Pope endorses civil unions for gay couples?

[KnightofChrist]

Don't Protestants change their beliefs every few years? Which is why there are so many splinter groups.

I still believe what the Church taught on homosexual civil unions way back in June, 3, 2003. Guess it's time to change and modernize. 

[Peace]

22 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Don't Protestants change their beliefs every few years?

More like every several weeks.

Quote

I still believe what the Church taught on homosexual civil unions way back in June, 3, 2003. Guess it's time to change and modernize. 

I have not looked at that one yet, but from the snippet that was posted in this thread and the 20 second sound bite from a video that nobody has seen, I don't think it is fair to say what our pope's position is on the document is, either.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Peace

[Anastasia]

53 minutes ago, Peace said:

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.

It sounds nice but we do have "black and white test for everything" - it is Christ Himself. He is the great polarizer as He himself said. There is no grey area in spiritual life (unlike other areas) and one who does not stick to Christ gravitates towards His opposite even if he does not want to do that and does not move.

I think all this is quite simple. Everything important can be verified by Christ Himself. "Homosexual civil unions", whether we want it or not, objectively undermine the natural order laid down by the Creator, Christ. Worse even, we have many reference to the relationship of God with humans as "a marriage" so the matter is indeed "metaphysical". Try to stick this notion of the "civil homosexual unions" to Christ - it does not stick because it is lie, biological lie, metaphysical lie, it is a blur at the very best. I would add any "blur" does not stick to Christ, to the Truth. So if we are to stick to Christ, our Head, we must of course not run around madly shouting "Away with them!" (whoever "they" are) but calmly say "no, it does not work, it is a lie, a disorder".

Pope Francis appears to corrupt the meaning of the Christian symbols habitually. For example, because of his preoccupation with "humility" he ended up washing the feet of Muslims (also Hindu, women) and kissing them. He seem to forget that he was supposed to represent Christ with his apostles and, via choosing non-Christians and adding other things (like kissing) he destroyed the symbolism of the Passion Thursday's Mass. If we verify his actions by Christ we will see that Pope did not think of Him. Christ would feed anyone, talk to women but He would not kiss the feet of women or allow to the Last Supper just anyone. So the world, unfamiliar with Christian symbols, was presented with a new one: Roman Pope kisses the feet of Muslims. 

I am trying to convey my sense, that the Pope thinks about his "humility" so much that he forgot what is his role. He forgot that he is not "Francis" but Pope. He thinks it is humility if he wear simple robes but there is more humility in wearing gold and knowing that he is nothing, by himself. It is a very subtle point when humility, raising very high, turns into its opposite (the true humility would never change the ritual of the washing the feet, for example).

Edited October 22, 2020 by Anastasia

[fides' Jack]

16 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

It sounds nice but we do have "black and white test for everything" - it is Christ Himself. He is the great polarizer as He himself said. There is no grey area in spiritual life (unlike other areas) and one who does not stick to Christ gravitates towards His opposite even if he does not want to do that and does not move.

I think all this is quite simple. Everything important can be verified by Christ Himself. "Homosexual civil unions", whether we want it or not, objectively undermine the natural order laid down by the Creator, Christ. Worse even, we have many reference to the relationship of God with humans as "a marriage" so the matter is indeed "metaphysical". Try to stick this notion of the "civil homosexual unions" to Christ - it does not stick because it is lie, biological lie, metaphysical lie, it is a blur at the very best. I would add any "blur" does not stick to Christ, to the Truth. So if we are to stick to Christ, our Head, we must of course not run around madly shouting "Away with them!" (whoever "they" are) but calmly say "no, it does not work, it is a lie, a disorder".

Pope Francis appears to corrupt the meaning of the Christian symbols habitually. For example, because of his preoccupation with "humility" he ended up washing the feet of Muslims (also Hindu, women) and kissing them. He seem to forget that he was supposed to represent Christ with his apostles and, via choosing non-Christians and adding other things (like kissing) he destroyed the symbolism of the Passion Thursday's Mass. If we verify his actions by Christ we will see that Pope did not think of Him. Christ would feed anyone, talk to women but He would not kiss the feet of women or allow to the Last Supper just anyone. So the world, unfamiliar with Christian symbols, was presented with a new one: Roman Pope kisses the feet of Muslims. 

I am trying to convey my sense, that the Pope thinks about his "humility" so much that he forgot what is his role. He forgot that he is not "Francis" but Pope. He thinks it is humility if he wear simple robes but there is more humility in wearing gold and knowing that he is nothing, by himself. It is a very subtle point when humility, raising very high, turns into its opposite (the true humility would never change the ritual of the washing the feet, for example).

This is authentic Western Catholic teaching, as well.

It may be there is a true reconciliation between the East and the West in our future, after all.

28 minutes ago, Peace said:

More like every several weeks.

Yeah - every time they open their Bibles.

[Jaime]

I have a hard time with "endorsing gay civil unions".  The couple in this union would very likely not be Catholic.  And if they were and they were in a civil union (or civil marriage here) they would be allowed to attend mass but not receive.  They would likely not be able to receive the sacrament of reconciliation.

but then again that's true of heterosexual civil marriages as well. And nobody has a problem saying "Hey would love to have you in the Church but I respect your right to be you!"  So if this is just the pope calling a duck a duck, I'm not sure what the fuss is about?  If he was saying "I endorse civil unions AND come and get some Eucharist" well that would be a problem

[fides' Jack]

Part of the current crisis in the Church is that Catholics have stopped speaking up for Catholic principles.  Homosexuality is evil - period.  We have to stop trying to walk a fine line between a false sense of compassion and adherence to the truth.

We cannot do that any longer.  Any hesitation on our part is another denial of our King.  His Majesty, and His teachings, come first.  There is no room for our weakness, our doubt, our pensiveness.  There is only Him and His Holy Will.

We cannot endorse any union of homosexuals, civil or otherwise. 

[Anastasia]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

This is authentic Western Catholic teaching, as well.

It may be there is a true reconciliation between the East and the West in our future, after all.

I think the true reconciliation will be very much like philosopher Vladimir Solovyov wrote in his story 'The Antichrist' i.e. while facing the Antichrist and realizing who is he. Those who choose Christ will unite via their rejection of the Antichrist.

However, the schism between Orthodox and Catholics has never been total and complete. There were always people who, because of circumstances, would receive in  the other Church; there have been many philo-catholics and philo-orthodox etc.; some Orthodox saints for example would take some Roman Catholic practices and vice versa. Personally I do not regard the schism as real because we both have valid Sacraments and if so we can receive communion in each other's churches. 

1 hour ago, Jaime said:

I have a hard time with "endorsing gay civil unions".  The couple in this union would very likely not be Catholic.  And if they were and they were in a civil union (or civil marriage here) they would be allowed to attend mass but not receive.  They would likely not be able to receive the sacrament of reconciliation.

but then again that's true of heterosexual civil marriages as well. And nobody has a problem saying "Hey would love to have you in the Church but I respect your right to be you!"  So if this is just the pope calling a duck a duck, I'm not sure what the fuss is about?  If he was saying "I endorse civil unions AND come and get some Eucharist" well that would be a problem

The difference is that heterosexual couples are not in unnatural union. They are man and woman, it is biologically natural, normal. They can be not blesses, not have a civil marriage but they are married like Adam and Eve. So no one would have a problem to say "yes, those couples are in union", lawful or unlawful.

Christian cannot even say "homosexual civil union" because it means "marriage" and this is the lie. A Christian can say "two homosexuals are sleeping and living together" but it is not "union" = "marriage". The idea is to blur; first Christians get used to saying "homosexual union" and then then "homosexual marriage" and then "if it is a marriage it must be blessed".

[Anastasia]

I do not know if I managed to convey my point. I looked for a definition in the Wikipedia:

"A civil union (also known as a civil partnership) is a legally recognized arrangement similar to marriage, created primarily as a means to provide recognition in law for same-sex couples. Civil unions grant most or all of the rights of marriage except the title itself. Around the world, developed democracies began establishing civil unions in the late 1990s, often developing them from less formal domestic partnerships, which grant only some of the rights of marriage. In the majority of countries that established these unions in laws, they have since been either supplemented or replaced by same-sex marriage. Civil unions are viewed by LGBT rights campaigners as a "first step" towards establishing same-sex marriage" 

So it is not "mad Christians" who see a danger in "Church's recognition of the civil unions" because they pushers openly say "it is a bridge to a marriage". Then, a Christian simply cannot call marriage something it is not. Hence it is even not a matter of a moral but a matter of being in touch with the reality. Two men or two women sleeping together are not "marriage", it is unnatural and a marriage is the most natural, the foundation of the humankind. We cannot call the unnatural natural. I am deliberately not speaking of morals here.

Personally, I think of homosexuality as a biological disorder or, in some cases a psychological disorder (I am in agreement with Freud who made a connection between a narcissistic parent/emotional incest and homosexuality). I do feel compassion for homosexuals because I have now idea about how I would cope in their place.

[Norseman82]

4 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

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.

I wonder if this is part of the great apostasy that is supposed to be part of the end times....

 

[Anastasia]

"This man justified his selfish preference of himself before Christ in yet another way. 'Christ,' he said, "who preached and practiced moral good in life, was a reformer of humanity, whereas I am called to be the benefactor of that same humanity, partly reformed and partly incapable of being reformed. I will give everyone what they require. As a moralist, Christ divided humanity by the notion of good and evil. I shall unite it by benefits which are as much needed by good as by evil people. I shall be the true representative of that God who makes his sun to shine upon the good and the evil alike, and who makes the rain to fall upon the just and the unjust. Christ brought the sword; I shall bring peace. Christ threatened the earth with the Day of Judgment. But I shall be the last judge, and my judgment will be not only that of justice but also that of mercy. The justice that will be meted out in my sentences will not be a retributive justice but a distributive one. I shall judge each person according to his deserts, and shall give everybody what he needs."

A Short Story of the Anti-Christ 
https://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/antichrist.html

From "Three Conversations"
(published 1900)

by Vladimir Soloviev

[Ash Wednesday]

Just a general comment -- snide remarks or subtle mockery is not a good look. Question or disagree with charity so this doesn't start rolling into personal attacks.

I have disagreed with some of the pope's comments or private opinions for some time now, or at the very least, felt they needed clarification. And for the sake of stating the obvious in case some confused people might be reading this board, a Catholic should treat the pope with respect, but they do not have to agree with every off the cuff statement or opinion a pope may have. Private opinions are not the same thing as a pope upholding or declaring the perennial teaching of the Church. 

I think people have to be careful about what they say about the pope, but as long as a query or concern is raised with respect, then one should not be dismissed as a "rigid hater." Disagreeing with a pope's private opinion need not put someone in schism nor does it justify sedevacantism or leaving the Church. As far as I'm concerned, at the moment I still refer to the CDF's statement in 2003 on the matter. It has the weight and clarity that an informal, spoken private opinion lacks. 

To avoid any panic I do think that one has to look at this in the bigger picture -- the implications of the current, confusing times have yet to be seen. 






 

[little2add]

The topic of gay marriage was not discussed in the documentary. In his ministry, Pope Francis has frequently affirmed the doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church that marriage is a lifelong partnership between one man and one woman.

The pope has also said that “marriage is between a man and a woman,” and said that “the family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage,” and that efforts to redefine marriage “threaten to disfigure God’s plan for creation.”

 

[Anastasia]

little2add
And what is this then?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-civil-unions-same-sex-endorsement/

You may say "but it is not marriage, it is union". Yes, this is how it is done. No word "marriage" but the world understood it is. And in fact, de-facto it is and this is what matters.

[Didacus]

2 hours ago, Anastasia said:

little2add
And what is this then?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-civil-unions-same-sex-endorsement/

You may say "but it is not marriage, it is union". Yes, this is how it is done. No word "marriage" but the world understood it is. And in fact, de-facto it is and this is what matters.

The world in general does not understand the Catholic profoundness of marriage.  

If you ever spoke to people from Quebec for example, they will affirm that having a wife and having a life-long girl friend is the same thing - of course they are wrong and it is infuriating to even try to discuss because since they do not see the deepeer dimension they cannot possibly understand.

Oh ma patrie, comme tu as perdu to  chemin... 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Didacus

[fides' Jack]

8 hours ago, Norseman82 said:

I wonder if this is part of the great apostasy that is supposed to be part of the end times....

 

I have been wondering the same.  It seems at least a precursor to it.

[fides' Jack]

15 hours ago, Peace said:

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?

The Church has already spoken out on this matter.  Any dissent by the pope is dissent from Church teaching, and should be rejected:

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

Quote

11. 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.

 

[Peace]

11 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

The Church has already spoken out on this matter.  Any dissent by the pope is dissent from Church teaching, and should be rejected:

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

 

Pope Francis has not rejected or otherwise dissented from the above document, so the matter is a moot point. You seem to have concluded that he rejects it, based on a 20 second sound bite from a video that none of us has seen. Such a conclusion would be "rash judgment".

Edited October 22, 2020 by Peace

[fides' Jack]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Pope Francis has not rejected or otherwise dissented from the above document, so the matter is a moot point. You seem to have concluded that he rejects it, based on a 20 second sound bite from a video that none of us has seen. Such a conclusion would be "rash judgment".

I didn't say he did dissent.  I said if he did, we should reject his dissent.

I think that's the 3rd or 4th time in the last few days that you've misread what I posted.  I would read very carefully from now on.

I don't lightly say anything negative about the pope.  When I do say something about him, I say it very carefully, and very specifically.  Don't read into my comment something that's not there.

Edited October 22, 2020 by fides' Jack
Elaboration.

[Peace]

17 hours ago, Anastasia said:

It sounds nice but we do have "black and white test for everything" - it is Christ Himself. He is the great polarizer as He himself said. There is no grey area in spiritual life (unlike other areas) and one who does not stick to Christ gravitates towards His opposite even if he does not want to do that and does not move.

Well look if everything is so black and white then you have no choice other than to leave your church and subject yourself to the Bishop of Rome. Christ Himself forbids divorce. His words about that are explicitly recorded in Sacred Scripture, and your church allows a man to divorce and remarry 4 times.

It doesn't get any more black and white than that. When are you coming home to Rome my friend?

17 hours ago, Anastasia said:

I think all this is quite simple. Everything important can be verified by Christ Himself. "Homosexual civil unions", whether we want it or not, objectively undermine the natural order laid down by the Creator, Christ. Worse even, we have many reference to the relationship of God with humans as "a marriage" so the matter is indeed "metaphysical". Try to stick this notion of the "civil homosexual unions" to Christ - it does not stick because it is lie, biological lie, metaphysical lie, it is a blur at the very best. I would add any "blur" does not stick to Christ, to the Truth. So if we are to stick to Christ, our Head, we must of course not run around madly shouting "Away with them!" (whoever "they" are) but calmly say "no, it does not work, it is a lie, a disorder".

Sure pal. I don't think it is any secret around here that I am not an advocate for the gay lifestyle. Nor does Pope Francis. But does not mean that there is absolutely no room for discussion about how those folks might be able to have certain rights that would enable them to access healthcare and things like that. As for the pope's stance on that issue - none of us really have a clue. Look, we have a 20 second sound bite, which was apparently taken out of context, edited, and pieced back together. I think it's just a tad bit too early to jump to conclusions as to what specifically he has in mind for that, in terms of what may or may not be allowed, or whether he agrees or disagrees with the 2003 CDF document.

17 hours ago, Anastasia said:

Pope Francis appears to corrupt the meaning of the Christian symbols habitually. For example, because of his preoccupation with "humility" he ended up washing the feet of Muslims (also Hindu, women) and kissing them. He seem to forget that he was supposed to represent Christ with his apostles and, via choosing non-Christians and adding other things (like kissing) he destroyed the symbolism of the Passion Thursday's Mass. If we verify his actions by Christ we will see that Pope did not think of Him. Christ would feed anyone, talk to women but He would not kiss the feet of women or allow to the Last Supper just anyone. So the world, unfamiliar with Christian symbols, was presented with a new one: Roman Pope kisses the feet of Muslims. 

Yeah I just think you are just imposing your own rigid view on what the symbolism is supposed to mean. We see our Lord kissing the feet of the apostles. We can see there that he loves those men, and chooses to serve them, even to the point of giving his life for them. Obviously our Lord does not only love and serve the apostles, but he died for the whole world. Women, Muslims, all of us.  So if Pope Francis wants to kiss the feet of people of other than men, it can symbolize that aspect of our Lords' passion.

Now whether that was Pope Francis's reasoning for kissing the feet of Muslims, or whether it was for some other reason, I do not know. But you don't get to say what it should be and how it should be done. You ain't the pope. If you want it to be that way, put in your application for pope and you can make the changes that you think are best. Otherwise I suggest that you get over it.

17 hours ago, Anastasia said:

I am trying to convey my sense, that the Pope thinks about his "humility" so much that he forgot what is his role. He forgot that he is not "Francis" but Pope. He thinks it is humility if he wear simple robes but there is more humility in wearing gold and knowing that he is nothing, by himself. It is a very subtle point when humility, raising very high, turns into its opposite (the true humility would never change the ritual of the washing the feet, for example).

Oh please, wearing modest clothes is more humble than wearing a gold chain. Go look at a rapper. Do they look humble to you?

Again, I think you are just being too rigid in your thinking. You seem to think that there is only one way that things should be done, but that has never been the case in the Catholic church. We have always had variation across time, geographic location, culture, etc.

16 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I didn't say he did dissent.  I said if he did, we should reject his dissent.

I think that's the 3rd or 4th time in the last few days that you've misread what I posted.  I would read very carefully from now on.

I don't lightly say anything negative about the pope.  When I do say something about him, I say it very carefully, and very specifically.  Don't read into my comment something that's not there.

Oh please man give it a rest already. You insinuated it at the very least.

[fides' Jack]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Oh please man give it a rest already. You insinuated it at the very least.

I get it.  You don't like me for several reasons, probably the least of which is because I'm a tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, right?

I don't care, but the Cathy Newman bit is getting old.