Pope endorses civil unions for gay couples?

[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.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

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.

I never said that I didn't like you. I dislike certain things about you, sure. But that is true for every person on the planet. Look, I don't buy the "I don't lightly say anything negative about the pope" bit and I told you how I felt about it. It ain't like I called your mama a ho. You'll be OK.

[Lilllabettt]

Here is an explainer from Fr Agustin Torres CFR. I like this priest and believe he knows what hes talking about. https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=_eASMsbA6fc

I went looking for explanations against my better judgment because frankly I'm sick of it. There's definitely a lack of the virtue of prudence in some things PF says and does and I am tired. Past ready for being Catholic to be fun again. 

[Anastasia]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

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?

It seems to me are deliberately diverting from the topic via giving me personal suggestions about what I should do and also where the Eastern Orthodox Church has a wrong practice, from a Roman Catholic point of view. I will not peruse this line, just like I will not divert to the comparison of the Orthodox and Catholic practice of dealing with marriage which fell apart, permitting either divorce or annulment (which to an Orthodox are the same by their fruits). The only passing remark I will make is that you provided an incorrect information about the Orthodox practice: an Orthodox can marry three times under any circumstance. Please refer to the Roman Catholic source re: Eastern Orthodox marriage

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/can-orthodox-way-end-debate-divorce-remarriage

3 hours ago, Peace said:

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.

I find it quite inconsistent when the proponents of “tolerance” become very intolerant to those who express a different point of view. As a member of the Body of Christ I will say what I think when I believe it is harming the Church because it is my responsibility, especially in the area of my expertise, of Liturgy and its symbols. Using your words, I suggest that you either address my argument in a proper way (i.e. targeting reasons, facts, theology etc. and not its author) or

3 hours ago, Peace said:

get over it.

 

Lilllabettt

I listened. That confirmed my conviction: Pope creates blur and then the interpreters interpret. Those who believe "he did not mean that" will interpret accordingly (the interpretation in the video is not convincing to me because just as easily his words can be interpret in the opposite way). Whatever is going on the convenient "soup of meanings" is being created and then from that soup various meaning can be fished out and presented, depending on the need of a moment.

[Peace]

17 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

It seems to me are deliberately diverting from the topic via giving me personal suggestions about what I should do and also where the Eastern Orthodox Church has a wrong practice, from a Roman Catholic point of view. I will not peruse this line, just like I will not divert to the comparison of the Orthodox and Catholic practice of dealing with marriage which fell apart, permitting either divorce or annulment (which to an Orthodox are the same by their fruits). The only passing remark I will make is that you provided an incorrect information about the Orthodox practice: an Orthodox can marry three times under any circumstance. Please refer to the Roman Catholic source re: Eastern Orthodox marriage

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/can-orthodox-way-end-debate-divorce-remarriage

OK it was 3 times, not 4 times. That makes a whole lot of difference.

Look, I don't care if you think its unfair that I brought that up, or if I made it personal. You wrote that everything has to be black and white by looking to Christ Himself, but obviously you and your church are not doing that when it comes to divorce. Your own practice shows that you do not believe that. You only want things to be "black and white" when it comes to criticizing other people.

17 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

I find it quite inconsistent when the proponents of “tolerance” become very intolerant to those who express a different point of view. As a member of the Body of Christ I will say what I think when I believe it is harming the Church because it is my responsibility, especially in the area of my expertise, of Liturgy and its symbols. Using your words, I suggest that you either address my argument in a proper way (i.e. targeting reasons, facts, theology etc. and not its author) or

Look, you wrote something. I disagreed with it. You are perfectly free to write your opinions concerning the actions of Pope Francis and why you think what he does harms the Church, and I am perfectly free to tell you that you aren't the pope and your opinion on what he should be doing is irrelevant, so stop your complaining. If you feel that I haven't responded to your argument in "a proper way" take it up with the Mediators of Meh.

It ain't like I boiled your cat. Good evening.

[Ice_nine]

He makes things harder on people trying to be faithful Catholics. We're told one minute we need to uphold traditional marriage and for that we get the fun prize of getting "bigot" and "homophobe" foisted on us. And then the Pope says something and people feel even more justified in their pejoratives. Of course we must hate gay people if we persist in our traditional beliefs. The pope himself is less rigid than you.

I really wish I didn't have to care about traditional marriage, and could just say "hey get married to whoever you want." Would make my social life a lot easier. A lot less isolating. But I'm also not trying to end up in Gehenna where the worm does not die.