Pope endorses civil unions for gay couples?

[KnightofChrist]

"Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God,” - Pope Francis

A union, agreement, contract, that is a family is how different from a marriage that is a family? And what legal 'union' which would create a homosexual family not apply to the CDF document we are all conveniently ignoring?

 

[dUSt]

15 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

"Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God,” - Pope Francis

A union, agreement, contract, that is a family is how different from a marriage that is a family? And what legal 'union' which would create a homosexual family not apply to the CDF document we are all conveniently ignoring?

 

In the original interview the very next thing the pope said in that quote was "that does not mean approving of homosexual acts, not in the least...". Of course, that was edited from the documentary. 

I'm not endorsing the pope here. I'm just not denouncing him either.

[Anastasia]

4 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.

Quite simply, the defense of the basic human rights, like to live without being endangered, abused etc. is something that God requires us to stand by so the Pope's activity in those areas did not violate our faith. But, as soon as that defense begins violate Christian faith, the Pope or any Christian is ought to stop.

According to the Christians teaching, “homosexual unions” are contrary to the order of creation, they are an aberrance of a normality. I would add they simply “not true”. Also, they are defined as “sinful” i.e. not acceptable. The notion of "an unnatural sin" is applied to all humanity, not just Christians so we cannot exempt homosexuals from it.

The Pope could say “we are against an abuse of homosexuals, a police must not overlook such a cases” and that would be fine. But he said “let us get their unions covered etc.”. Here is the definition I already gave earlier in this topic:

“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.”

Hence no matter if the Pope spoke of “civil unions” – the essence is the same is of a marriage. 

Hence, the Pope words “pro” a legal recognition of “a homosexual unions” mean --> “to give them the same rights the heterosexual unions have” --> and, if the “homosexual unions” have the same rights as the true (heterosexual) marriage it means it is no longer an aberrance, a sin, something untrue. The Pope managed to do this without actually saying that but it is a very real implication of his words and the world understood it very well.

Perhaps an example can help. Jesus effectively stopped stoning of the adulterous woman. He did it not via proposing to the crowd to come up with a new law which would “cover her”. He pointed out the fact that everyone is sinful so they cannot kill others for a sin. Yet, He clearly said to a woman that she must stop sinning.

1 hour ago, 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?

The gay community is not uniform. I have two gay acquaintances with whom I discussed the law about a homosexual legal "marriage". Both men are "practicing" and they both could not care less about the law, they thought it is, as they put it, "a purely political croutons". 

Precisely because there is no differences in practice between the "a homosexual civil union" and "a homosexual civil marriage" it gives a room to conclude that there is a bigger agenda there - metaphysical perhaps. I would say it is a burning desire to make a sin and aberration look perfectly normal and force everyone to accept it as such.

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

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.

 

[Anastasia]

---

Not sure what happened but my words

"a purely political c*r*a*p" was turned into

"a purely political croutons"

[Peace]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

"Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God,” - Pope Francis

There the pope seems to have been talking about gay children being kicked out of their own families because they are gay (that is, disowned by their own parents). I don't think he was saying there that a gay couple should have the right to adopt their own children.

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

A union, agreement, contract, that is a family is how different from a marriage that is a family? And what legal 'union' which would create a homosexual family not apply to the CDF document we are all conveniently ignoring?

Again, I think you are misreading the quote. Did you even research it? What you see in most of the new articles is not an unedited quote. They took various pieces from the interview and pieced them side by side, to give a certain impression. The "civil union" statement (however it should be translated) did not come immediately after the "right to be in a family statement." The documentary just cut and edited the interview that way to make it seem like that.

[KnightofChrist]

3 minutes ago, Peace said:

There the pope seems to have been talking about gay children being kicked out of their own families because they are gay (that is, disowned by their own parents). I don't think he was saying there that a gay couple should have the right to adopt their own children.

Again, I think you are misreading the quote. Did you even research it? What you see in most of the new articles is not an unedited quote. They took various pieces from the interview and pieced them side by side, to give a certain impression. The "civil union" statement (however it should be translated) did not come immediately after the "right to be in a family statement." The documentary just cut and edited the interview that way to make it seem like that.

What are you even talking about? It's all in context of homosexuals being legally united together to form a family. 

[Peace]

55 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

Quite simply, the defense of the basic human rights, like to live without being endangered, abused etc. is something that God requires us to stand by so the Pope's activity in those areas did not violate our faith. But, as soon as that defense begins violate Christian faith, the Pope or any Christian is ought to stop.

According to the Christians teaching, “homosexual unions” are contrary to the order of creation, they are an aberrance of a normality. I would add they simply “not true”. Also, they are defined as “sinful” i.e. not acceptable. The notion of "an unnatural sin" is applied to all humanity, not just Christians so we cannot exempt homosexuals from it.

The Pope could say “we are against an abuse of homosexuals, a police must not overlook such a cases” and that would be fine. But he said “let us get their unions covered etc.”. Here is the definition I already gave earlier in this topic:

“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.”

Hence no matter if the Pope spoke of “civil unions” – the essence is the same is of a marriage. 

Hence, the Pope words “pro” a legal recognition of “a homosexual unions” mean --> “to give them the same rights the heterosexual unions have” --> and, if the “homosexual unions” have the same rights as the true (heterosexual) marriage it means it is no longer an aberrance, a sin, something untrue. The Pope managed to do this without actually saying that but it is a very real implication of his words and the world understood it very well.

Perhaps an example can help. Jesus effectively stopped stoning of the adulterous woman. He did it not via proposing to the crowd to come up with a new law which would “cover her”. He pointed out the fact that everyone is sinful so they cannot kill others for a sin. Yet, He clearly said to a woman that she must stop sinning.

The gay community is not uniform. I have two gay acquaintances with whom I discussed the law about a homosexual legal "marriage". Both men are "practicing" and they both could not care less about the law, they thought it is, as they put it, "a purely political croutons". 

Precisely because there is no differences in practice between the "a homosexual civil union" and "a homosexual civil marriage" it gives a room to conclude that there is a bigger agenda there - metaphysical perhaps. I would say it is a burning desire to make a sin and aberration look perfectly normal and force everyone to accept it as such.

You are jumping the gun. There are a wide range of possibilites for a "civil union" and the pope has not put forth any type of concrete proposal in that regard, whatsoever.

It is not even clear if the term in the interview was properly translated as "civil union," or if the pope was merely referring to an idea of amending the laws such that homosexuals do not suffer unjust forms of discrimination.

Frankly, there is no "logic" whatsoever in you folks drawing out so much scandal from a 20 second sound bite in heavily edited documentary that none of you have even seen.

[KnightofChrist]

I'm not going to even try to play some bullflop mental gymnastics. You're welcome to but I'm not going to do so.

Maybe we'll get clarification on this and many other confusing statements when the McCarrick report is finally released.

[Peace]

16 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

What are you even talking about? It's all in context of homosexuals being legally united together to form a family. 

I don't think so. The context of the first sentence appears to be about gay children being shunned by their parents for being gay. The context for the second sentence is unknown, because the full video from which that statement was cut has not been publicly released:

At the same time, a CNA analysis of the interview’s transcript shows that other papal comments on homosexuality featured in “Francesco” were compiled by heavy editing of the 2019 interview’s video footage.

“Francesco” presents Pope Francis saying the following, in remarks about his approach to pastoral care:

“Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it.”

While the pope did say those words on camera, he did not say them in that order, or use those phrases in immediate proximity.

CNA has bolded the appearance of those words in an excerpted translation of the pope’s remarks during his 2019 interview:

“I was asked a question on a flight - after it made me mad, made me mad for how one news outlet transmitted it - about the familial integration of people with homosexual orientation, and I said, homosexual people have a right to be in the family, people with homosexual orientation have a right to be in the family and parents have the right to recognize that son as homosexual, that daughter as homosexual. Nobody should be thrown out of the family, or be made miserable because of it.”

“Another thing is, I said when you see some signs in the children and from there send them to -  I should have said a ‘professional,’ what came out was ‘psychiatrist.’ I meant to say a professional because sometimes there are signs in adolescence or pre-adolescence that they don’t know if they are homosexually oriented or if it is that the thymus gland didn’t atrophy in time. Who knows, a thousand things, no? So, a professional. The title of the daily paper: ‘The Pope sends homosexuals to the psychiatrist.’ It’s not true!”

“They asked me the same question another time and I repeated it, ‘They are children of God, they have a right to a family, and such.’ Another thing is - and I explained I was wrong with that word, but I meant to say this: When you notice something strange - ‘Ah, it’s strange.’ - No, it’s not strange. Something that is outside of the usual. That is, not to take a little word to annul the context. There, what I said is that they ‘have a right to a family.’ And that doesn’t mean to approve of homosexual acts, not at all.”

--

After the presentation of those edited remarks, the pope is seen to say in “Francesco” that “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered. I stood up for that.”

While those remarks seem certainly to come from the Alazraki interview, Francesco director Evgeny Afineevsky has told reporters otherwise, and the section of the Alazraki interview in which they would have come was not included in the published version, and is not available to the public.

But in addition to their context, some have called their meaning into question, suggesting that a phrase used by the pope, “convivencia civil,” was mistranslated by “Francesco” as “civil unions” in the film’s subtitle, and actually suggests a different kind of legal recognition.

But on Wednesday Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, a theologian who has long been close to the pope, suggested that the pope’s phrase is substantially equivalent to the phrase “civil union.”

 

Here is the link to the full article:

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-homosexuality-comments-heavily-edited-in-documentary-no-vatican-comment-on-civil-union-88210?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+(CNA+Daily+News)&utm_term=daily+news

Edited October 24, 2020 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

The latter part, which should also be bolded, of the article you posted is still the major problem we have now. The Pope has endorsed homosexual civil unions. If he, himself comes back later and states that's not what he meant, I'll take that into account. But, if history is any judge he will not clear up any confusion. 

[Jaime]

2 hours ago, Anastasia said:

---

Not sure what happened but my words

"a purely political c*r*a*p" was turned into

"a purely political croutons"

welcome to Phatmass!! there are words that automatically get changed into something else like Jaime (that used to turn into hotstuff... poop)

 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

The latter part, which should also be bolded, of the article you posted is still the major problem we have now. The Pope has endorsed homosexual civil unions. If he, himself comes back later and states that's not what he meant, I'll take that into account. But, if history is any judge he will not clear up any confusion. 

Well I will agree with you that his unwillingness to respond directly to many controversies and add clarification seems troubling. One might say that he does that in order to encourage the bad behavior, but I think that as Catholics we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps there is some other reason why he chooses to remain silent.

As for the last part of the article, well, I would be happy to go back and make that part bold for you too, but its too late unless @Dust gives me a magical editing power to do so.

At this point, I don't think it is fair to say that Pope Francis has "endorsed homosexual civil unions." For one, the word "homosexual" does not appear in the text of the statement. Secondly, as noted in the article and elsewhere, there is some debate about whether the term is properly translated as "civil union" or if something else was being referred to there. Third, the portion of the interview from which the statement was taken, has not been released at all, and you saw what they did with the other part by cutting statements from different portions and putting them together to make it seem different. If they did it with the one part of the video there is a darn good chance they did it with that statement too. Heck, "they" in that sentence could refer to "health care rights" for all we know.

Again, it would be nice if the Pope clarified, but at least from my standpoint as Catholics I think we should presume that the pope has not contradicted the teaching of the Church unless someone clearly demonstrates otherwise, instead of presuming that the pope has contradicted the Church, unless he acquits himself.  I don't think it should be our business to go around shaking down the pope, but that's just me.

There is a bit of irony in that, in the very same interview, the pope complains about how the media often misconstrues his words. But that is the name of the game nowadays. Controversy sells.

[Anastasia]

While I often disagree with Archbishop Viganò's views I find that in this article he makes valuable points, like this

"After all, experience teaches us that when Bergoglio says something, he does it with a very precise purpose: to make others interpret his words in the broadest possible sense. The front pages of newspapers all over the world are announcing today: “The Pope Approves Gay Marriage” – even if technically this is not what he said. But this was exactly the result that he and the Vatican gay lobby wanted. Then the Vatican Press Office will perhaps say that what Bergoglio said was misunderstood, that this was an old interview, and that the Church reaffirms its condemnation of homosexuality as intrinsically disordered. But the damage has been done, and even any steps backwards from the scandal that has been stirred up will ultimately be a step forward in the direction of mainstream thought and what is politically correct.

Viganò: Bergoglio Wishes To “Expel His Adversaries from the Church”

Edited October 24, 2020 by Anastasia

[Anastasia]

As I said before, I do not agree with the Archbishop on many points including in that article. Yet, after looking though much materials since that scandal happened, I can see he is right about a huge damage which has been done to the Catholic Church.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Anastasia