Pope endorses civil unions for gay couples?

[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

[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