Why is the Pope Endorsing Same Sex Unions in Film

[Guest1]

This thread give new meaning to the saying “Holier than the Pope.”

So back in the day when King David was King and had committed murder and adultery was anyone condemning his actions behaving as holier than thou?

Popes and God’s kings can sin. They can be in error just like anyone else.

Does Papal Infallibility Mean the Pope is Perfect or Inerrant?

Papal infallibility means that the pope is protected from error when he “proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals” (CC...

www.catholic.com

 

[Theosis]

It’s a sad day for the Bride of Christ. “As we follow [our] Lord in his death and resurrection” (CCC 677), may we fast and pray.

 

[Jbrady]

No, I didn’t forget how to use google. But thanks for asking.

I do apologize for the snide answer, which I deleted.

But, sorry, I have no desire to rehash a discussion which has been had many times before on this very board.

 

[DeniseNY]

I have no desire to rehash a discussion which has been had many times before on this very board.

Good, so you know that there is no such thing as a “conservative Catholic” or a “liberal” Catholic, so the term shouldn’t be used… We are just Catholic.

 

[HarryStotle]

Sorry, but is insulting to imply that anyone who disagrees with your personal opinion or private interpretation of the Faith must be some kind of amoral libertine that wants to introduce a free for all.

There is a difference between “private interpretation” and established Church teaching as presented in dogma and doctrine.

If you want to claim someone is expressing a personal opinion and not producing an accurate statement of Church teaching, it is up to you to produce some evidential corroboration that YOUR account is not merely YOUR private interpretation or opinion but accurately represents what the Church, in fact, teaches.

I doubt you will do that because you are aware that your opinions are not supported in any Church dogmas or doctrines.

So making an accusation that the other person is merely presenting their opinion or interpretation as opposed to your interpretation isn’t exactly an effective argument.

 

[DeniseNY]

If it makes you happy to think so, far be it from me to rain on your parade.

Why so snarky and snide?

It’s not a matter of what makes me happy. It’s a statement of fact.

 

[HarryStotle]

What are you talking about?

Scripture, Catechism and the CDF have affirmed same sex unions and same sex marriages are against the Churches teachings.
[/quote]

My comment was in response to @Jbrady.

Please read it again.

 

[Jbrady]

Why so snarky and snide?

No snark at all, there, this time. I really did mean that I have no desire to change your mind or argue with you. You seem to be in a comfortable spot and I don’t want to disturb it.

 

[DeniseNY]

You seem to be in a comfortable spot and I don’t want to disturb it.

And what spot is that? I’ve revealed nothing about what my personal thoughts are on the Pope’s statement. And I’ve never interacted with you before. Why are you more interested in discussing me on a personal level than you are about answering questions on things you posted on a public message board?

 

[DeniseNY]

I’m not interested in discussing anything with you at all, and certainly not on a “personal level”, whatever that means.

Oh but you did make it personal, by making remarks about my “comfortable spot” and “raining on my parade”. Those remarks made absolutely no sense and weren’t logical responses to being asked to define the terms you used.

 

[JamesG]

He is condoning the sin of civil unions which is in opposition to what the church teaches.

 

[HarryStotle]

DeniseNY:

Why so snarky and snide?

No snark at all, there, this time. I really did mean that I have no desire to change your mind or argue with you. You seem to be in a comfortable spot and I don’t want to disturb it.

You seem quite intent to portray every position as merely an interpretation or opinion or “comfortable spot,” as if it is indeterminable whether anyone can make a verifiably true statement or proposition.

Epistemic relativism is what you seem to be promoting. That is foreign to Catholicism because the fundamental assumption in epistemic relativism is that there is no way of knowing what is true with any certainty.

The Church holds the position that the truth is discoverable and CAN be known with certainty. In particular, even though revealed truths (revelation) cannot be known through human endeavour they can be known to be true with certainty because they have been revealed by God himself.

This is not to say that one position is necessarily correct, but the point is that positions are arguable and can be determined to be correct or errant.

Epistemic relativism entails that arguments or discussions are futile because truth doesn’t exist or, at least, cannot be known.

Ergo, this might explain why you are reticent or “not interested” in discussing positions with others, i.e., you don’t think there is a true position to begin with, just personal opinions that differ.

 

[Rau]

He is condoning the sin of civil unions which is in opposition to what the church teaches.

I have not heard a sin called that before. A civil union is a civil law arrangement. It typically gives various legal rights similar to those associated with marriage. It’s usually assumed that persons who avail themselves of civil unions are of the same sex and have a romantic/sexual relationship, though that might not be the case.

Would you object to civil unions were there no sexual relationship?

FYI - with the rise of same sex marriage, I would have thought demand for civil unions is near nil. The gay community tended to shun them in earlier days because they were considered second rate (in comparison with marriage).

 

[Anesti33]

I suggest that the Church lobby hard for same-sex civil unions and at the same time lobby to remove the limitation of just two people in such unions.

Then the Church should encourage all religious institutes, priests in rectories, consecrated virgins, and others as such to apply for civil unionship and enjoy the protections thereof.

Problem solved!

 

[Billy76]

I am so devastated and hurt that the Pope would say such a an evil thing. Now there is mass confusion, hysteria, and scandal. Who knows how many souls Pope Francis has put in mortal danger? Who knows how many Catholics he drives away from the Church based on these evil views and scandal? Who knows how many Catholics will further misunderstand Church teaching because of Pope Francis’ refusal to be clear and distinct when speaking? This is a very sad and dark day for the Church. Jesus Christ, please help Pope Francis and save the souls that Pope Francis has Jeopardized!

 

[pulchraesamicamea]

Here is my take on what the Holy Father is talking about:

1. Civil unions are not equal to sacramental marriage.
2. Many countries continue to punish homosexual individuals with death penalty and persecution, therefore they must be protected as human beings.
3. He hasn’t changed church teaching.
4. This isn’t an infallable statement and he has not spoken about this “from the chair”.
5. No one gave the Pope a chance to clarify his statements.
6. He has spoken from the point of civil union law, that they are legally covered; he hasn’t said “sexual relationships and marriages of men to men and women to women are not sins”.

 

[Billy76]

He is the Pope. He must be clear with his words and in my opinion this absolutely terrible. If he has an issue with persecution and murder, he should have said “persecution and murder must end” not openly homosexual unions which is contrary to the Catholic faith.

 

[pulchraesamicamea]

I wish that he spoke his words more clearly. I can understand that he spoke from the point of civil union law, which isn’t a problem. Homosexuals are people too, and I understand that. But his statement sounds like “civil unions are great and we must allow them, and same sex attraction is great too!” which isn’t aligned with church teaching. But we must recognize that Pope is also a human, and we must understand he too can sin. But my heart aches because he could have been more clear as to what he’s trying to say.

 

[Billy76]

Look I understand there is a distinction between Church teaching and civil law but many lay people and non Catholics won’t. This makes his wording ever more critical and dangerous when he is not clear, which time and time again he is not. Also, why advocate for civil unions? It is completely contrary to Catholic belief. The only harm it could and has done is scandalize and confuse people. Pope Francis has the most important job on Earth and that is to save souls and every misstep are souls that are potentially lost. That is why I am critical of Pope Francis when he is not clear. Any Catholic in who knows Church teaching would know what Pope Francis is not talking about sacrament but legally protecting homosexuals from persecution and abuse. But there is media and culture out there hellbent on twisting his words to try and force a narrative that doesn’t exist in the Church and he must be better. There are souls at risk.

 

[pulchraesamicamea]

Any Catholic in who knows Church teaching would know what Pope Francis is not talking about sacrament but legally protecting homosexuals from persecution and abuse. But there is media and culture out there hellbent on twisting his words to try and force a narrative that doesn’t exist in the Church and he must be better. There are souls at risk.

I cannot agree with you more. People want to twist the Holy Father’s words into something else. When his wording is NOT clear, it just gives too much misunderstandings and scandals inside the church, which in turn leads to people leaving the church.

There are souls certainly at risk. I hope this isn’t perceived as endorsing homosexuality.