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.
That’s a misapplication of “render unto Caesar”.
This is an authoritative document on the matter: Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons

From its conclusion: “ 1. 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.”
 
Anglicanism has no equivalent to the pope. The church is Episcopally lead, Synodically governed and locally adapted. The Queen is titular head of the Church of England. She has no formal authority in the creation of doctrine - that resides with the Bishops of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is first among equals.
 
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, with exceptions such as Poland. Canada, and the US, and much or Europe among others, are not Poland. We are highly diverse and pluralistic countries where all belief systems are given room to thrive. That includes Catholicism.

If we don’t afford the same freedom to others, we can’t be too surprised when our own freedom is constrained by civil law.

The best secular governments will thus do is politely listen to us and then go with what is popular regardless of what we as Catholics think. It behooves is to accept that and instead of tilting at windmills, quietly evangelize.
 
Last edited:
None of us are promoting Catholics giving into the sins of the world. We are to conduct ourselves as the Church teaches, though alas too many of the Church’s leadership have given in to the sins of the world as far as their own personal conduct goes. O’Brien, McCarrick, Becciu, the pedophile scandals and coverups, and others have given ample proof.

It makes it awfully difficult for us Catholics to claim moral superiority on same sex unions… I’d be inclined to keep a low profile and mind my own salvation.
 
OraLabora said:
I’d be inclined to keep a low profile and mind my own salvation.
Click to expand...
:-1:t2: The sins of some members of the Church definitely makes it much more difficult for us to speak to the culture on these issues, but we must still speak, for the sake of other’s souls and our own.
 
Church Teachings remain Church Teachings. They’re still protected by the Holy Spirit. When Pope Francis was bishop, he said something contrary to Church Teachings. He’s still our vicar. The Holy Spirit will still not allow error to be taught. I’m sorry you left Catholicism. All the less-than-obedient priests, bishops, lay people can’t change the fact that we have Jesus in the Eucharist and the full deposit of Faith. I hope someday you realize that and come home.
 
puer.dei said:
Pope Francis clearly referred to civil unions, not to sacramental marriage.
Click to expand...
I kind of thought that the Church was opposed to civil (not sacramental) unions? How do his words square with the call for universal chastity (according to your status in life), and celibacy outside of a sacramental marriage?
 
The most fundamental issue is not whether two people are having a particular flavor of sex. The essential issue is corrosive deception, as Paul preached against in Romans 1. The Pope needs to make a prudential call as to whether his words and actions promote the deceptions that corrode marriage and family. The Pope wants to bring those on the fringes back in and is doing uncomfortable things to open those doors. At the same time those who are truly against the institutions of marriage and family will use this situation.

In my opinion, I don’t think he gets that, but I understand who he is trying to bring back into the Church. That’s his call as Pope.
 
Last edited:
MikeInVA said:
40.png
puer.dei:
Pope Francis clearly referred to civil unions, not to sacramental marriage.
Click to expand...
I kind of thought that the Church was opposed to civil (not sacramental) unions? How do his words square with the call for universal chastity (according to your status in life), and celibacy outside of a sacramental marriage?
Click to expand...
The Church has been opposed to them (the CDF under Benedict XVI put out a document stating as such) because in reality, civil unions are just the equivalent of marriage where sexual activity is occurring in more cases than not. This “compromise” proposed by Pope Francis is basically just caving to secular demands and also opens up the door to other issues like adoption by same-sex couples, and eventually full marriage. A country that doesn’t have any kind of recognition of same-sex unions currently and would opt to just approve same-sex civil unions would eventually recognize full blown marriage for same-sex couples. And I don’t think anyone is naive enough to believe that a country that currently recognizes same-sex marriage would go backwards and change it to only recognize civil unions. That’s why this compromise makes no sense, even on a purely prudential level.
 
Probably in vain. Most had one foot and four and a half toes out the door already. And demographic replacement will take care of the rest.

Like I said, just about anyone who opposes Pope Francis on this opposed him already. He isn’t going to make many new enemies over this. Already on the other thread about this topic one poster says that he and his wife will probably not going to return to church after Covid, and I think he’s far from the only one.
 
Last edited:
Jbrady said:
Probably in vain. Most had one foot and four and a half toes out the door already. And demographic replacement will take care of the rest.
Click to expand...
It reminds of the Barnum and Bailey Circus. For years attendance was dropping, and research indicated that people who thought the animal acts were cruel had stopped going. So, the circus cut out the animal acts - and the rest of the audience stopped going - no one came back to the circus. Now the Barnum and Bailey Circus is gone.
 
goout said:
The Pope wants to bring those on the fringes back in and is doing uncomfortable things to open those doors.
Click to expand...
This bears remembering. We should all remember that the Church is a hospital for sinners, not a comfortable clubhouse for its members.
 
Odilon said:
Have faith - Francis will not be the Pope forever.
Click to expand...
That line won’t work with me. I’m a big fan of Francis and think someone like him was long overdue. I can only pray that his replacement carries on in the same way.
 
Michael Moore was one of the greatest movie educators of all time, for those who would learn his biggest lesson - namely, movies are not the place one should be getting their information. They can be entertaining, teach good values, or even give a good historical or biographical information. However, they are never the standard. They are like the doodling one might do with a graph, at best. At worst, they are propaganda. In all cases, when things sound hinkey, look to the data.

Civil unions are not marriages. They represent a valid option to protect some people against unjust discrimination. I would even say it is feasible to live in such a union, abstaining from sexual sin, and be a good Catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top