Why is the Pope Endorsing Same Sex Unions in Film

  • Thread starter Thread starter CourtingTex
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
VanitasVanitatum said:
The media twisted it by mashing what the pope said. He meant that parents shouldn’t throw out their children if their gay,
Click to expand...
If that’s the case I do not disagree, I hope he (Pope Francis) speaks up to say so…

…however as presented (which again I’m not saying that editing trickery isn’t to blame) it does suggest that he is endorsing same sex couples having a “right” to a family.
 
Except less than 48 hours after the story came out, there is now information that perhaps the documentary was a mash-up and was perhaps being deliberately misleading. I’m sure we’re going to find out more about it in the future.

Which is why instead of immediately reacting to everything from the Vatican as if it was a celebrity news conference, and maybe saying bold things that we will later regret, we should just wait and give people the benefit of the doubt until the entire story unravels.
 
Last edited:
This was a total failure.

First on the part of the documentarian. He intentionally spliced segments together out of context and translated it to imply Francis’ support for civil unions.

It was a failure on the part of the media/journalists because they didn’t do their due diligence and just kept reporting/repeating salacious content.

Finally, it is a failure on the part of Catholics who over-reacted to this causing great scandal. Catholic media, Bishops, lay apologists, and especially the Catholic muckrakers of the Internet.
 
MarkRome said:
We need to coexist and there needs to be laws that protect homosexuals from discrimination.
Click to expand...
Understand but in simplistic terms very open ended. To some discrimination is treating them any differently than heterosexual marriages, desiring a kind of gender neutral society in every aspect, including religious.
 
Last edited:
Just for fun, let’s take a look at civil unions!

Five states allow for civil unions: Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Vermont and New Jersey.

California, District of Columbia, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin allow for domestic partnerships while Hawaii allows for a similar relationship known as reciprocal beneficiaries.

Following the passage of same sex marriage laws, five states, Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont now allow for same sex marriages and have converted all civil unions into marriages.

If you want to analyze all the state laws, here they are: Civil Unions and Domestic Partnership Statutes

The benefits of civil unions include the following:
  • Inheritance rights, or the right to automatically inherit from your spouse after he or she dies;
  • Bereavement leave to mourn for your spouse;
  • Right to your spouse’s employment benefits, including health insurance;
  • Automatic designation as next-of-kin by medical professionals;
  • Joint ownership of property, and community property rights if you’re in a community property state;
  • Joint state tax filings;
  • Joint parental rights over children born to or adopted by the couple;
  • Right not to testify against your civil union partner; and
  • Right to seek financial support or alimony after a dissolution from the civil union.
There’s nothing about homosexuality or any type of sex at all in these laws. Nor should there be–do you really want the government telling you what you may or may not do in the bedroom?

Nor is there anything in these civil union laws about living together. They are simply a legal framework for allowing another person (same sex, opposite sex, lover, friend, whoever) to have certain legal rights. That’s it.
 
This is a serious error, verging on blasphemy.

Jesus is God. As a Catholic, you are obligated to believe this. The sin of the sodomites is that which so greatly offended God that it cries out to heaven for vengeance. This is in the Bible. Therefore, Jesus is gravely offended by homosexual acts, and homosexual “marriage”
 
The sentence is, as translated by this movie director, " What we have to create is civil union law." Nothing in that mentions gay couples, or people. That was another sentence.

I just pulled in my best Spanish speaker. She said “conveniencia civil” means a convenience, just like it sounds, and civil unions has a different word, which I forgot but sounded nothing like this.

As I said, Michael Moore. Do not blame the pope if the translation was deliberately changed.

The thing is, there is a way that civil gay unions could be endorsed, just like ending abortions after the first trimester could be endorse. It would still be a step in recognizing that there is no gay marriage, which the Pope has said, along with him saying that children need a father and mother, not same sex parents.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to countries persecuting homosexual individuals:

Aren’t Catholics supposed to support governmental laws in accordance with the natural law? So what is wrong with sodomy being illegal and homosexual people being punished for it? There is no chance this will happen anytime soon in western countries, but why are people pushing for homosexual people not to be “persecuted” for sodomy? The death penalty is definitely wrong and they shouldn’t be sentenced to death, but other than that, punishment is a prudential judgment to be made by governments, but sodomy shouldn’t be legal
 
Lots of people, including Catholics, do and say these things.

When the pope said homosexuals deserve to have families, perhaps he was referring to their families of origin. Too many are ignored and “put out of the family” by parents and siblings when they reveal they are gay.
 
pnewton said:
The sentence is, as translated by this movie director, " What we have to create is civil union law." Nothing in that mentions gay couples, or people. That was another sentence.
Click to expand...
Here’s what it says:

Las personas homosexuales tienen derecho a estar en la familia, son hijos de Dios, tienen derecho a una familia. No se puede echar de la familia a nadie, ni hacer la vida imposible por eso”.

“Lo que tenemos que hacer es una ley de convivencia civil. Tienen derecho a estar cubiertos legalmente”, dijo el Papa Francisco. “Yo defendí eso”.

Here is the best translation I’ve found:

Gay people have the right to be in the family, they are children of God, they have the right to a family. You can’t kick anyone out of family, or make life impossible for that ".

′′ What we have to do is a law of civil life. They have a right to be covered legally ", Pope Francis said. ′′ I defended that ".
 
I don’t know Spanish, and I wasn’t there. I know the media is dishonest frequently, and I don’t want to rashly judge the Pope and accuse him of saying something contrary to church teaching.

BUT… if the Pope was misinterpreted, doesn’t he have the obligation to clarify what he meant? This is being widely promoted in many news sources across the world, and prominent Catholic Priests themselves with large followings like James Martin are saying that Bishops opposed to civil unions (a teaching of the magisterium of the church) are going to have to “reconsider” their point of view?

I have to say, I’m really struggling with my faith because of this. It’s not so much the particular issue, but the idea that the Church cannot be wrong. If this one teaching was wrong, then all the other teachings could only be right by a coincidence. If the Church legally supports same-sex civil unions, then what happens to the obligation to form all other civil laws according to natural law? I know some people say bringing up abortion is a non-sequitur, and in a secular sense, I would agree. If I did not believe in God, I would be pro civil-unions but still pro-life. But the Church teaches that both abortion and homosexual cohabitation are contrary to the natural law, so if same-sex civil unions are okay, then the pro “choice” argument about personally being opposed but not wanting to make the decision for others is just as valid (I want to vomit)

I really hope the Pope clarifies his statement, but what are we to do if he doesn’t? It’s already been a day? I don’t feel like it would be too hard to clarify this
 
he said every one
needs a family. He wants them to be respected in the secular society as family if they are going to live in partnership no matter what the church wants. I see it like a father protecting its children from harm in any way. I know a father who had a son in a true religious cult and the son would be forced to go get signatures for scam events to bring back proof of their allegiance to tthe cult. The father said he signed it because he didnt want the cult members to hurt his son. He certainly knew the cult was using his son, and taking advantage of his son but he did not care as much about the principals , he wanted to protect his son.
 
Last edited:
Erikaspirit16 said:
Nor is there anything in these civil union laws about living together. They are simply a legal framework for allowing another person (same sex, opposite sex, lover, friend, whoever) to have certain legal rights. That’s it.
Click to expand...
Is that a little bit like saying abortion laws are not anout killing a baby, but merely rights to your own body?

“The power to tax is the power to destroy” was an old revolutionary quip. The point being government legislation can discourage an activity or promote one.
 
Last edited:
That’s your opinion. The laws say absolutely nothing about that.

That’s a religious belief. Your religious belief. You are perfectly entitled to think that. But it’s not the law.

No. If they had gone this route a few years ago, homosexuals would have had all the legal rights they wanted, but we wouldn’t be calling it marriage. Civil unions give the same legal rights as marriage, but without the prestige, tradition, etc. It would have kept marriage in a different category. It would have preserved marriage, the opposite of making a mockery of it.

But that’s the point of civil unions. They can be between two friends of either sex. What if you are single / widowed / widower, no children, no siblings, no parents. Wouldn’t you want someone you trust to have certain rights? Why not?

Again, there’s nothing in civil union laws about sex. That’s simply what people are reading into it.
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
Again, there’s nothing in civil union laws about sex. That’s simply what people are reading into it.
Click to expand...
Hi, I’m gay. I have lots of gay friends. I’m speaking from experience. Civil unions are about sex. Entirely? No. But partly? Of course. The laws recognizing such are partly sexual.
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
That’s a religious belief. Your religious belief. You are perfectly entitled to think that. But it’s not the law.
Click to expand...
It is the natural law.
Erikaspirit16 said:
No. If they had gone this route a few years ago, homosexuals would have had all the legal rights they wanted, but we wouldn’t be calling it marriage. Civil unions give the same legal rights as marriage, but without the prestige, tradition, etc. It would have kept marriage in a different category. It would have preserved marriage, the opposite of making a mockery of it.
Click to expand...
It would be legally sanctioning homosexual cohabitation, an intrinsic evil. We are not allowed to explicitly condone intrinsic evil in order to prevent a greater evil. That is double effect.
Erikaspirit16 said:
But that’s the point of civil unions. They can be between two friends of either sex. What if you are single / widowed / widower, no children, no siblings, no parents. Wouldn’t you want someone you trust to have certain rights? Why not?

Again, there’s nothing in civil union laws about sex. That’s simply what people are reading into it.
Click to expand...
The idea that civil unions aren’t geared towards sex is a fiction. Again, joint ownership of property suggests cohabitation.
 
HopingforGodtohelp said:
It is the natural law.
Click to expand...
That’s a religious belief. YOUR religious belief.
HopingforGodtohelp said:
It would be legally sanctioning homosexual cohabitation, an intrinsic evil.
Click to expand...
There’s nothing in these laws about cohabitation. That’s an assumption you are making.
HopingforGodtohelp said:
The idea that civil unions aren’t geared towards sex is a fiction. Again, joint ownership of property suggests cohabitation.
Click to expand...
They’re geared towards rights, not sex. Certain people may take advantage of it, and certain groups might see the advantages of it. But feel free to show me in any of these state laws anything concerned with sex.

Joint property = cohabitation? I’m sure we all know people who hold property in common without living together. My spouse and his mother. Two brothers in business together. Again, nothing in the laws themselves about this. At all.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top