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.
Paddy1989 said:
Why should it hesitate to baptize a child of God?
Click to expand...
A child should only be baptized if there id a firm hope of them being raised in the faith.

If the parents are openly living contrary to that faith I would not have that hope.
 
LilyM said:
In other words, it seems to be very much restricted to committed domestic partnerships of single unrelated persons. Analogous to if not exactly the same as marriage.
Click to expand...
I agree. But it wouldn’t have to be that way–it could be expanded.
 
They shouldn’t be, that type of situation is a red flag.
 
Last edited:
The good Pope was not supporting “same-sex-marriage” and he was not supporting “same-sex-sex” etc.

The good Pope was supporting “legal protections for same-sex platonic relationships” and that is it.

See… www.CatholicWorldReport.com …for the real news.
 
mkamoski1 said:
…then you can see how the Pope is good and supports such, as I noted above.
Click to expand...
As much as I would like to think Pope Francis was talking about non-sexual homosexual cohabitating couples, it doesn’t pass the smell test.
 
Those that put their political ambitions, whether they be for progress or for conservation, before the immortal, unchanging teachings of God will answer to Christ on the last day. This is a critical error that many traditionalists and progressives are making in our time. Bergoglio, when he was a bishop, was involved with liberation theology, although I am not aware of the extent. Now, as Pope, he is furthering political agendas again with these and other statements. To the extent that he has acted in favor of political ends, he is failing to follow his very own advice from his encyclicals, which though intended to criticize his opponents are ironically quite applicable to the actions of the pontificate itself.
“Tolerance” and “anti-discrimination” are both hypocritical teachings of the world. They lack real substance and real meaning, and they each have been insinuated into Christian charity by enemies of the faith. What did the Apostles say to do with the unrepentent sinner? “Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh; that the spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. 5:5 What is a holy sacrifice to God? It is a humble and broken spirit.
There is no charity in tolerance, and no justice in anti-discrimination pursuits. I have my own sins, and for them I do my penance, and I will answer on the last day for my failings, purified as gold in a crucible. The first step in my journey, of course, has been to admit my own guilt, to accept the suffering I endure now because of my conscience. What help would the Church have offered me, if she had been afraid to warn me about God’s righteous judgement?
And if I must subdue my flesh for the sake of my love for God, why is it that we must dance so carefully around homosexuality and other aberrations that arise from the same foul pit as other sins of the flesh? To those that promote equivalence between homosexual sin and adultery, I am in agreement! Let no adulterer, no fornicator, no prostitute, no homosexual, no abuser of their own flesh, seek any false solace in the pews while they yet remain proud in their wicked ways. First let them repent of their sin, offering a holy sacrifice to Christ who saves them, and then let them seek the comfort of Christ’s blood and body. Or do we not recognize that a small bit of leaven, leavens the whole lump?
 
As for those that promote and advancement of tolerance, even for grievous sin, I say let them try. The struggle accompanying their misguided efforts will strengthen the Church in the end, purifying the faithful, and illuminating which of us is in the truth. As Gamaliel put it, if they are of God then we cannot stop them, no matter what we do. But if we are of God, then they cannot stifle us, no matter what they do.
For years I have lamented the weakness I perceive in the Church today. But now I welcome the adversity that our times bring to us. What is faith if it is not tested? So, come all who would change the Church to your own ends, come all of you that seek gentleness but not righteousness, come all heralds of dooms and apocalypses. The Church endures still, and will endure, forever. When the dust settles, we will know who was truly of God’s kingdom. And if it is the fate of anyone to ultimately die among those who were mistaken, then I can only pray that God judges them in his infinite wisdom and mercy, as he will judge me also.
Therefore, pray. Seek God, seek truth, seek love through all adversity. This battleground is not a thing of ambition, of titles, of money, or of crude material strength. It is within you, and it is a fight that you cannot escape. Your enemies are both near and far, and no one is more capable of deceiving you than you are, yourself. Do not trust your own judgements; do not blindly follow after the way of others. But stand firm in God, pursue him with all your strength, hold fast to what pillars of divine truth you can find. Only you can win or lose your soul. Remember, apathy is death.
 
Last edited:
Erikaspirit16 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Same slippery slope argument originally used to initiate changes in abortion laws. This is ONLY about saving the life of a woman when her life is in danger as determined by a tribunal of physicians. That quickly morphed into abortion without restrictions.

We can’t advocate making abortion illegal because that is tantamount to “hunting down and persecuting” women, but it isn’t tantamount to “hunting down and persecuting” babies BECAUSE the state “allows” that; but the state doesn’t “allow” women to be so treated, despite that babies are literally hunted down and dismembered in the process.

At least be honest. The end goal is gay marriage being legal and churches getting on board or being brought into the orbit of the progressive left or being disenfranchised. The slow drip drip of “that’s not what we mean” is a distraction meant to divert attention until the majority of persuadables can be brought on side.

A continual redefinition of words to make them mean something new with each iteration gradually completes the process.

Racist no longer means someone who doesn’t agree that skin colour is irrelevant, it now means that anyone who doesn’t automatically advantage people of colour is a racist.

Abortion is not killing a human being in the womb. It now means a necessary aspect of a woman’s reproductive health.

Marriage no longer means the commitment of a man and a woman to offspring and a family. It means any kind of “committed” relationship between two or more individuals.

The murkiness of terms is only apparent for those who think the terms are supposed to mean something definite to begin with.

The state doesn’t support, it merely allows, as if the state has the power to “allow” a complete redefinition of reality in the first place? Now the state can allow you to die so it need not support you when you are a burden to it.

How, praytell, is extending all those benefits you listed above NOT amount to supporting rather than merely allowing?
 
Last edited:
LilyM said:
In other words, it seems to be very much restricted to committed domestic partnerships of single unrelated persons. Analogous to if not exactly the same as marriage.
Click to expand...
Yes, while not inherently understood as a sexual relationship, the parties excluded from forming a civil union tends to suggest its implicit that the relationship is romantic/sexual.

Marriage on the other hand is explicitly understood to be a romantic sexual relationship. It used to be similarly understood as between Man and woman, noting this is the pairing where sexual relationships accord with the body.
 
Last edited:
CourtingTex said:
I really need to understand the church’s position on marriage between a man and woman in light of Francis’ endorsing this union

Is there different issue being advanced, in light of his endorsement?
Click to expand...
The canon lawyer, Dr. Edward Peters, published a post three years ago on his blog titled: “Same-sex marriage and same-sex unions are not the same thing…”

Peters addresses the often cited document published by the CDF in 2003 “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognitions to unions between homosexual persons” and discusses the portion that he considers to be its weakness.

“I think that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith muffed the distinction between “unions” and “marriage” back in 2003 when it published its otherwise insightful “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons”… I argued that ‘same-sex marriage’ and ‘same-sex unions’ were distinguishable phenomena, and that CDF was wrong to require Catholics to oppose legal recognition of ‘same-sex unions’ with the same non-negotiable vigor as Catholics must reject legal recognition of ‘same-sex marriage’ , in an essay…

In the course of faithfully setting out Church teaching… that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman, CDF, probably to underscore rhetorically the utter impossibility of marriage existing between two persons of the same sex, never uses the term “same-sex marriage ” (even in quotation marks, as is my convention) to describe such unions and instead refers exclusively to “homosexual unions ”, or close paraphrases, as something to be resolutely opposed by Catholics. That’s precisely the problem for, while every marriage is a union, not every union is a marriage.

We need to make several points…"

www.google.com

‘Same-sex marriage’ and ‘same-sex unions’ are not the same things…

… and I think Pope Francis was right to make that observation, which in turn means, yes, I think that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith muffed the distinction between “unions” and “mar…
www.google.com www.google.com

…

Phrases like “legal recognition of same sex unions” can be problematic because… do you mean the right to hospital visits or the right to file taxes as a person with marital status? The liberty to open the other person’s mail?

What do you mean by “recognition”? (The term employed by the CDF). The law recognizes many sorts of partnerships, associations, and unions…
…

Spanish speaker here. The Spanish term that the
Pope uses in the interview (“convivencia”), is a noun.

The verb “convivir” means “to live together”, “cohabitate” or “coexist”.

His sentence is:
“Lo que tenemos que hacer es una ley de convivencia civil.”

Literal translation: What we have to make is a law of civil cohabitation.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
Would you object to civil unions were there no sexual relationship?
Click to expand...
Yes. That nothing burger is a practical fantasy.

The church cannot give an inch to sin or open the door to sin. Gay romantic love is not ok. Furthermore, civil unions provide legal grounds to adopt children. So I completely reject the idea.

You are correct that civil unions is not enough for the radical left.
 
Has the Vatican clarified what the Pope meant? This is what worries me most, even the mainstream media recognize that it is quite confusing and want some clarity but apparently the Vatican has refused to make a statement on it. This is potentially one of the greatest scandals in the Church’s history, all it needs is clarification for us to know what he meant once and for all.
 
MagdalenaRita said:
Pope Francis’s Words on Civil Unions Distorted by Editing | Matthew Schneider
Click to expand...
Marriage between people of the same sex? “Marriage” is a historical word. Always in humanity, and not only within the Church, it’s between a man and a woman… we cannot change that. This is the nature of things. This is how they are. Let’s call them “civil unions.” Let’s not play with the truth. It’s true that behind it there is a gender ideology… But let’s say things as they are: Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is the precise term. Let’s call unions between the same sex “civil unions.”
Click to expand...
Am i reading this right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top