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 why I respectfully submit that he may be mistaken in the practical realm but not in his principles.
 
ioannes_pius said:
Yes and, as Archbishop Fernández said, for Pope Francis, civil unions do not imply sexual relations.
Click to expand...
If you are talking about the type of law that Argentina has, sure. But most of the world doesn’t have that frame of reference. I never heard of that until now. And, I don’t think Pope Francis was thinking about celibate same-sex partners living together either when discussing same-sex civil unions vs. marriage.
 
So, is there an answer/conclusion regarding whether a Catholic (Pope or otherwise) can support civil unions for homosexuals?
 
Francis’ exact words: “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 hacer es una ley de Convivencia civil.”

(Copied and pasted from a friend’s Facebook page): Literal translation. “Homosexual persons have a right to be in a family. They are children of God, they have a right to a family. You can’t throw anyone out of the family, nor make life impossible for that. What we need to create is a law of civil coexistence.”

The word “Convivencia” is important here; it literally means “living together”, but is not used to refer to civil unions. That would be “Unión civil” which he did not say.
 
Very interesting. Looks like his words may have been manipulated and edited to give a false impression. Encouraging.
 
As I said, I copied and pasted it from a friend’s Facebook page. Not sure what I said that could warrant your ‘adorable’ comment. Perhaps you could explain. (There…I said all that without returning your condescending attitude…)
 
Well, you should know better than to rely on Facebook for reliable facts; “coexistence” is not how you translate that. No Spanish-speaker would agree to that translation.
 
Even the Priest who speaks spanish who posted a video?Login • Instagramy-kFQlfoJnnr1k I can’t even trust him on Facebook? He seems to know Spanish. Just curious…are you an expert in linguistics? To make that statement “NO Spanish-speaker would agree to that translation” insinuates you must be.
 
Last edited:
Please…if you could share where you received your degree in linguistics, I have to warn my Spanish speaking friends that they’re wrong.
 
Hi friend, I don’t speak Spanish either but just to let you know, an archbishop of Argentina agrees that the Pope’s words have the common local meaning of “civil union” and that this position of being in favour of such civil unions in consistent with the position Pope Francis expressed back in Argentina before his election to the papacy.


The question really is only about whether one expects sexual activity within a civil union. Not whether the pope was talking about civil unions. Basically they’d seem synonyms in Argentina (where the pope is from).

As the article notes:
Fernández, Archbishop of La Plata, Argentina, said Wednesday that the pope’s term connotes a civil union as the term is commonly understood.

The archbishop posted on Facebook that before he became pope, then-Cardinal Bergoglio “always recognized that, without calling it ‘marriage,’ in fact there are very close unions between people of the same sex, which do not in themselves imply sexual relations, but a very intense and stable alliance.”

“They know each other thoroughly, they share the same roof for many years, they take care of each other, they sacrifice for each other. Then it may happen that they prefer that in an extreme case or illness they do not consult their relatives, but that person who knows their intentions in depth. And for the same reason they prefer that it be that person who inherits all their assets, etc.”

“This can be contemplated in the law and is called ‘civil union’ [unión civil] or ‘law of civil coexistence’ [ley de convivencia civil], not marriage.”

“What the Pope has said on this subject is what he also maintained when he was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires,” Fernández added.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
puer.dei said:
Pope Francis clearly referred to civil unions, not to sacramental marriage.
Click to expand...
The problem is that people outside the Church make no such distinction. As far as they can see, he’s endorsing them as one & the same.

I came into the Church 6 yrs ago, & honestly, things like this are really testing my faith.
 
Please don’t let them. Popes come and go, there have been popes who engaged in all sorts of scandalous behaviour in the past, but the teaching of the Church doesn’t change. The Church sails on! I know it’s disheartening but that’s what the enemy wants.
 
Anesti33 said:
That’s adorable. You don’t really speak Spanish, do you?
Click to expand...
But I do, & I’ve understood convivencia in the same way. I’ve usually heard the term used legally of couples living together - usually unmarried.
 
What kind of alliance is he talking about that doesn’t imply sexual relations? The archbishop posted on Facebook that before he became pope, then-Cardinal Bergoglio “always recognized that, without calling it ‘marriage,’ in fact there are very close unions between people of the same sex, which do not in themselves imply sexual relations, but a very intense and stable alliance.”
 
The Church has already spoken clearly about homosexual civil unions. HERE.
They cannot be supported by Catholics. Same sex ‘marriage’ is of course deemed not just wrong but an ontological impossibility.
 
lwest said:
What kind of alliance is he talking about that doesn’t imply sexual relations?
Click to expand...
Technically speaking some countries (don’t know about Argentina) have indeed considered having a form of civil arrangement that could be entered into even by siblings, that’s about property rights etc.

If we’re just talking about stuff like that (civil arrangements that literally any combination of people could make to achieve property rights arrangements they want, hospital privileges, etc) I’m fine with it. At that point you’d have siblings, platonic friends, maybe even whole networks of people customizing their own property sharing arrangement. If any given subset of people decided to have sexual relations, that’d have nothing to do with the property sharing agreement, and be a sidebar topic.

Of course, in many locations, this is not what is considered under the idea of civil unions. In many places it’s understood that the specific kind of union sought is one that publicly affirms a sexual relationship.

This dual use of one term is problematic, clearly.
 
Last edited:
In his latest statement, he’s clearly speaking to parents about not disowning their gay children. The fact that he mentions legal protection immediately following those sentences implies the legal protection would be for those children. I’m not familiar with the arrangements you mention between siblings and platonic friends but since Pope Francis has clarified that marriage is between a man and woman several times before, maybe his previous statement he made in Argentina is referring to that.
 
lwest said:
In his latest statement, he’s clearly speaking to parents about not disowning their gay children. The fact that he mentions legal protection immediately following those sentences implies the legal protection would be for those children.
Click to expand...
If you mean the documentary, the documentarian edited out what Pope Francis said in between. He was no longer talking about children when he spoke of civil unions. (The original interview is available online and shows what the documentarian cut out)
 
I’m surprised the documentarian would cut that part out since the documentarian is gay. Why would he cut out something that could be interpreted as condoning his lifestyle?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top