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.
Guys, please take a look at this video:


Look at the jump in the timestamp.
 
frarmandofm said:
The Church recognizes that, in order to protect civil and property rights, divorce is not a moral offense (CCC, #2383). This does not mean that the Church is denying or is attempting to change its teaching on the indissolubility of a valid marriage.

Permitting civil unions to protect civil and property rights does not mean the Church is denying or attempting to change its teaching on marriage as between a single man and a single woman.
Click to expand...
I suspect your argument doesn’t hold up because the Church would not claim that a marriage is valid purely BECAUSE it protects civil and property rights.

Ergo, neither the Pope nor the Church can support civil unions purely because they protect civil and property rights.

What needs to be established is that the putative “civil and property rights” made available to those in civil unions are the responsibility of the state to uphold on its own merit NOT because these unions mimic a married union.

Why should civil and property rights be made available to those in a civil union on its own merit? The argument seems to be that those in a civil union deserve the same rights as a married couple because their union is essentially the same as a married couple’s. But is it?

Unfortunately, the Pope’s endorsement of civil unions and the accompanying “civil and property rights” makes it appear that the Church’s position is that the two are essentially the same kind of union. That is the Pope’s error, and yours, as well, apparently.
 
OraLabora said:
That ship has sailed. The days of the Church being able to change secular society are long gone, as are the days of living in majority practicing Catholic countries,
Click to expand...
History can last a long time, and many things are possible. I remember long ago when I was being recruited by the FBI being told that it and the intelligence community liked to recruit from Fordham and Brigham Young because there was a reasonable chance their graduates would have high moral standards. Today, we’re looking at a majority of Catholics on the Supreme Court. Society knows, subliminally at least, what Catholicism is and how important it is to the society.

I have had Evangelicals admit to me that if not for the Catholic Church, their religious freedom would have been crushed some time ago. And they’re right.
 
I feel that our laws ought not discriminate against people based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. and that my personal moral beliefs should not be used as a basis for depriving others of their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

There’s nothing that can prevent two men from living together as a couple. They always have, they always will. If having a civil union allows them to share health and retirement benefits, then let’s let them do that. Let’s let a mother and son have a civil union for the same purpose. Or a man and his cousin. Or a woman and her sister.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

This is what my friend just sent me, he’s gay and not Catholic. I don’t really know how to respond… I wish the Pope and other Church leaders realized how they leave us out to dry when they make ambiguous statements or don’t clarify what they mean and allow the media to run rampant. What am I supposed to say? Whatever I say will sound to his ears like, not only do I not I not support lgbt issues, but that I’m specifically going against my religion to do so. And it makes it seem like other Catholics, as pointed out in this meme with ACB, are using religion as a cover to hold our “backwards” or “bigoted” beliefs.
 
tell him Church teaching trumps a pope’s opinions. This might mean nothing to him, but its worth a shot…
 
I too. Their pervesion of the rainbow realy gets on my nerves. We have to get our rainbow back. Homosexuals equate diversity of race and cultures, with pervesion of sexuality. Disgusting and demonic!!
 
Has he recently said… “I do not support same sex unions” …here??? Any time? In plain language? He should. Today. Obviously he has some splaining to do… and had a BUNCH of people misled. That’s HIS doing. He needs to answer for that. Plain and simple. Matthew 5:37. Let your yes be yes!!! Sheesh. IMHO.
 
Trying2overcome said:
If one can say " Personally i’m against gay marriage, but they shouldn’t be barred from being recognized by the law." Why can’t one say, “I am personally pro-life, but women should have the right to choose abortion.”
Click to expand...
Not everything is about abortion!

Those who support homosexuals having certain rights, even civil unions, are NOT advocating gay marriage. In fact, we see it as a way to avoid having to recognize gay marriage. A few years ago the Washington DC diocese was faced with a similar issue–the diocese came out in favor of civil unions rather than supporting gay marriage.
 
on_the_hill said:
If having a civil union allows them to share health and retirement benefits, then let’s let them do that. Let’s let a mother and son have a civil union for the same purpose. Or a man and his cousin. Or a woman and her sister.
Click to expand...
No, I think you misunderstand the purpose of these laws. The purpose is to protect and support families, which are the building blocks of a healthy society. We (and least in the past we did) value the role of the family in society as a good that deserved special protection.
 
" Cui bono? Each time the Church’s teaching is thrown into question by a new papal novelty, some loyal Catholics are shocked and dismayed, while others work feverishly to reconcile the latest statement with the enduring magisterium. And radical Catholics, who really do want to overturn established dogma, rub their hands gleefully and seize another opportunity."

Source
 
Last edited:
on_the_hill said:
I feel that our laws ought not discriminate against people based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. and that my personal moral beliefs should not be used as a basis for depriving others of their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

There’s nothing that can prevent two men from living together as a couple. They always have, they always will. If having a civil union allows them to share health and retirement benefits, then let’s let them do that. Let’s let a mother and son have a civil union for the same purpose. Or a man and his cousin. Or a woman and her sister.
Click to expand...
So a brother and sister could have a civil union? A mother and son? For health benefits? How about a man and his 4 wives, and his 14 children?
Let’s not stop there, though, let’s add in his eight brothers? And his grandparents? And his 4 aunts and 7 uncles? And the 28 wives of his 7 uncles? Can they all have a civil union, together?

Whew - - I feel bad for that HR administrator! Or the taxpayers! Etc!

Are you sure you’re a Republican? 🤣
 
Last edited:
Sorry, it’s not. Maybe that’s your opinion. And the word “support” is the wrong word. “Allow” perhaps. Do you advocate going to to making homosexuality illegal and hunting down and persecuting them?
 
MikeInVA said:
No, I think you misunderstand the purpose of these laws.
Click to expand...
If you know the “purpose” of these laws, please give us some quotations and links to show that’s what the lawmakers had in mind.
27lw said:
So a brother and sister could have a civil union? A mother and son? For health benefits?
Click to expand...
Why not? When you get beyond two people, then you’re entering a totally different area.
 
The Church presumes marriages outside the Church to be valid. Since the Church may grant an annulment, then once granted, the Church is saying the marriage wasn’t valid or the annulment would not be granted.

If a person is married, divorced and remarried outside the Church, were they committing adultery in the first or second marriage or both.

Marriage in the general sense of the word, (for most people) is a civil union accepted from a legal standpoint.

Marriage as the sacrament is an entirely different thing.

Exactly why a civil divorce has no bearing on the sacrament which took place in the Church if they happened to get married in the Church.
 
Experience says that’s not viable for a gay man. That is fairly central to the situation of homosexual persons. They form close attachments to persons of the same sex.
 
Absent the close attachment? And would the woman go along with what you propose? Unlikely.
 
Better to avoid improper sexual relationships might be the better statement.

I don’t pretend to understand the forces of intimate attractions between people. But the results of those forces are clear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top