The Pope's comments on Civil Unions is fake news- he is in line with the CDF guidance...

[HumilityAndPatience]

Hi guys,

There has been so much drama regarding the excerpt from the Francesco documentary. But in my opinion it is much ado about nothing. It not easy to unpick this, don't get me wrong. But Fr Matthew Schneider did an excellent article on this. I have since made a video summarising why this is all fake news. My views in longer form are below in the video link but essentially:

• the quotes are taken from a 2019 interview Pope Francis gave
  • for the record, he has already explained some of his comments here
• the "right to be in a family" part of the quote relates to homosexual children being ostracised from their families and society
• Pope Francis' comments on Civil Unions ARE in line with the CDF guidance (below in blue). I explain this in the video, but in summary- the 2003 guidance calls for rejection of the INTRODUCTION of such laws. However, once these laws are ALREADY IN PLACE, one can licitly support them using a sort of "lesser evil" logic, using prudential judgement on what is essentially a foray into the secular arena.

 

 

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided

[Ash Wednesday]

I'm inclined to agree with most of this argument, particularly the interpretation of what was meant as far as "right to a family" -- I interpreted this to mean that someone gay should not be ostracized from their immediate family. 

I'm also of the mind that knowing the full context rather than creative editing would also be a lot more useful. And the media is most definitely doing their usual job of making this a lot worse. 

The part that does give me pause, however, is that he does say "Lo que tenemos hacer es una ley de convivencia civil"  -- so with the word "hacer" he does speak of actively creating a 'civil union law'" as opposed to a law in place. 

His usage of the term "convivencia civil" has been the topic of analysis and debate -- if giving him the greatest benefit of the doubt, after giving this thought, I'm inclined to believe in conversation he was speaking primarily of concerns about means of legal protection as opposed to some deliberate attempt to openly oppose the CDF or endorse the lifestyle, despite the choice of wording in itself being possibly imprudent and questionable. 

I'm not going to extensively debate the matter, though, as anyone should just refer to the CDF document to fully understand where we are at. I'm frustrated that we've yet again ended up in a "mess" and the laity are left debating and scrambling to try to make sense of it, left to try to parse and clarify this for ourselves, when a follow up or clarification from the Vatican in this information age would be helpful for the laity, and would serve as pushback against the damage done by the press. I think that is the area that has been my open primary concern. But I'm definitely not going to make presumptions about what this means about the pope as far as people speculating on his soul or whether he's a heretic. That's not my place.

 

[Peace]

The article he linked to is also useful:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2020/10/pope-franciss-words-on-civil-unions-distorted-by-editing/

Edited October 24, 2020 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

A reminder, because clearly we've forgotten. This is the same play book of "that's not what he really said" or "he was misinterpreted" or "misquoted" that gets played everytime Pope Francis is interviewed by Eugenio Scalfari. Pope Francis himself has never corrected Scalfari, even after the reporter quoted Pope Francis as denying the eternity of hell, indestructibility of souls in hell, the Godhood of Christ, amongst other strange things.

I'm not getting played anymore. Until Francis comes out himself and clears things up, I'll believe he was indeed correctly quoted, each and every time he's said to say some strange thing by those he interviews with. 

[Peace]

8 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

A reminder, because clearly we've forgotten. This is the same play book of "that's not what he really said" or "he was misinterpreted" or "misquoted" that gets played everytime Pope Francis is interviewed by Eugenio Scalfari. Pope Francis himself has never corrected Scalfari, even after the reporter quoted Pope Francis as denying the eternity of hell, indestructibility of souls in hell, the Godhood of Christ, amongst other strange things.

I'm not getting played anymore. Until Francis comes out himself and clears things up, I'll believe he was indeed correctly quoted, each and every time he's said to say some strange thing by those he interviews with. 

In other words, guilty until proven innocent.

[KnightofChrist]

Just now, Peace said:

In other words, guilty until proven innocent.

Rather, Fool me once shame on me... Fool me 5x times, I don't think so. 

[Peace]

Just now, KnightofChrist said:

Rather, Fool me once shame on me... Fool me 5x times, I don't think so. 

Friend, you were against this pope from the moment he took office. Let's keep it real here.

[KnightofChrist]

1 minute ago, Peace said:

Friend, you were against this pope from the moment he took office. Let's keep it real here.

I was not. It was at the time a great birthday present. I created a lot of graphic design pieces depicting him. I wish Benedict had not stepped down and I didn't like some of the things he did but against? No. In comparison to now certainly all those things were extremely minor. 

[Jaime]

24 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

A reminder, because clearly we've forgotten. This is the same play book of "that's not what he really said" or "he was misinterpreted" or "misquoted" that gets played everytime Pope Francis is interviewed by Eugenio Scalfari. Pope Francis himself has never corrected Scalfari, even after the reporter quoted Pope Francis as denying the eternity of hell, indestructibility of souls in hell, the Godhood of Christ, amongst other strange things.

I'm not getting played anymore. Until Francis comes out himself and clears things up, I'll believe he was indeed correctly quoted, each and every time he's said to say some strange thing by those he interviews with. 

So every Scalifari interview was created from Scalifari's memory.  He never took notes and he never recorded the Holy Father.  This documentary uses some new fangled technology called "video" that also has a feature recording audio.  So instead of third person hearsay, you can literally watch and listen to the Pope talk!! Those who know Spanish can understand the fact that he was indeed misinterpreted by the translator. As someone who has misinterpreted spanish into english multiple times, I can identify with the person who did this.  

[Anastasia]

7 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

There has been so much drama regarding the excerpt from the Francesco documentary. But in my opinion it is much ado about nothing. It not easy to unpick this, don't get me wrong. But Fr Matthew Schneider did an excellent article on this.

The development of the current situation with the Pope and his supposed approval of "homosexual unions" reminds the dynamics which can be observed in narcissistic families (and frequently also in politics). 

First the head of the family  "cracks" something shocking that bears terrifying consequences, something that clashes with his role a parent - but in an ambiguous way.  There is a confusion and panic and fear. A fear is dominant. The boldest members of the una famigla begin seeing that something is seriously off and yet they are terrified of a possible conclusion, that something is wrong with their parent. Then so-called "flying monkeys" begin explain the words of the head of the family making them "nothing", "misunderstood". And here is an interesting psychological point everyone arrived to: it is very comforting to believe "the flying monkeys" yet something inside tells that it is not true, something wrong with the parent. To more "explanations" are being provided, the more suppressed an is an inner voice.

Meanwhile, a parent remain silent and goes around his business as if he did not say anything. Eventually everything has been "explained away" and those who questioned are left with a sense that their reality and a sense of truth were violated. A life in a family returns to "normal". Note that all "dirty work" is done by "flying monkeys", a parent is clean - he is "misunderstood" and those who felt he was wrong are made - not by him but by "flying monkeys" - "suspicious", "haters", "stirrers" and so on.

This is a scheme is well-known in clinical psychology.   I hope no one is offended by this reference.

Here are the facts, not emotions:

- before being the Pope Francis was pro- homosexual unions (Argentina);
- the Pope is well-known for his ambivalent statements which he never bothers to clarify;
- the news about the Pope's words cause excitement in the world because they were understood as pro-homosexual unions;
- there was a panic and confusion among many Roman Catholics;
- the Orthodox Church first hoped it was a fake yet after a day or two it became clear it was not and that caused a shock;
- the Jesuit priest, Fr Martin from the closest circle of the Pope (if I am not mistaken about his name), the proponent of homosexual unions, rejoiced and confirmed that the world understood the Pope correctly; 
- more traditional Cardinals and Archbishops made their statements calling the Pope to retract his statement;
- some said bluntly that the Pope deliberately creates a confusion and predicted what will be next.

Regardless the subject of the Pope's words, the question arises: why the Pope did not bother to address the panic immediately after it began? Surely if the head of the huge famigla - the Church - sees what his words have done and especially if they are understood wrongly he would immediately clarify it. By "immediately" I mean "within first 24 hours".

It has not been done and no matter how "flying monkeys" will try the world and the Church are being left with a conviction "the Pope endorses homosexual unions".

Edited October 24, 2020 by Anastasia

[HumilityAndPatience]

4 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

The part that does give me pause, however, is that he does say "Lo que tenemos hacer es una ley de convivencia civil"  -- so with the word "hacer" he does speak of actively creating a 'civil union law'" as opposed to a law in place.

I see where you are coming from here. However, his next line is allegedly "I stood up for that". This fact, and also the fact that Civil Unions (indeed gay marriages) has been legalised is most of the West (including the vast majority of South America), would point to this being a "retrospective" comment by Pope Francis.

4 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

But I'm definitely not going to make presumptions about what this means about the pope as far as people speculating on his soul or whether he's a heretic. That's not my place.

I wish everyone thought like this...

53 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

I'll believe he was indeed correctly quoted, each and every time he's said to say some strange thing by those he interviews with. 

This could be a very long line of corrections... Hard to find honest media, with integrity. 

[Anastasia]

In effect, the silence of the Pope and the activity of "the flying monkeys" make statements of Catholic Cardinals and Archbishops and others look stupid, "much ado about nothing" and their authors - like poor deluded who "did not understand".

"I do not know the exact wording of the interview statement, which is ambiguous as so often. But the effect is fatal. The Catholic faithful are irritated, the enemies of the Church feel confirmed by the Vicar of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom they reject as the Son of God. Instead of using theological and philosophical arguments of reason, they appeal to feelings, thus checkmating the rationality of faith with sentimentality. But faith does not depend on a political option in the right or left spectrum or an ideological position between conservatism or progressivism, but only on the Truth that God Himself is in His Essence and in the Word of His historical Revelation. 
Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller

Indeed, how pathetic it is if the Pope did not mean it.

[HumilityAndPatience]

29 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

Then so-called "flying monkeys" begin explain the words of the head of the family making them "nothing", "misunderstood".

This is an interesting analogy. But I think the protagonists here must include the media, rather than the internal crisis as the analogy suggests.

29 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

before being the Pope Francis was pro- homosexual unions (Argentina);

Fr Matthew addresses this in his blog post, far better than I could. I recommend reading this. 

29 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

he would immediately clarify it. By "immediately" I mean "within first 24 hours".

As I say earlier, this would be a long list of clarifications needed... The media are an incessant machine churning out inaccurate stories, particularly when it comes to the Pope- who's soundbites make for easy work for the media

[Anastasia]

7 minutes ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

But I think the protagonists here must include the media, rather than the internal crisis as the analogy suggests.

You are correct about the media but the analogy includes them since a typical narcissistic parent also relies on the "flying monkeys" outside of the family using them as "the certifiers" of his good character and good intentions.

10 minutes ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

As I say earlier, this would be a long list of clarifications needed...

In a current situation, the only one is needed, in my opinion

BREAKING: Catholic youth outside Vatican ask Pope to clarify gay civil union remarks

[HumilityAndPatience]

2 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

In a current situation, the only one is needed, in my opinion

Do you agree that Pope Francis' comments could be held in agreement with the CDF document? i.e. when CU law is already in place, it can be licitly supported?