we can get a better deal on our health insurance ?” I use a same-sex situation here, but this applies equally for opposite-sex situations. I say, “Hey Alison, wanna ‘union’ ourselves so we can get a better quote on our car insurance policy? I mean, this is strictly non-romantic, you know wink wink ?” That’s still extremely weird and suspect.



But then maybe someone will say, well what about the situation where people band together to get cheaper phone service, like the Sprint Family Plan? Well… still, that’s not really a “union,” although very often these people will be families.

The “union” terminology is what gets me. If it is a “union” then that has extremely romantic connotations. If it’s not a union then why call it a union? Just call it “a group of friends agrees to join together to get health insurance as a corporate body instead of individually so that 1. the company gets more customers and 2. the friends get a better deal.” Wordy, but we avoid this weird situation entirely. We don’t call whole companies’ worth of people who purchase health insurance through their employers “unions” of people (disregard if there is a union in the traditional sense of employment), even though that term may be useful in, say, economics discussions or something. There is no name for that that indicates a “union” of people in any sense. It’s just “a group of people who purchase insurance through their employer.” I mean, I definitely don’t consider myself in “union” with any of my fellow students even though we all purchase insurance through our school for our particular academic program.

But, to cut to the point… for some reason… I don’t really think that’s the motivation behind 99.7% of so-called “unions” being talked about, even in Catholic circles.

So I grant that the Pope sees real (possible) situations where this could apply to real life in a moral(ly neutral) way. I agree, both intellectually and practically. But, these are not really “unions,” they’re just economic situations. I mean, this already exists, so why invent a new word for it? Well, because, in my opinion, that’s really not the motivation in this supposedly “new” situation. I mean come on, to use a term that at this time in history that in the vast majority of popular usage refers to a romantic connection to describe what is, in fact, *simply *an economic phenomenon? That doesn’t show up on any radars? Puh-leeze!

This is why the question needs more study. There is lot to consider here. It is a study, nothing more. But I’m glad such questions will at least get some consideration.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Traditio is a sedevacantist website. They are not to be listened to at all as they are in schism with the Catholic faith. They deny the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass. No Catholic should follow anything that they say.

Thanks for pointing this out. It explains a lot.

 

[Origen52]

The traditions and scripture of the church were here long before me so they are not my “opinions” it is those who wish those things to change that are trying to implement their opinions

What you can’t seem to come to terms with is that as Catholics we don’t decide what the spirit is saying, the pope in union with the magisterium does that. And yes everyone, as pope Benedict has said, ultimately must follow their conscience, but as Catholics, only after seriously and respectfully considering the teaching of the church.

Think about the implication of your words,

I would even go as far to say that even if the Pope specifically declared as an infallible statement that civil unions were permissible, it would not be infallible because it would conflict with sacred tradition which carries more weight. A Pope can not make an infallible statement that conflicts with sacred tradition.

What you are saying is that you would break with the church. I hope you said this in a moment of anger, because infallibility, unlike the marriage laws, is dogma. As Catholics we agree to be bound by the teachings and decisions of the magisterium, not only when we agree but even when that which the church teaches is hard for us to understand and agree with. If we are Catholics we freely give our obedience to the church.

All that being said, why are you worrying about what might happen, remember,

34 ‘So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today.