Pope suggests church could tolerate some civil unions

[TheAdvocate]

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1400916.htm

I know there have been similar posts to this one, but I am posting it because:

a. it comes from a Catholic news source
b. the story doesn’t talk about gay civil unions at all, like the mainstream media misconstrues.

Of particular interest: possible communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.

 

[po18guy]

Before this gets out of hand - as sooooooo many threads on the Holy Father do, let’s examine carefully. From the article:

Pope Francis suggested the Catholic Church could tolerate some types of nonmarital civil unions as a practical measure to guarantee property rights and health care.

Not exactly etched in stone.

 

[ServusHumilis]

I doubt anything will come out of this. I won’t believe anything until I hear it come from HH’s own lips… and I pray that never happens.

 

[_Abyssinia]

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/edward-pentin/pope-gives-new-interview-to-secular-newspaper

 

[JRTJ]

I wish our beloved Pope would fight the culture war against secularism with everything he has, as Pius X, Pius XII, Paul VI, JPII, BXVI did.

 

[on_the_hill]

I doubt anything will come out of this. I won’t believe anything until I hear it come from HH’s own lips… and I pray that never happens.

The most important question is, “What if it does?”

 

[Origen52]

The most important question is, “What if it does?”

If it does, it would be the will of the Holy Spirit. As Catholics we believe

2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

'“Traditionalist” also cannot pick and choose what part of doctrine to believe.

 

[holy_face]

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.

 

[Trader]

All headlines exist to create public interest in reading the article. Headlines are frequently misleading. A more honest, but less interesting headline, might have been “Some people interpret a remark to suggest something the Pope did not actually say.” That happens so often that it would create almost no interest.

There are lots of different ways that legal structures could be created for real needs that don’t fit the ordinary family. For instance, I have a nephew with a package of some disabilities called delayed development. He could not walk until he was almost three and did not speak until four. He is fortunate to have great parents and his mother happens to have a masters degree in speech therapy. After home therapy and some special education classes, he is now in regular classes and is only slightly below average at a public school and just turned 10. He still can be difficult to understand when he speaks, but he understands what he hears. He also has a problem with small muscle control, so he cannot write legibly. His doctor has the same problem, so he can write illegible prescriptions like any other doctor, but could not be a surgeon.

Suppose something happened to his parents. As his uncle, I might get custody of him, or adopt him, but as far as I know there could be a need for him as an adult to get some help that is not a full guardianship. Would the Church be OK with a legal structure where I could purchase joint insurance with my nephew or have a limited power of attorney for finances?

In the US we also have a need for a legal structure that meets the needs of a mentally ill adult. We need something between allowing a mentally ill person to be totally on his own and locked into a state facility. There have been serious tragedies where people close to a mentally ill person knew there was a problem, but they lacked the legal authority to do anything about it.

There is a huge difference between that kind of arrangement and calling a relationship based on sodomy a marriage equivalent.

 

[Tigg]

If it does, it would be the will of the Holy Spirit. As Catholics we believe

2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

'“Traditionalist” also cannot pick and choose what part of doctrine to believe.

And, by the same token, how could the Church possibly declare (through a Synod or not) that teaching coming from Divine Revelation and issuing from the very words of Christ Himself and upheld for the past 2,000 years, might suddenly be different?. Doctrine does not change – it only “develops” from what has previously been taught. What the Church has once declared, it simply cannot deny. I’d say we have a very specific problem here in that not all the prelates agree and they must concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. (LG 25)

 

[Tigg]

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.

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE
LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfhomun.htm

 

[holy_face]

I no longer pay much attention to what the clergy says anymore, including the popes, because I know the teachings of the church and I also see them embracing worldly ideas a great deal of the time. They are humans and fallible and unfortunately there are so many temptations in the modern world to get caught up in ideological movements and modernist ideas. We should not hang on their words on a routine basis.

They are there mostly to issue the sacraments and instruction where there is confusion on an existing teachings of the Church. Unfortunately their egos take hold and get them spinning in all sorts of directions that are nothing but confusing.

I will pray for them and hope they return to their senses in the near future.

 

[on_the_hill]

In the US we also have a need for a legal structure that meets the needs of a mentally ill adult. We need something between allowing a mentally ill person to be totally on his own and locked into a state facility.

My understanding is that these arrangements are controlled by state laws, and really would have nothing to do with the Church. In other words, I doubt (although I’m not certain) that the Church is not particularly involved with Powers of Attorney, for example.

As for people with mental illnesses, there are few who are still living in institutionalized settings. Most are living in group homes or other community based treatment options.

 

[on_the_hill]

I no longer pay much attention to what the clergy says anymore, including the popes, because I know the teachings of the church and I also see them embracing worldly ideas a great deal of the time. They are humans and fallible and unfortunately there are so many temptations in the modern world to get caught up in ideological movements and modernist ideas. We should not hang on their words on a routine basis.

They are there mostly to issue the sacraments and instruction where there is confusion on an existing teachings of the Church. Unfortunately their egos take hold and get them spinning in all sorts of directions that are nothing but confusing.

I will pray for them and hope they return to their senses in the near future.

Not that I disagree with your sentiments, but I’m waiting to see the responses…

 

[on_the_hill]

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.

But how would we know? Who decides if a pope is speaking infallibly?

 

[holy_face]

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.

 

[holy_face]

Not that I disagree with your sentiments, but I’m waiting to see the responses…

People can argue with me all they want but the fact is that the clergy, bishops, and the pope all go to confession on a regular basis, they are not free from sin or mistake. We have to discern carefully what they say because they may or may not be aligned with the truth on a particular issue. If it aligns with sacred tradition then we can assume it is safe to believe but if not we have to wonder.

 

[Thorns]

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.

Why even have a pope if he only is reiterating what we all already know?

Ive asked this before somewhere, but I forgot the answer.

 

[holy_face]

The assumption of Mary is an example or the immaculate conception, newly revealed insights but not major changes in the original belief system. The pope can also clarify issues where there might be confusion or disagreement such Humanae Vitae, applying traditional Christian moral concepts to issues in the modern world.

 

[Thorns]

If theyre not major changes then theyre really not that important in the context of eternal salvation?

If it was never established that Mary was immaculately conceived, would that really change anything? Would souls not be saved?