The Pope's comments on Civil Unions is fake news- he is in line with the CDF guidance...

[Anastasia]

12 minutes ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

Do you agree that Pope Francis' comments could be held in agreement with the CDF document? i.e. when CU law is already in place, it can be licitly supported?

No I do not agree. 

[HumilityAndPatience]

1 minute ago, Anastasia said:

No I do not agree. 

May I ask why not? It appears clearly consistent to me

[Anastasia]

You definitely may but please give me your understanding first. I am Orthodox and our way of thinking theology is quite different form Catholic so I want to understand your own well.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Anastasia

[HumilityAndPatience]

6 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

You definitely may but please give me your understanding first. I am Orthodox and our way of thinking theology is quite different form Catholic so I want to understand your own well.

Of course. It pins on the below quote from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) on this, issued in 2003. You will see that the guidance gave provision to situations whereby the Civil Unions law is hypothetically already in place (which is the situation we find ourselves in now, nearly 20 years later). The below in bold is were Pope Francis' comments can be interpreted in consistency with CDF/Church teaching.

 

"When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided"

[Anastasia]

Thank you for a clarification.

The problem here is that  the Pope is not a politician, he is the Vicar of Christ and this fact immediately disqualifies him to be excused but that paragraph. He is also not in a position of being a member of a parliament when he has to decide to vote or not to vote, hence the disqualification number two. Next, the document demands that the politician must witness the truth i.e. a total disproval of homosexual unions. The Pope did not that, on the contrary, he made an impression he does approve them. Finally, the Pope not only did not avoid a scandal but created it.

So, here is the dilemma of the apologists: to excuse the Pope they inevitably make him a mere politician. If he is a mere politician he does not need to be excused; if he is the Pope he must be judged as such. Paradoxically, the apologist disqualify him as the Pope.

[Peace]

12 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

Next, the document demands that the politician must witness the truth i.e. a total disproval of homosexual unions. The Pope did not that, on the contrary, he made an impression he does approve them. Finally, the Pope not only did not avoid a scandal but created it.

This is utter trash. Complete lies.

[HumilityAndPatience]

2 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

Thank you for a clarification.

The problem here is that  the Pope is not a politician, he is the Vicar of Christ and this fact immediately disqualifies him to be excused but that paragraph. He is also not in a position of being a member of a parliament when he has to decide to vote or not to vote, hence the disqualification number two. Next, the document demands that the politician must witness the truth i.e. a total disproval of homosexual unions. The Pope did not that, on the contrary, he made an impression he does approve them. Finally, the Pope not only did not avoid a scandal but created it.

So, here is the dilemma of the apologists: to excuse the Pope they inevitably make him a mere politician. If he is a mere politician he does not need to be excused; if he is the Pope he must be judged as such. Paradoxically, the apologist disqualify him as the Pope.

A Civil Union is ultimately a secular matter- the language of the CDF document of 2003 pertains to the climate of the time. I.e. what was at stake was the redefinition of marriage. And the instructions are worded as such. It remains the main basis for assessing the Church teaching on Civil Unions. The Church teaching on Gay Marriage is clear and does not need affirmation. Whilst they are related matters, their legislative and sacramental foundations are wholly separate and distinct.

Pope Francis is in line with Church teaching on what Marriage is- again I point you to Fr Matthew's blog as this outlines it well.

Speak tomorrow! Peace

 

 

 

[Anastasia]

1 hour ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

again I point you to Fr Matthew's blog as this outlines it well.

I looked into the article you mentioned. Briefly, an argument that
“Pope Francis seems to see civil unions for homosexual couples in a similar light: not the ideal but preferable to “gay marriage.”
cannot really stand.

Effectively it says “If the Pope approves homosexual unions then for sure the homosexual “marriages” will not be approved/legislated”. By whom? The history shows that either “unions” or “marriages” become legal because the state government decides to do so. Furthermore, the same history shows that the legislation of the “homosexual marriage” soon almost inevitably follows the legislation of “the homosexual civil union”. Those who push for that state their purpose plainly defining the recognition of “the civil homosexual union” as the step towards the recognition of the homosexual marriage.

Hence, if the church accepts “homosexual union” it paves the way to the “homosexual “marriage”, making it easier to legislate and to accept. A state government will not ask the Catholic Church if they can “upgrade” the union to “marriage” but they are likely to say “well, you were OK with “union”, why not a marriage, it is the same” – and they will be right; for them two men sleeping together or two women sleeping together is all what matters and they could not care less about theology. This is a common sense which gets distorted when the apologists try to explain the Pope. No “explanations” of the Pope’s words can overweight those words and their effect combined with the Pope’s unwillingness to clarify them by himself.

This brings the argument to the only point what matters here, i.e. the stir and confusion the Pope’s words created and his enigmatic refusal to explain himself immediately, as any truly carrying shepherd would do – I think. So I will simply repost the facts from my initial post in this topic.

------------

- before being the Pope Francis was pro- homosexual unions (Argentina);

- the Pope is well-known for his ambivalent statements which he never bothers to clarify;

- the news about the Pope's words cause excitement in the world because they were understood as pro-homosexual unions;

- there was a panic and confusion among many Roman Catholics;

- the Orthodox Church first hoped it was a fake yet after a day or two it became clear it was not and that caused a shock;

- the Jesuit priest, Fr Martin from the closest circle of the Pope (if I am not mistaken about his name), the proponent of homosexual unions, rejoiced and confirmed that the world understood the Pope correctly;

- more traditional Cardinals and Archbishops made their statements calling the Pope to retract his statement;

- some said bluntly that the Pope deliberately creates a confusion and predicted what will be next.

Regardless the subject of the Pope's words, the question arises: why the Pope did not bother to address the panic immediately after it began? Surely if the head of the huge famigla - the Church - sees what his words have done and especially if they are understood wrongly he would immediately clarify it. By "immediately" I mean "within first 24 hours".

It has not been done and no matter how "flying monkeys" will try the world and the Church are being left with a conviction "the Pope endorses homosexual unions".

Edited October 25, 2020 by Anastasia

[KnightofChrist]

It was not simply the redefinition of marriage that was at stake. But rather the legal recognition of secular homosexual unions OR homosexual marriage.

If the quote attributed to the Pope be true, it is not in line with Church teaching. 

[Anastasia]

I wish to make it very clear because I am not interested to be pulled into the apologists' explanations of the Pope. Anyone can say something outrageous. Anyone can be "misunderstood". But those who are truly "did not mean it", when they learn about how they were "misunderstood" they immediately jump up and explain themselves because they do not wish to be "misunderstood". The most important in the current situation is the silence of the Pope - in even if he now says something it will not erase its effect.

Edited October 25, 2020 by Anastasia

[KnightofChrist]

4 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

This could be a very long line of corrections... Hard to find honest media, with integrity. 

Scalfari is just one reporter. It would not in fact take long for Pope Francis to call out the errors and correct the record. Even if he will not do that to continue to give interviews with him and other 'dishonest' reporters is at best unwise. Why let someone interview yo when you know that person will misquote you or outright lie about what you stated?

Again, I want to here from Francis himself. 

Hear*

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

I wish to make it very clear because I am not interested to be pulled into the apologists' explanations of the Pope. Anyone can say something outrageous. Anyone can be "misunderstood". But those who are truly "did not mean it", when they learn about how they were "misunderstood" they immediately jump up and explain themselves because they do not wish to be "misunderstood". The most important in the current situation is the silence of the Pope - in even if he now says something it will not erase its effect.

On many occasions our Lord did not immediately clarify or explain where there was confusion, respond to accusations, or answer questions that were put to him. Read your Bible.

If you want to decide when the pope should respond and in what manner he should respond, you can put in your application for pope. The bottom line is that he has the authority to make those decisions, and you don’t. Whining and complaining on the internet is not going to change that one bit.

[fides' Jack]

7 hours ago, Peace said:

Friend, you were against this pope from the moment he took office. Let's keep it real here.

That's an odd statement to have a smiley face on.

4 hours ago, Peace said:

This is utter trash. Complete lies.

Which part of it is a lie?  I'm truly curious.  There seems to be a lot of disinformation about this out there.  Do you have a source to backup the accusation of lying?

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

If the quote attributed to the Pope be true, it is not in line with Church teaching. 

This seems to me to be the only reasonable response.

Time will tell, I think.  Although, for those who are skeptical of PF, it will tell something different than from those who fully approve of everything he does.

Edited October 25, 2020 by fides' Jack
grammar

[Peace]

54 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

That's an odd statement to have a smiley face on.

Which part of it is a lie?  I'm truly curious.  There seems to be a lot of disinformation about this out there.  Do you have a source to backup the accusation of lying?

This seems to me to be the only reasonable response.

Time will tell, I think.  Although, for those who are skeptical of PF, it will tell something different than from those who fully approve of everything he does.

Read the other thread.

[Anastasia]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Read the other thread.

Well, after you accused me of lying

7 hours ago, Peace said:

This is utter trash. Complete lies.

in this text

7 hours ago, Anastasia said:

Next, the document demands that the politician must witness the truth i.e. a total disproval of homosexual unions. The Pope did not that, on the contrary, he made an impression he does approve them. Finally, the Pope not only did not avoid a scandal but created it.

you have to explain where exactly I am lying in this text because quoting this text and then referring to another thread (in which you proclaimed that you are here for your entertainment) cannot work as an explanation of your accusation but works only to make an impression of me as one who lies.

[A lie - a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.]