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.
Which means that this, at most, amounts to an error in fact, but not an error in principle.
 
Yes, we can concede that…

But while he is doing an interview or a film, he is communicating to the entire world, Catholic or not.
We cannot go into dichotomy about what principles are and what facts are. The world, the political decisions don’t work that way.

It is confusing, nobody is able to understand.

Just watched the news a few second today on the TV… just enough to see what political mess it has created here… : 😑
 
Last edited:
The part he cut out condemned it. But made it clear the conversation was back to discussing adults now, not children.

I’d suggest reviewing the videos side by side if you’re curious about what got cut. I think Fauken posted it somewhere (or maybe I’m mixing up posters). It’s in one of the threads on this topic.
 
So, bottom line, the pope is not condoning gay marriage. Thank you for that clarification.
 
I have thought from the first that something like this author’s view is most likely, but then I believe in avoiding rash judgement. I followed the link and used the browser translator. It is interesting that the interview choose not to include the part in the airing about the civil union thing, but the movie make struck far more clearer remarks to spin his movie.

Like.
They asked me a question on a flight - later it made me angry, it made me angry because of how the media transmitted it…and I said: homosexual people have the right to be in the family, people with a homosexual orientation have the right to be in the family and parents have the right to recognize that son as homosexual, that daughter as homosexual. You can not throw anyone out of the family or make life impossible for that …

There, what he says is ‘you have the right to a family’. And that does not mean to approve of homosexual acts, far from it.
Click to expand...
Then to another question he says:
The grace of the Holy Spirit certainly exists. I always defended the doctrine. And it is curious, in the law of homosexual marriage … it is an incongruity to speak of homosexual marriage. But what we have to have is a law of civil union ( ley de convivencia civil ), so they have the right to be legally covered. (this last part left off the televised interview)
Click to expand...
The Michael Moore effect. If it is in a movie it must be true.
 
Last edited:
I think the main issue here is that mainstream media is running with the idea that the Pope is endorsing same sex unions (as in marriage), when that’s absolutely not what he meant.

I just wish that the Pope would actually come out and clarify this, to put it all to rest. I highly doubt he will though.
 
TotvsTvvs said:
I think the main issue here is that mainstream media is running with the idea that the Pope is endorsing same sex unions (as in marriage), when that’s absolutely not what he meant.

I just wish that the Pope would actually come out and clarify this, to put it all to rest. I highly doubt he will though.
Click to expand...
The media is saying he verbally endorsed SSM when that’s not what he said… but I am not sure it’s not what he MEANT. After all, if it wasn’t what he meant he would be motivated to clarify, yes?
 
Also, just because civil unions exist, that doesn’t mean that the Church has to approve of them, even as a “step down” from gay marriage. The Church could in fact, refer to the civil unions as “putative civil unions” if she wanted to, right?
 
Last edited:
sealabeag said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is disheartening when the pope, the head vicar of Christ, says scandalous things.
He’s the head of our beloved Church, but we’re just supposed to ignore him when he says these things that make Catholics seem like hypocrites to the world?
 
I don’t know, he might not want to clarify because by clarifying it would bring negative attention by the media as well.

My personal opinion is that he needs to clarify, but I know he won’t.
 
pnewton said:
The Michael Moore effect. If it is in a movie it must be true.
Click to expand...
You’re still hung up on the movie thing. He said it in an interview. The interview footage was used in a movie. He wasn’t acting in a role for a fictional movie. The Pope said what he said, regardless of how it is published.
 
MikeInVA said:
The interview footage was used in a movie.
Click to expand...
Bits and pieces of an interview was used out of the context in which it was said. This is how these type of propaganda movies are made. The very parts that clarify doctrine from the same interview was omitted.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
Bits and pieces of an interview was used out of the context in which it was said. This is how these type of propaganda movies are made.
Click to expand...
If that’s the case then Pope Francis should have absolutely no problem clarifying the issue, however I seriously doubt he does…

…what is interesting is that Pope Francis has absolutely no problem making scandalizing comments, or no problem letting his comments and writings be presented/interpreted in a scandalous way…

…however he has a huge problem with clarifying his comments, and he has a huge problem with clarifying/correcting (possibly)
mis-presented/interpreted views of his comments and writings…

… I find his silence on such matters quite telling (I wish it were otherwise).
 
Last edited:
The Pope has said statements against ssm, he is just talking about unions in some technical sense.
 
What a tragedy! The RC church has embarked on a different road. Our ancestors would be appalled and many who are not RC are very saddened, just imagine what the patriarchs of the eastern orthodox churches are wondering ?
 
I thought and think that Pope Francis is applying The Parable of the Good Samaritan - Francis talks the talk and walks the walk in my book.
 
It is his Jesuit nature. They enjoy inserting ambiguity everywhere possible into teachings, doctrine, and theology. He is very intentionally using ambiguity in his allocutions in order to open doors for novel interpretations, alternative viewpoints, and what have you. It’s all quite calculated.
 
As for the need for civil unions to legally protect them, in the US its not necessary, I don’t know about other countries. My brother and I inherited our parents home when they died. We changed the deed on the house to put both our names on it, using “or” not “and”. That way if one died, the house went directly to the other. We also did this with the title to 2 cars. I was named his health care surrogate in the event he was unable mentally or physically to decide for himself. I was also his power of attorney in the same event. But to protect him in case something happened to me, I also had a power of attorney made up naming my best friend as my power of attorney in the event I was unable mentally or physically to make decisions. We both had living wills made up, those offered by Priests for Life. We did all this through a lawyer within an hour for less than 100.00 Anyone can be named a healthcare surrogate or power of attorney. Your property can have names added. You do not need to be related. After my brother’s death, my friend continues to be my power of attorney and healthcare surrogate, giving her the right to visit me in the hospital anytime, regardless of what family might say. But that power of attorney and healthcare surrogate only kick in if I am impaired. In the US, makes the whole civil union thing a moot point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top