Pope Francis: Church Could Support Civil Unions

[Basilisa Marie]

...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. 

 

See, on one hand that makes sense, but on the other I don't see us getting up in arms about really trying to tackle other problems of sexual ethics with the same...vigor. Why aren't we trying to increase restrictions on contraception? We kind of are with things like age limits for the morning after pill, but it seems like a halfhearted attempt.  

 

I feel like if people want to argue that we can't approve of some laws because it'll make it look like other sins are okay, then we have to be consistent and do it for ALL of them, not just the ones that are hot topics of the moment, especially if they don't involve Catholics.

[Mary's Margaret]

Copied from EWTN News website:

“There have been numerous questions, calls and messages throughout the day today regarding Pope Francis' recent interview in the Italian daily newspaper, Corriere della Sera, particularly referring to the section on marriage and civil unions,” Father Thomas Rosica said in his March 5 email.

Fr. Rosica, C.S.B., who serves as the English language assistant to Holy See Press Office, observed that “Some journalists have interpreted the Pope's words...to reflect an openness on the part of the Church to civil unions. Others have interpreted his words to be addressing the question of same-sex marriage.”

Giving the original Italian version of the pontiff's words on civil unions, Fr. Rosica provided his own personal translation, highlighting the importance of understanding that “'civil unions'” in Italy refer to people who are married by the state, outside of a religious context.”

Addressing questions from some journalists who have asked whether or not the comments were made in reference to gay civil unions, the priest emphasized that “The Pope did not choose to enter into debates about the delicate matter of gay civil unions.”

“In his response to the interviewer, he emphasized the natural characteristic of marriage between one man and one woman, and on the other hand, he also spoke about the obligation of the state to fulfill its responsibilities towards its citizens.”

By giving this response “Pope Francis spoke in very general terms, and did not specifically refer to same-sex marriage as a civil union,” he explained.

“Pope Francis simply stated the issues and did not interfere with positions held by Episcopal Conferences in various countries dealing with the question of civil unions and same sex marriage,” the priest continued.

“We should not try to read more into the Pope’s words that what has been stated in very general terms.”

[mortify ii]

See, on one hand that makes sense, but on the other I don't see us getting up in arms about really trying to tackle other problems of sexual ethics with the same...vigor. Why aren't we trying to increase restrictions on contraception? We kind of are with things like age limits for the morning after pill, but it seems like a halfhearted attempt.

I feel like if people want to argue that we can't approve of some laws because it'll make it look like other sins are okay, then we have to be consistent and do it for ALL of them, not just the ones that are hot topics of the moment, especially if they don't involve Catholics.

I agree with you about the disproportionate focus on homosexuality. People forget that usury is a sin and exploitation of workers is also a sin that cries out to heaven. Contraception and sex outside of marriage are also issues. So yes, the system is flawed but should we make it worse by permitting homosexual unions? I think we should conserve what we do right and fix what we do wrong, as oppose to making everything permissible just because we are lax about certain things (eg contraception). I just don't find arguments that say we should let homosexuals engage in sin *just because* some are lax about heterosexuals engaging in sin. That to me is further degrading our society.

[4588686]

I agree with you about the disproportionate focus on homosexuality. People forget that usury is a sin and exploitation of workers is also a sin that cries out to heaven. Contraception and sex outside of marriage are also issues. So yes, the system is flawed but should we make it worse by permitting homosexual unions? I think we should conserve what we do right and fix what we do wrong, as oppose to making everything permissible just because we are lax about certain things (eg contraception). I just don't find arguments that say we should let homosexuals engage in sin *just because* some are lax about heterosexuals engaging in sin. That to me is further degrading our society.

 

 

Or maybe you should just leave people alone and let them live their own lives.  

[mortify ii]

Or maybe you should just leave people alone and let them live their own lives.

Hasan, you wouldn't say that to a husband who abuses his wife in the privacy of his home, or the meth lab in someone's basement. We are our brother's keeper and should help each other on the right path instead of allowing each other to fall into perdition.

[NotreDame]

Or maybe you should just leave people alone and let them live their own lives.  

Let's get rid of government-recognized marriage altogether then!  What's the point of getting the government involved in the first place?

[Ice_nine]

Let's get rid of government-recognized marriage altogether then!  What's the point of getting the government involved in the first place?

 

Does anyone think canon law will EVER allow for the sacrament to be given without a coexisting marriage license from the state? That would be so rad. I did a little bit of research and when inter-racial marriage was illegal, the Catholic church in the US (while advising against these marriages because of the difficulties that arise) would sometimes perform these marriages in secret. I think when the state has such a wildly different understanding of what a marriage is, why require state licensure? Oh my head

[Ice_nine]

Or maybe you should just leave people alone and let them live their own lives.  

 

No :)

[Didacus]

Let's get rid of government-recognized marriage altogether then!  What's the point of getting the government involved in the first place?

 

Because government needs to exercise a control on pro-creation and hold those who choose to start a family and have children accountable for their life choices.

 

Any government who chooses not to regulate pro-creation and perpetuation of its people essentially commits suicide.

[NotreDame]

Because government needs to exercise a control on pro-creation and hold those who choose to start a family and have children accountable for their life choices.

No need to worry about this nonsense.  We will have hatcheries and conditioning centers soon to take care of all that.

[4588686]

Let's get rid of government-recognized marriage altogether then!  What's the point of getting the government involved in the first place?

 

 

I'm fine with that.

[4588686]

Hasan, you wouldn't say that to a husband who abuses his wife in the privacy of his home, or the meth lab in someone's basement. We are our brother's keeper and should help each other on the right path instead of allowing each other to fall into perdition.

 

 

 

 

That's right.  I wouldn't.  Because somebody assaulting somebody else is completely different from consenting adults agreeing to how the want to live together.  

[mortify ii]

That's right. I wouldn't. Because somebody assaulting somebody else is completely different from consenting adults agreeing to how the want to live together.

Is it different from a woman who consents to being the third wife in a polygamous marriage or a catamite who willingly enters into a relationship with a pedarast?

[Didacus]

A brave new world is not a better world.

[4588686]

Is it different from a woman who consents to being the third wife in a polygamous marriage or a catamite who willingly enters into a relationship with a pedarast?

 

 

I said consenting adults.  If somebody want to enter into a polyamorous relationship that's not my business.