Pope endorses civil unions for gay couples?

[Lilllabettt]

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

 

 

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.

I do wonder whether the lack of clarity is deliberate.  Jesuits like to leave room to discern, don't they...

Anyway, it comforts me to find an explanation that makes his statements seem orthodox.  I'm sick of having to teach myself what the Pope means though ... if it is what he means. 

[Peace]

14 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

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.

A perfect opportunity to "Offer it up" no?

Look at the bright side. At least you don't live in San Francisco.

[Lilllabettt]

I 

11 minutes ago, Peace said:

A perfect opportunity to "Offer it up" no?

Look at the bright side. At least you don't live in San Francisco.

OT but there is a street in San Fran I've wanted to see my whole life. I have a picture of it hanging in my dining room. Morgana street. The gays aren't a turn off but the poo and the needles are. Still it's beautiful at least in pictures 

[Peace]

5 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

I 

OT but there is a street in San Fran I've wanted to see my whole life. I have a picture of it hanging in my dining room. Morgana street. The gays aren't a turn off but the poo and the needles are. Still it's beautiful at least in pictures 

I used to live in SF but I don't recall a Morgana street. What is on it?

[Anastasia]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

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.

You are seriously wrong here. In fact the Orthodox position re: marriage is a proof that we judge ourselves in accordance with what Christ said i.e. that no one can divorce his wife otherwise than because of adultery.

Yes, the Eastern Orthodox Church grants a divorce b.o. adultery not only to husbands but to wives as well and for several other reasons (like physical abuse).

However, to an Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic annulment, purely by facts and outcomes, is the same as our practice of a divorce and an ecclesial  permission to remarry. In both cases there was a union of a man and a woman, often children were conceived and born and then a life in marriage became impossible and sometimes dangerous for a variety of reasons. A marriage fell apart and the Church does something that allows people involved to part and possible to remarry. I am speaking about the naked facts and human lives: both Churches have their ways to deal with this. However, the Orthodox do it in very straightforward way that highlight the sin committed by a couple against themselves, their children and God. We say "a marriage was destroyed by sins" and not "it never happened/it was not valid" which somewhat removes, to an Orthodox mind, the weight of responsibility plus simply does not make a sense because it was. It happened.  

This is not  a place to discuss the Orthodox theology of a marriage so I will stop on the point  that
1) your argument would have some weight if the Roman Catholic Church did not have a practice of an annulments;
2) Orthodox see their failure to keep a marriage as a grave sin and have to carry a heavy penance, often for years, for its dissolution. That means that  the Orthodox Church is anything but "rigid" in matters which involve human nature, it is quite compassionate but while exercising its oikonomia the Orthodox Church does not pretend that sin is not a sin.  Our practice is to name a sin and then prompt a sinner to a way it will help them on their way to God. But to help the sin must be named first.

6 hours ago, Peace said:

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?

2 hours ago, Peace said:

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

The deference is in details which you seem to habitually omit to support your agenda. In your first statement you said "divorce and remarry 4 times". I corrected you saying "three times" in any circumstance (like widowhood). So there is indeed a lot of difference here.

2 hours ago, Peace said:

If you feel that I haven't responded to your argument in "a proper way" take it up with the Mediators of Meh.

You seem to be unable to stop telling me what to do and again without logic. Moderators exist for correcting an abusive interaction. Your interaction with me failed to logically address my argument 

2 hours ago, Anastasia said:

in a proper way (i.e. targeting reasons, facts, theology etc. and not its author) 

so it is not a matter for a moderator.

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Good evening.

G'day mate.

[dUSt]

The pope didn't say anything about marriage. How's this any different than the pope standing up for the rights of persecuted Muslims, or the rights of immigrants, or the rights of any group of human beings that are not Catholic? I don't think he's changing church teaching here--if anything, I can see the gay community rejecting his thoughts on the matter because "civil union" isn't endorsing gay marriage.

[Didacus]

1 hour ago, dUSt said:

The pope didn't say anything about marriage. How's this any different than the pope standing up for the rights of persecuted Muslims, or the rights of immigrants, or the rights of any group of human beings that are not Catholic? I don't think he's changing church teaching here--if anything, I can see the gay community rejecting his thoughts on the matter because "civil union" isn't endorsing gay marriage.

The gay community will accept nothing less than full and unquestioned endorsement of their ideals.

[Peace]

18 hours ago, Anastasia said:

You are seriously wrong here. 

Anastasia. Obviously nobody has explained the 3 rules of Phatmass to you:

1. Peace is never wrong.

2. Peace is never wrong.

3. Even if Peace is wrong, he is still right because he will never admit it.
 

Quote

In fact the Orthodox position re: marriage is a proof that we judge ourselves in accordance with what Christ said i.e. that no one can divorce his wife otherwise than because of adultery.

Yes, the Eastern Orthodox Church grants a divorce b.o. adultery not only to husbands but to wives as well and for several other reasons (like physical abuse).

What?! So your Church is in accord with Jesus's prohibition of divorce, by granting divorce and allowing the divorced to remarry? My mind is blown honestly. I may need to smoke something for that to even begin to make sense.

Quote

However, to an Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic annulment, purely by facts and outcomes, is the same as our practice of a divorce and an ecclesial  permission to remarry. In both cases there was a union of a man and a woman, often children were conceived and born and then a life in marriage became impossible and sometimes dangerous for a variety of reasons. A marriage fell apart and the Church does something that allows people involved to part and possible to remarry. I am speaking about the naked facts and human lives: both Churches have their ways to deal with this. However, the Orthodox do it in very straightforward way that highlight the sin committed by a couple against themselves, their children and God. We say "a marriage was destroyed by sins" and not "it never happened/it was not valid" which somewhat removes, to an Orthodox mind, the weight of responsibility plus simply does not make a sense because it was. It happened.  

This is not  a place to discuss the Orthodox theology of a marriage so I will stop on the point  that
1) your argument would have some weight if the Roman Catholic Church did not have a practice of an annulments;
2) Orthodox see their failure to keep a marriage as a grave sin and have to carry a heavy penance, often for years, for its dissolution. That means that  the Orthodox Church is anything but "rigid" in matters which involve human nature, it is quite compassionate but while exercising its oikonomia the Orthodox Church does not pretend that sin is not a sin.  Our practice is to name a sin and then prompt a sinner to a way it will help them on their way to God. But to help the sin must be named first.

Quite a long explanation isn't it? That sounds rather "nuanced".

Look, it is not my intention to demonize the Eastern Orthodox Church. That is reserved for Protestants, @Anomaly, and Browns fans.

Obviously I think your practice when it comes to divorce and remarriage is wrong, just like you don't believe that the Bishop of Rome has supreme authority over the entire Church. Were it otherwise you would be Catholic and I would be Eastern Orthodox.

I have no particular desire to prove that your practice concerning divorce and remarriage is scandalous (although it obviously is). That's not the point.

I initially wrote that Pope Francis's approach may be good because it does not reduce everything down to rules that must be rigidly applied, or to black and white tests that do not take into account the particular circumstances and needs of the people involved. You disagreed with that, so I brought up the practice of your own Church as an example where there is not some black/white standard that is applied rigidly. If you wanted to apply a rigid rule or a black and white test in that area you would not allow people to divorce and remarry 3 times (or you would not allow people to annul and remarry if you think that the RC practice is equivalent). You would simply say "You had a marriage ceremony. No divorce. No annulments. No remarriage. No exceptions. Have a nice day". But that is not what either of our Churches do. Being that rigid would be undesirable.

Apparently you agree with your concept of "oikonomia" or what have you, so why all of a sudden is it a problem if Pope Francis is open to the idea of applying some degree of "nuance" with respect to gay couples, who may have a legitimate need for certain laws that may help them secure things like health care? When it comes to that issue, oh no, we can't even start a discussion. Everything has to be black and white, tolerance and compassion be damned, and any consideration of those needs whatsoever and how they might be achieved via law is a direct contradiction of God's commands concerning homosexuality. But when it comes to divorce and remarriage in your Church, although our Lord expressly prohibits that in the clearest of terms, you have plenty of nice explanations, and there is plenty of room for nuance,  "oikonomia" and everything else.

I think that is rank hypocrisy, to be frank, but you have a cool avatar so I'll let it slide this time.

Quote

The deference is in details which you seem to habitually omit to support your agenda. In your first statement you said "divorce and remarry 4 times". I corrected you saying "three times" in any circumstance (like widowhood). So there is indeed a lot of difference here.

You seem to be unable to stop telling me what to do and again without logic. Moderators exist for correcting an abusive interaction. Your interaction with me failed to logically address my argument 

so it is not a matter for a moderator.

G'day mate.

You seem to have an infatuation with this thing called "logic". Whatever that is, rest assured that you will not find it here on the internet. I am here to be entertained, kill time, and irritate Trads.

Welcome to Phatmass.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Peace

[Lilllabettt]

18 hours ago, Peace said:

I used to live in SF but I don't recall a Morgana street. What is on it?

Sorry, I meant Moraga street. There are some mosaic steps there, which if you climb will give you a sweeping view of the street as it leads out to the beach. If you google "moraga street been there done that" and look at images,  the first image is a picture taken from the steps looking out towards the ocean. It's late afternoon getting towards sunset and the water is glowing pink. And the street itself is glowing from the light reflecting off the ocean. You can see cars and even people going about their business on the street but they are all basking in this warm comforting light. 

That is the photo that hangs in my dining room and I'm quite proud of it as it took me literally years of investigating to reach the photographer and get a print made. 

[Peace]

6 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Sorry, I meant Moraga street. There are some mosaic steps there, which if you climb will give you a sweeping view of the street as it leads out to the beach. If you google "moraga street been there done that" and look at images,  the first image is a picture taken from the steps looking out towards the ocean. It's late afternoon getting towards sunset and the water is glowing pink. And the street itself is glowing from the light reflecting off the ocean. You can see cars and even people going about their business on the street but they are all basking in this warm comforting light. 

That is the photo that hangs in my dining room and I'm quite proud of it as it took me literally years of investigating to reach the photographer and get a print made. 

That's cool. Actually, I never went there or even heard of that street. Will have to check it out next time I visit there. If you go out there I would definitely check out some of the famous streets with graffiti, if you are into that stuff:

https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/clarion-alley-san-francisco

[KnightofChrist]

3 hours ago, dUSt said:

The pope didn't say anything about marriage. How's this any different than the pope standing up for the rights of persecuted Muslims, or the rights of immigrants, or the rights of any group of human beings that are not Catholic? I don't think he's changing church teaching here--if anything, I can see the gay community rejecting his thoughts on the matter because "civil union" isn't endorsing gay marriage.

There isn't that much of a difference between the two, from a secular point of view. Church teaching isn't being changed here, it can't be changed, but Pope Francis has made the attempt with his personal opinion.

-------

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.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

Source: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

[dUSt]

2 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

There isn't that much of a difference between the two, from a secular point of view.

Tell that to the gay community fighting for marriage instead of just being satisfied with civil union laws. If there's no difference, why does this matter to them?

[KnightofChrist]

Just now, dUSt said:

Tell that to the gay community fighting for marriage instead of just being satisfied with civil union laws. If there's no difference, why does this matter to them?

In regards to Church teaching there is very little difference between the legal recognition of the two. And I humbly suggest reading the whole document posted above.

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

In regards to Church teaching there is very little difference between the legal recognition of the two. And I humbly suggest reading the whole document posted above.

Depends on how the law is structured.

Currently, a gay couple can form a LLC, go to court, and sue another company for theft of trade secrets, just like a straight couple, a brother and sister, or two friends, can form a LLC, go to court, and sue another company for theft of trade secrets. Has the LLC law and the courts "legally recognized their homosexual union" merely because it allows gay people to take advantage of the same rights as other people? Not really.

Depending on how a law is structured, it might allow for gay people to take advantage of certain rights, without the law itself recognizing the validity of homosexual relationships.

[dUSt]

11 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

In regards to Church teaching there is very little difference between the legal recognition of the two. And I humbly suggest reading the whole document posted above.

I previously made an example of a scenario of two brothers taking advantage of a civil union--where the law would never explicitly mention sexual orientation at all.  The pope should have used the term "civil agreement" or "civil contracts". but then again, "civil union" is just the English translation of whatever he said in Spanish anyway, so how do I know what the pope meant. haha