Pope Francis: Church Could Support Civil Unions

[CrossCuT]

Saw a friend post this article on FB today. I havent heard anything about it until now, anyone else?

 

 

(CNN) - Pope Francis reaffirmed the Catholic Church's opposition to gay marriage on Wednesday, but suggested in a newspaper interview that it could support some types of civil unions.

The Pope reiterated the church's longstanding teaching that "marriage is between a man and a woman." However, he said, "We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety."

States, for instance, justify civil unions as a way to provide economic security to cohabitating couples, the Pope said in a wide-ranging interview published Wednesday in Corriere della Sera, an Italian daily. State-sanctioned unions are thus driven by the need to ensure rights like access to health care, Francis added.

The Vatican later denied that those comments signaled an opening toward same-sex unions.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/05/pope-francis-church-could-support-civil-unions/?sr=fb030514popefrancis130p

 

[CatherineM]

The reason I have always supported civil unions, is for non-sexual co-habitating couples, such as economic roommates, parent/adult disabled children, two old maid sisters, etc. who financially depend upon each other.

[Didacus]

If you see marriage as a union before God - man and woman alone can enter sich a union.

 

If you see marriage as a simple contract, ie, a civil-union, giving entitlement from the state, province or nation, then there is nothing to oppose same-sex marriage.  (Technically speaking, you coupld mary a monkey, like some have left estates to their pets and such.)

[CatholicCid]

Saw a friend post this article on FB today. I havent heard anything about it until now, anyone else?

Since the interview was released today, it's not surprising that you haven't heard anything until now  :hehe2:

 

Interestingly, the BBC Headline from the interview is not on civil same-sex unions, but on the Church's response to sexual abuse.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26448075

[tinytherese]

Considering how inaccurately the media has reported what Pope Francis has said all year, I don't trust them.

[Basilisa Marie]

Well, technically, yeah, it makes sense, because a civil union is a purely legal contract for monetary reasons. So some versions, yeah, the Church could theoretically support them. But at least here in America, people want a civil union as a stepping stone to or substitute for marriage, so it wouldn't really fly, because it's understood to be functionally the same as marriage.  

 

Personally I think we may do better to start focusing on separating sacramental marriage as a different thing, maybe even to the point where priests no longer conduct civil marriages, to help people really understand the sacrament. I think it'd eventually result in a decrease in our annulment rate. But that's pure speculation on my part. 

Edited March 6, 2014 by Basilisa Marie

[Luigi]

I could be wrong about this, but I believe in Italy that, on their wedding day, couples first go to the civil judge for the legal marriage ceremony and then go to the priest for the sacrament of marriage. 

 

So what you suggest as a possibility may already be practiced in Italy, and probably some other countries.

[NotreDame]

I could be wrong about this, but I believe in Italy that, on their wedding day, couples first go to the civil judge for the legal marriage ceremony and then go to the priest for the sacrament of marriage. 

 

So what you suggest as a possibility may already be practiced in Italy, and probably some other countries.

Pretty sure mexico works that way too.

[josephine]

Same in my country. Civil marriage is completely seperated from a religious marriage,

so you would have 2 ceremonies if you want to marry for the Church as well.

 

That civil marriage is open for same sex couples kind of makes sense: civil marriage is, at least in my country,

a big party and a lot easier regarding taxes and heritage rights. and divorce is widespread and quite easy to get.

so it has very very little to do with the sacrament.

 

I think it is a great system: freedom of religion is preserved, and Gay couples can have the same civil rights as every one else.

[Ash Wednesday]

I read about this but it was my understanding that the pope indicated that the Church was willing to discuss the issue. It doesn't mean the Church is necessarily willing to support it, as he said it would probably depend on what sort of civil unions they are talking about. I think there's difference between showing willingness to discuss something, and actively supporting it.

 

But the media of course is getting ahead of itself, and people of course will take this and say "teh Poap supportz changin church stancez on teh gheys!"

[CrossCuT]

Well, technically, yeah, it makes sense, because a civil union is a purely legal contract for monetary reasons. So some versions, yeah, the Church could theoretically support them. But at least here in America, people want a civil union as a stepping stone to or substitute for marriage, so it wouldn't really fly, because it's understood to be functionally the same as marriage.  

 

Personally I think we may do better to start focusing on separating sacramental marriage as a different thing, maybe even to the point where priests no longer conduct civil marriages, to help people really understand the sacrament. I think it'd eventually result in a decrease in our annulment rate. But that's pure speculation on my part. 

 

I think that is a good point. People use the term marriage across the board and very loosely. Catholics define it as a sacrament, secular defines it as a legal contract.

[Didacus]

Even though the Church may tolerate same-same unions on the civil level, they cannot outright support the practice as it would be to support a sinful behavior.  The Church will never change the teaching which concludes that homosexuals act are evil.

[cappie]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/christopher-prowse-says-pope-will-not-change-stance-on-gay-unions-20140306-3490f.html

 

Archbishop Prowse is the Archbishop of Canberra the capital city of Australia

Edited March 9, 2014 by cappie

[mortify ii]

Here's my take on this. Before we can discuss the issue of civil unions we first have to address the issue of cohabitation. Catherine gives some excellent examples of non-sexual cohabitation above, but that is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about couples in a relationship, and even "straight" cohabitation is an occasion of sin that should be avoided unless there is grave reason to do so. Furthermore, and this hurts our modern ears, but homosexuality is a disorder. We should probably remind ourselves why this is, and how gravely contrary it is to Divine and natural order. Whether through environment or genetics a person has a disordered sexual attraction towards a member of the same sex. If anything, measures should be taken to correct this as far as it is medically possible, of course, modern dogma states that this is impossible and if anything a person should simply accept what they are and live it out. Years ago I used to believe this as well but with my own experiences and what I have heard from others I'm personally skeptical of this. I have met for example a Catholic who told me they distinctly recall being bisexual but that it eventually changed to pure homosexuality which tells me "sexual orientation" is not as static as we suppose. Presumably if this person could turn gay he could have also turned straight, but obviously things like this are speculative and would require some serious study, which we all know will never happen because the current belief is that such things don't occur and to presume otherwise is bigoted and politically incorrect :) So the point is cohabitation itself is wrong so why foster homosexual relationships? 

Edited March 9, 2014 by mortify ii

[mortify ii]

...I don't like how that last part turned out but I can't edit it anymore! Basically what I'm trying to say is that cohabitation is wrong in general unless there is a grave reason present, and that furthermore in the case of same sex couples it may serve to only further develop an already disordered orientation. And I know what I'm saying sounds distasteful, I'm not kidding when I say using the word "disordered" in associated with homosexuality hurts my own modern ears, but I haven't found a more appropriate word that is also less offensive.