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.
Anesti33 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why do Jesuits as a group adopt such a practice?
 
John4 said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
I’m confused. You think parents should disown homosexual children and that our ancestors would approve of that?
 
Last edited:
Anesti33 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, discernment is an essential part of Jesuit spirituality. It is a very good thing!
 
Anesti33 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Jesuits enjoy doing as such, however Francis is Pope and as Pope 1 billion Catholics look to him for guidance and teaching, as Pope it is his job to give clear and precise guidance and teaching leaving no room for ambiguity on such matters…

…he is playing a dangerous game with many of his flock, so that he may continue indulging his “Jesuit (ambiguous) Nature”…

…many people keep talking about how many people this will bring into the Church (albeit through ambiguity/false pretenses), however does anybody seem to be alarmed at how many Pope Francis is directly driving away from the Church through his (perhaps beloved) ambiguity.
Anesti33 said:
It’s all quite calculated.
Click to expand...
Here is something we both agree on.
 
Last edited:
CathBoy1 said:
does anybody seem to be alarmed at how many Pope Francis is directly driving away from the Church through his (perhaps beloved) ambiguity.
Click to expand...
I would guess some people get disillusioned with the Catholic Church, think they were mistaken and can no longer believe in the papacy. They may become Eastern Orthodox, for example. It has happened, but I don’t know about numbers.
Others would stay Catholic like someone in an abusive family, when they have nowhere to go.
 
Bernoulli said:
I would guess some people get disillusioned with the Catholic Church, think they were mistaken and can no longer believe in the papacy. They may become Eastern Orthodox, for example. It has happened, but I don’t know about numbers.
Others would stay Catholic like someone in an abusive family, when they have nowhere to go.
Click to expand...
This seems to be the current situation unfortunately, if it were not for Pope Francis’ love for ambiguity in such matters perhaps the situation would be different.
 
StudentMI said:
John4 didn’t. If you think that’s a brilliant method of debate then please proceed.
Click to expand...
I think it is brilliant. Shows that words can be interpreted in different ways, especially taken out of context. We’ve experienced the past few days too many people jumping in to give their opinions of what the Pope did or didn’t say.
 
MarkRome said:
I think it is brilliant. Shows that words can be interpreted in different ways, especially taken out of context. We’ve experienced the past few days too many people jumping in to give their opinions of what the Pope did or didn’t say.
Click to expand...
So only those with the right opinions should be jumping in to contribute, eh?
 
sealabeag said:
A homosexual union is not sinful?
Click to expand...
A civil union doesn’t automatically equal a homosexual union.

However, even if it does, gay and lesbian folks are having those unions anyway. The point that Francis is trying to make is that, for those that have only ever known that life-path, either through lack of teaching or whatever else, it’s not fair to them to not have some of the same legal rights for things like hospital visitations or inheritance issues.

Like it or not, those folks have families, and you can’t just approach the subject by pretending that they don’t. Are they families that are ordered towards Christ’s will for all of us? No, strictly speaking. That doesn’t mean that we can trample all over their familial rights in this country, and we’re never going to get them to actually listen to what kind of beautiful things God has in mind for them if we pretend that it’s okay to do so.
 
Last edited:
Billy76 said:
You can have those rights without glorifying homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Which nobody here is doing.
Billy76 said:
What exactly is the inheritance law that you speak?
Click to expand...
Gay couples usually aren’t legally allowed to pass inheritance to each other in the event of a death; decisions on effects left behind usually goes instead to a blood relative. Hardly seems fair to me.

. . . .
 
Last edited:
Raxus said:
Which nobody here is doing.
Click to expand...
It is exactly what you are doing. Homosexual Unions would be a legitimate legal entity if instituted which it clearly is not morally. You can pass laws that you are concerned about that does not glorify homosexuality.
Raxus said:
Gay couples usually aren’t legally allowed to pass inheritance to each other in the event of a death; decisions on effects left behind usually goes instead to a blood relative. Hardly seems fair to me.
Click to expand...
Again a law can be passed that says you can give your money to anyone you feel like. Why glorify homosexuality?
Raxus said:
Read my post again, more slowly. I mention them.
Click to expand...
I read fine. You mentioned no “familial” rights in your post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top