S
StudentMI
Guest
Yep. It’s confusing as most of his statements are. As I’ve said, he’s not a great speaker.
- Status
A
Ana_v
Guest
Hi all,
Sometimes laws are proactive and preventative. Sometimes laws are reactive and come into existence after an issue has already arisen.
For example, texting and driving or use of hand-held phones while driving. Accidents associated with the use of mobile devices have provoked regulations for the sake of public safety.
We live in a world in which marriage and family laws are not uniform. Moreover, at this point in history, many people - whom the Church would say have impediments for entering into lawful marital unions - have already contracted civil marriages or entered into unions in which children have been (and are being) conceived, adopted, or raised.
We have to deal with the fact that same-sex relationships involving children is no longer a hypothetical, but a reality.
Just the other day I noticed one of my friends on Instagram has a follower who is a man in a relationship with another man and they are raising 5 children.
I assume that some, if not all, were conceived through artificial reproductive technology /a surrogate. Otherwise, the children are adopted or are from a previous heterosexual relationship that one or both men may have had in the past.
Same-sex relationships and family units with varying degrees of legal recognition are no longer hypotheticals. They exist and we have to decide if, when, and how to regulate them in the best interest of the parties involved and society as a whole.
In some ways, this controversy reminds me of the open debate of what to do with frozen human embryos.
No, it was not morally licit for these innocent lives to have been conceived under the conditions that they were. But they exist now. What do we do? We cannot just kill them or discard them. Yet, many Catholics debate whether it is morally permissible to adopt them, since doing so means allowing for a surrogate mother to carry the pregnancy.
I’m using that as an analogy, not to change the topic.
We have to ask: what do we do now?
Sometimes laws are proactive and preventative. Sometimes laws are reactive and come into existence after an issue has already arisen.
For example, texting and driving or use of hand-held phones while driving. Accidents associated with the use of mobile devices have provoked regulations for the sake of public safety.
We live in a world in which marriage and family laws are not uniform. Moreover, at this point in history, many people - whom the Church would say have impediments for entering into lawful marital unions - have already contracted civil marriages or entered into unions in which children have been (and are being) conceived, adopted, or raised.
We have to deal with the fact that same-sex relationships involving children is no longer a hypothetical, but a reality.
Just the other day I noticed one of my friends on Instagram has a follower who is a man in a relationship with another man and they are raising 5 children.
I assume that some, if not all, were conceived through artificial reproductive technology /a surrogate. Otherwise, the children are adopted or are from a previous heterosexual relationship that one or both men may have had in the past.
Same-sex relationships and family units with varying degrees of legal recognition are no longer hypotheticals. They exist and we have to decide if, when, and how to regulate them in the best interest of the parties involved and society as a whole.
In some ways, this controversy reminds me of the open debate of what to do with frozen human embryos.
No, it was not morally licit for these innocent lives to have been conceived under the conditions that they were. But they exist now. What do we do? We cannot just kill them or discard them. Yet, many Catholics debate whether it is morally permissible to adopt them, since doing so means allowing for a surrogate mother to carry the pregnancy.
I’m using that as an analogy, not to change the topic.
We have to ask: what do we do now?
Last edited:
J
JamesG
Guest
But the Vatican approved and sanctioned the film- causing confusion and division.
. . . . Even knowing the damage this film has caused he has not clarified his statements. That twitter account is an inch away… I’m waiting.
Last edited:
M
Maximian
Guest
No but Baron Alexander Tschugguel (of Pachamama fame) is demanding they do:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ATschugguel?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Last edited:
W
whitechocolatebear
Guest
Read the 2003 CDF document on civil unions. It is established magisterial teaching that homosexuals cannot have any legal representation in marriagies of civil unions. And the catechism also says that homosexuals behavior can never be accepted under any circumstances. This is simply erroneous if he said it in the first place.
I think we all ought to be asking for clarification, sadly I highly doubt that Pope Francis gives any clarification whatsoever.
John Allen Jr over at the Crux said it best in his article on the subject:
”If you don’t fix it, you bought it”
www.google.com
John Allen Jr over at the Crux said it best in his article on the subject:
”If you don’t fix it, you bought it”
Bottom line on pope movie mystery: ‘If you don’t fix it, you bought it’
No matter what a leader actually says or does, if he or she allows an impression to be created and doesn’t publicly disown it, then it belongs to them.
I
ioannes_pius
Guest
Has anyone seen this?:
www.patheos.com
Full Text Proves Francis Meant Civil Unions IN PLACE OF "Gay Marriage"
On Wednesday, quotes from a new documentary came out where Pope Francis seemed to indicate support for civil unions for homosexuals. On Thursday, I posted
www.patheos.com
A
Anesti33
Guest
I find it outlandish that there should be a demand for clarification of off-the-cuff things said in interviews for films or newspapers or dictated to an atheist reporter or fired off at reporters during a long plane flight. No.
Baron Alexander Tschugguel is within his rights to protest. Perhaps it is important to make a public stink. But the Holy Father has already adequately clarified his stance on just about everything. He just put out 43,000 words’ worth of clarification on all the problems of the world. The Holy Father is constantly talking and speaking on issues here and there and everywhere. He’s answered the Five Dubia, for crying out loud. His actions and his personnel and his laconic (haha) words have more-than-adequately answered every burning question that any Traditionalist can ever have.
It’s just a shame people don’t listen carefully.
Baron Alexander Tschugguel is within his rights to protest. Perhaps it is important to make a public stink. But the Holy Father has already adequately clarified his stance on just about everything. He just put out 43,000 words’ worth of clarification on all the problems of the world. The Holy Father is constantly talking and speaking on issues here and there and everywhere. He’s answered the Five Dubia, for crying out loud. His actions and his personnel and his laconic (haha) words have more-than-adequately answered every burning question that any Traditionalist can ever have.
It’s just a shame people don’t listen carefully.
The world has listened, if his words were taken out of context then he should come out and say so…
…the same would be expected of any world leader, why is it unreasonable to expect the same of the leader of the worlds’ 1 billion Catholics?
Yet thus far, crickets…
…perhaps we’ll get a response during his next long flight, I hope it is better than accusations of rigidity.
Also I must’ve missed this, can you please provide a source showing where he officially responded and answered the Five Dubia?
Last edited:
A
Anesti33
Guest
M
MNathaniel
Guest
I was surprised and interested to hear he finally answered the dubia too so I clicked the link – and wound up not at text but at a picture of Pope Francis smiling and holding his hand up.
If I need to click a further link from here, could you specify which one?
Last edited:
A
Anesti33
Guest
Yes – all of them.
M
MNathaniel
Guest
Sorry – I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic.MNathaniel:
Yes – all of them.
Here’s the page your link took me to:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Are you saying literally every link on this page will take a reader to a response to one of the Dubia? That seems self-evidently not the case.
Last edited:
Because he has not directly responded to the Five Dubia, and anybody would be hard pressed to prove that he has.
You’ve said plenty, yet provided nothing.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
He has? Related to the divorced and remarried?
And here my friends are the consequences of the Popes words without any clarification given.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27737E
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27737E
I
ioannes_pius
Guest
Something tells me that if Pope Francis issues clarification, his critics are either going to a) ignore it or b) reject it because it doesn’t jive with what they might want to hear.
M
MarkRome
Guest
Thanks for the link. This is like a mental ping pong match for me. I definitely could see how his words could be taken and spliced together in the editing room in a way that gives the impression he is pushing for civil unions. Based on this article it is plausible that he is asking that governments which are considering performing same-sex marriages to not do that and if they need something, to do civil unions instead. It is the lesser of two evils. And the Argentinian law, wow, any two adults, not just gay couples, can get civil protections. That seems to be Pope Francis’ frame of reference.
Last edited:
I
ioannes_pius
Guest
Yes and, as Archbishop Fernández said, for Pope Francis, civil unions do not imply sexual relations.
S
StudentMI
Guest
See this is one of my issues. It’s frankly naive to think that.
- Status