Pope endorses civil unions for gay couples?

[linate]

 

“Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God,” Francis said in one of his sit-down interviews for the film. “You can't kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this. What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.”

"While serving as archbishop of Buenos Aires, Francis endorsed civil unions for gay couples as an alternative to same-sex marriages. However, he had never come out publicly in favor of civil unions as pope."

"Catholic Church teaching holds that gays must be treated with dignity and respect but that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.” A 2003 document from the Vatican’s doctrine office stated that the church’s respect for gays “cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.” That document was signed by the then-prefect of the office, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI and Francis’ predecessor."

https://www.wtol.com/article/news/nation-world/pope-endorses-same-sex-civil-unions-in-new-documentary-film/507-f525e738-2ef1-4a35-8c00-053e160432df?fbclid=IwAR2XkrsJyV29cqiD7ltplNJF52lls_Li9wMdKRLmNK-YrfsH4sD3We9XKms

[Peace]

15 minutes ago, linate said:

 

“Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God,” Francis said in one of his sit-down interviews for the film. “You can't kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this. What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.”

"While serving as archbishop of Buenos Aires, Francis endorsed civil unions for gay couples as an alternative to same-sex marriages. However, he had never come out publicly in favor of civil unions as pope."

"Catholic Church teaching holds that gays must be treated with dignity and respect but that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.” A 2003 document from the Vatican’s doctrine office stated that the church’s respect for gays “cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.” That document was signed by the then-prefect of the office, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI and Francis’ predecessor."

https://www.wtol.com/article/news/nation-world/pope-endorses-same-sex-civil-unions-in-new-documentary-film/507-f525e738-2ef1-4a35-8c00-053e160432df?fbclid=IwAR2XkrsJyV29cqiD7ltplNJF52lls_Li9wMdKRLmNK-YrfsH4sD3We9XKms

It's an interesting topic. A civil union law, depending on how it is written, does not necessarily have to "lead to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.” Generally speaking you can draft a civil union law that is neutral when it comes to homosexuality.

[dUSt]

I don't necessarily disagree with civil union laws if they can be written in a way that doesn't involve sex. For example, what if me and my brother could never find a girlfriend and grew up as ugly, lazy, losers. We, as brothers, should be able to live in the same house and have some laws that can help us with civil issues. I'm hoping this is as far as the pope's endorsement goes. Gay people, like all sinners, shouldn't be discriminated against or shouldn't be denied the same legal protections as any other person.

Now, if these laws extend extra benefits simply for being gay, and me and my brother (in the example above), wouldn't be able to take advantage of the same benefits because we are not gay--that would be problematic.

[linate]

5 minutes ago, dUSt said:

I don't necessarily disagree with civil union laws if they can be written in a way that doesn't involve sex. For example, what if me and my brother could never find a girlfriend and grew up as ugly, lazy, losers. We, as brothers, should be able to live in the same house and have some laws that can help us with civil issues. I'm hoping this is as far as the pope's endorsement goes. Gay people, like all sinners, shouldn't be discriminated against or shouldn't be denied the same legal protections as any other person.

Now, if these laws extend extra benefits simply for being gay, and me and my brother (in the example above), wouldn't be able to take advantage of the same benefits because we are not gay--that would be problematic.

good point

[Didacus]

Homosexuals have the right to contract as any others, as such, a legal union cannot be denied.

However, let this not encroach on the sanctity of marriage.

[fides' Jack]

Any direction toward this will only be bad for everyone.  People here are right, it could be worded in a way that's not directly sinful, but it can only mean a weakening of the sacred institution of marriage.

Brothers should never be considered partners in anything but a business relationship.  There shouldn't even be discussion about a "civil union" in cases like this.

This is one point that pro-homo Trump and Pope Francis are probably in agreement on, and I can't support either of them in this.

45 minutes ago, Didacus said:

Homosexuals have the right to contract as any others, as such, a legal union cannot be denied.

It can if they expect that legal union to be contracted between each other, and not members of the opposite sex.

4 hours ago, Peace said:

Generally speaking you can draft a civil union law that is neutral when it comes to homosexuality.

Specifically speaking, any civil union law right now should not be neutral when it comes to homosexuality.  Neutrality in this matter is sinful.

1 hour ago, dUSt said:

Gay people, like all sinners, shouldn't be discriminated against or shouldn't be denied the same legal protections as any other person.

Anyone who wants to get married to a person of the opposite sex should be free to do so.  And that's fair to everyone.

However, not all sins are equal.  Murderers and rapists should not have the same freedoms as other people.  I honestly don't know how this principle should be applied to homosexuals, but it's important to note that there is a distinction to be made.

[Peace]

13 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Specifically speaking, any civil union law right now should not be neutral when it comes to homosexuality.  Neutrality in this matter is sinful.

Nonsense.

[fides' Jack]

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/archbishop-vigano-responds-to-new-film-in-which-pope-endorses-homosexual-civil-unions?utm_source=featured&utm_campaign=catholic

[Ash Wednesday]

My kneejerk concern is how the pope endorsing civil unions will send people in different wings of the Church off the deep end either way -- some feeling so scandalized that they go the way of schism or sedevacantism, and others using it as justification or validation of heterodox beliefs and false hope that the Church's teaching on the sanctity of marriage can and will change.

All this said, the problems of poor catechesis or confusion is, sadly, nothing new. 

 

[KnightofChrist]

I'm done with Pope Francis. I was done along time ago. I pray for him, hope all the best for him but I'm done.

[Ice_nine]

you gonna become protestant? orthodox?

[Lilllabettt]

One good thing about the pandemic is it seemed to have put a moratorium on this stuff. 

I think I had one good year of me not waking up with a sense of dread over what might have been said or done overnight and what gymnastics might be required to make sense of it. Did PF decide to zip it? Or did he just become irrelevant to the media against the backdrop of global catastrophe? Almost 1 year of peace.

Please God can we not go back to that daily dread... All Popes have their share of unforced errors. They all step in it. But this is exhausting. 

My bishop is cardinal cupich. He goes on and on about how awful it is people openly resist PF. Gave a train wreck interview where he blamed it on people being racist to PF. Unity unity unity he says.  So important. Well have you tried not being divisive, to see if that helps?

[KnightofChrist]

7 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

you gonna become protestant? orthodox?

In as much as it can be done without losing the Faith, I am done with Pope Francis. Likely an unsatisfactory answer but the best I have at present.

[Ice_nine]

did you see his explanation

[Anastasia]

“ 1. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.”

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html 10

Unfortunately, Pope Francis appears to be driven by his desire to be liked by the world while the primary "drive" of any Christian must be Christ. It is becoming harder to remain "straight" i.e. to say "yes, yes", "no, no" in this world without being frowned upon.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Anastasia

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Ice_nine said:

you gonna become protestant? orthodox?

The smart money is on SSPX I think.

2 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

My kneejerk concern is how the pope endorsing civil unions will send people in different wings of the Church off the deep end either way -- some feeling so scandalized that they go the way of schism or sedevacantism, and others using it as justification or validation of heterodox beliefs and false hope that the Church's teaching on the sanctity of marriage can and will change.

All this said, the problems of poor catechesis or confusion is, sadly, nothing new.

I am actually starting to like it. I mean, I think his statements challenge people to think about the nature of mercy, what it means to be a Christian, while still adhering to the moral teachings of the Church. Looking at real human situations rather than rigidly applying dogma in some strict legalistic sense. We probably won't know the extent to which he has been beneficial or harmful to the Church until 50 years later, perhaps.

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

In as much as it can be done without losing the Faith, I am done with Pope Francis. Likely an unsatisfactory answer but the best I have at present.

Yeah good luck with that pal.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven‘ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

[Anastasia]

The Bishop of Rome is indeed a very strong symbol and a tool of the unity of the Catholic Church which over centuries has been working as such despite the sins (sometimes outrageous) of particular Popes. Yet I am afraid that absolute faith in the Bishop of Rome can become a pitfall for the Catholic Church if the Pope (any Pope) diverts from the correct teaching. I do not remember that Alexander VI Borgia was heretical, he was just a sinner. 

In my opinion, the major bad Pope Francis does to the Church is that he blurs. He says things in a way they can interpreted and re-interpreted and be very much liked by the world  and yet his words always leave a sufficient place to manure and get himself out of the situation if needed.  His words briefly excite the world, then cause angers among "trads" and some others but his words do not give enough material for those who sense a deviation in them to actually deal with him seriously. The current case is just the same: Pope said something very pleasing to the world an many in the Catholic Church but he said non-officially, in the documentary about himself.

The problem though that his slippery "private opinions" quite undermine and erode the Church like hidden water streams under the snow in spring.

[KnightofChrist]

This is the same basic playbook used a decade or so before civil authorities began blessing homosexual marriage. 

The Pontiff who sits on the chair of Peter gets his authority from Christ, the apostles, his predecessors. Where does Pope Francis get his authority to bless in any way unions God condemns? Where is the foundation in Tradition for Pope Francis' position? 

No sspx, just going to ignore as much as possible the strange, odd, unorthodox things Francis says. 

[fides' Jack]

I think it's important in times like this to keep alive the domestic church, as much as possible.  And support your local, orthodox priests.  Befriend them.  Encourage them to promote the sacraments as much as possible.  

Many Marian apparitions and prophecies foretold of a time when there would be a false pope who would lead many astray.  

I'm not qualified to offer any kind of judgement on the matter of the validity of Pope Francis' authority, but I do know many saints and theologians from the very beginning of the church argued that a pope in heresy ceases to be the pope.

I don't know if that's the case now for PF, or if it could be the case in the future.  I only know it's possible.  And in that event, it will only be the catechetical instruction of the faithful, and the grace of God, that will keep them within the One True Church.

At the very least, he is not a good pope.  At this point I believe it's safe to say that and not be falling into sin in doing so, if my purpose is to warn other Catholics and instruct them to learn their catechism.

[Peace]

55 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

The Bishop of Rome is indeed a very strong symbol and a tool of the unity of the Catholic Church which over centuries has been working as such despite the sins (sometimes outrageous) of particular Popes. Yet I am afraid that absolute faith in the Bishop of Rome can become a pitfall for the Catholic Church if the Pope (any Pope) diverts from the correct teaching. I do not remember that Alexander VI Borgia was heretical, he was just a sinner. 

In my opinion, the major bad Pope Francis does to the Church is that he blurs. He says things in a way they can interpreted and re-interpreted and be very much liked by the world  and yet his words always leave a sufficient place to manure and get himself out of the situation if needed.  His words briefly excite the world, then cause angers among "trads" and some others but his words do not give enough material for those who sense a deviation in them to actually deal with him seriously. The current case is just the same: Pope said something very pleasing to the world an many in the Catholic Church but he said non-officially, in the documentary about himself.

The problem though that his slippery "private opinions" quite undermine and erode the Church like hidden water streams under the snow in spring.

I think that what you wrote is possible, but we'll see what the long-term implications of it are. I see him as being a person who likes to leave room open for discussion of issues, rather than just applying a rigid rule or black & white test for everything. I think that in some respect that is a good thing because a lot of issues and situations are complex. Ultimately, the Church cannot teach error, so from my perspective having a discussion and exploring issues is a good thing. I think a lot of folks like to paint the man as someone who is just so extreme and far removed from what the Church teaches, but at least from what I have seen so far, when we take a closer look at some of the areas that have sparked controversy (such as the Amoris footnote) the issue is not as black and white as some folks always want to make it.

52 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

This is the same basic playbook used a decade or so before civil authorities began blessing homosexual marriage. 

The Pontiff who sits on the chair of Peter gets his authority from Christ, the apostles, his predecessors. Where does Pope Francis get his authority to bless in any way unions God condemns? Where is the foundation in Tradition for Pope Francis' position? 

No sspx, just going to ignore as much as possible the strange, odd, unorthodox things Francis says. 

Hmm. So where he agrees with your view of what the Church teaches, you will fall in line, but where he challenges your view, you will ignore him? We have been down this avenue before, but it does sound like a rather Protestant way of approaching Church authority. If you don't like what your pastor has to say, go to the church down the street and get a new pastor. For all practical effect you are you own pastor.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Peace