Pope backs same sex unions

[lismore]

Is "treating the people involved in it with their God-given dignity" a sin? Really?

Can you re-phrase the question please? God Bless

 

[Virgil the Roman]

 

[hedrick]

The first definition of convivencia is cohabitation, in a sexual sense. Whether civil cohabitation is different from civil union is a matter of opinion, but it was used in Argentina for what we in the US all civil union. Argentine archbishop and Pope Francis advisor says 'civil union' not mistranslated in documentary

The word can also mean coexistence, but it's obvious from the context that he meant cohabitation.

 

[Swag365]

The first definition of convivencia is cohabitation, in a sexual sense. Whether civil cohabitation is different from civil union is a matter of opinion, but it was used in Argentina for what we in the US all civil union. Argentine archbishop and Pope Francis advisor says 'civil union' not mistranslated in documentary

The word can also mean coexistence, but it's obvious from the context that he meant cohabitation.

The whole quote is a chop up. They took various parts from a longer discourse, cut them out, and pasted them together to make it appear like it was one statement. Not really sure how much you can trust the video when it is being heavily edited like that.

But that's understandable. Controversy creates sales.

 

[Swag365]

 

[Swag365]

The word can also mean coexistence, but it's obvious from the context that he meant cohabitation.

That's interesting. I thought the context indicated otherwise. "A law of civil coexistence" makes a whole lot more sense to me than "a law of civil cohabitation" when the next part of the sentence talks about being legally covered. To me at least it seems that he is suggesting that homosexuals should be protected under the law.

One of the problems is that the "context" for the the last sentence is manufactured. Pope Francis did not state "The homosexual has a right to be in the family . . ." immediately before that sentence. The video edit just makes it appear that way.

Regardless, it's a 20 second clip from a highly edited video. It's ain't exactly a formal papal teaching.

 

[dms1972]

He (Pope Francis) said:
“Homosexual people have a right to be in a family. They are children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable over it. What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered. I stood up for that.”

Where is he refering to in regards to creating a civil union law? In the UK we had civil unions/partnerships for a number of years, but that wasn't sufficient for some in the LGBT community - they insisted their relationships be recognised as a marriage, not just a civil union.

 

[lismore]

Where is he refering to in regards to creating a civil union law? In the UK we had civil unions/partnerships for a number of years, but that wasn't sufficient for some in the LGBT community - they insisted it be recognised as a marriage, not just a civil union.

Yes. Which was why I asked in the OP 'Where is this heading?' I think Catholics are naive if they think civil unions for same sex couples can be brought in society then the whole issue will just be deep frozen.
It's the old slippery slope idea, we're going somewhere and it isn't a good place. Church leaders should be sharing the biblical position with one voice. If you leave the biblical position then you're on slippery ground. God Bless

 

[hedrick]

Where is he refering to in regards to creating a civil union law? In the UK we had civil unions/partnerships for a number of years, but that wasn't sufficient for some in the LGBT community - they insisted it be recognised as a marriage, not just a civil union.

Right. This was suggested in Argentina when he was there as a compromise, to avoid actual marriage. Perhaps some countries will be interested, but I doubt it. Those that are accepting are likely to allow marriage. The countries that are left are not likely to be interested in anything that might recognize rights for gays.

 

[dms1972]

Not everyone accepts evangelicals misreading of scripture.

How are they misreading it?

 

[dms1972]

Right. This was suggested in Argentina when he was there as a compromise, to avoid actual marriage. Perhaps some countries will be interested, but I doubt it. Those that are accepting are likely to allow marriage. The countries that are left are not likely to be interested in anything that might recognize rights for gays.

From what I can see its been offered in the past as a compromise in several countries (including the UK). Initially they say that is all they want, and that they are happy, but eventually some start demanding for same-sex relationships to be recognised as marriages, and for new legistlation to be introduced.

 

[Jaxxi]

Jesus dealing with Tax collectors, prostitutes, and other types of people that where shown the same form off condemnation as shown in your posts is an example of how we should treat them. "God does not change" doesn't imply condemning and not understanding a persons reasons for who they are at the present time.

also that image is obviously fake, and old.

So? It is relevant. And...we are not talking about tax collectors, prostitutes and other types of people. A prostitute does not carry the same responsibility as the Pope - how many people is he leading? He is the leader of the largest church in the world!! Does that not mean more of him is expected of him as the head representative of Gods church? He has sworn an oath to keep the Word of God and uphold the principles of the church! It isn't even about his personal reasons for anything. Those are irrelevant. He can think whatever he wants when hes not wearing the cloth. In the meantime he is the head representative of God's church and since he has taken it upon himself to change the holy Word and doctrine that can only mean he is no longer representing the church of God, but something else.

 

[lismore]

From what I can see its been offered in the past as a compromise in several countries (including the UK). Initially they say that is all they want, and that they are happy, but eventually some start demanding for same-sex relationships to be recognised as marriages.

That's what the Pope doesn't seem to understand.

 

[dms1972]

-

 

[Cis.jd]

So? It is relevant. And...we are not talking about tax collectors, prostitutes and other types of people. A prostitute does not carry the same responsibility as the Pope - how many people is he leading? He is the leader of the largest church in the world!! Does that not mean more of him is expected of him as the head representative of Gods church? He has sworn an oath to keep the Word of God and uphold the principles of the church! It isn't even about his personal reasons for anything. Those are irrelevant. He can think whatever he wants when hes not wearing the cloth. In the meantime he is the head representative of God's church and since he has taken it upon himself to change the holy Word and doctrine that can only mean he is no longer representing the church of God, but something else.

It's not irrelevant and I am not talking about responsibility but reception.

The reception those tax collectors and prostitutes had with religious people is relative to Christians in regards to homosexuals now.

The Pope isn't approving of Gay marriage inside the walls of the church. It's simple separation of Church and State. Gay people deciding to get married is their legal right why should we restrict them based on our beliefs that they don't share? Keeping to God's word isn't to be confused with shoving it down others throats.

 

[lismore]

Gay people deciding to get married is their legal right why should we restrict them based on our beliefs that they don't share?

Because once you've started the pendulum swinging you can't control it. You can't control where homosexuals will draw the line.

 

[RDKirk]

So advocate for two men to get married as long as it's not in church? Seems like a recipe for confusion.

The RCC already recognizes a division between the sacred and the profane with regard to civil marriages of divorcees. This is just another type of marriage the RCC is no longer going to fight in the secular (profane) realm, but not accept in the sacred realm, just like marriages of divorcees.

What is notable here is the recognition of a separation of Church and State, which the RCC had never done before. That's not something Americans would be conscious of, but in Italy and some other predominantly Catholic nations where that line can be rather dim, it's a major step in that particular regard.

 

[zippy2006]

The RCC already recognizes a division between the sacred and the profane with regard to civil marriages of divorcees. This is just another type of marriage the RCC is no longer going to fight in the secular (profane) realm, but not accept in the sacred realm, just like marriages of divorcees.

What is notable here is the recognition of a separation of Church and State, which the RCC had never done before. That's not something Americans would be conscious of, but in Italy and some other predominantly Catholic nations where that line can be rather dim, it's a major step in that particular regard.

In your first paragraph you say that the RCC already recognizes divisions between the sacred and the profane. In your second paragraph you say that the RCC has never recognized the separate of Church and State before. You ought to pick one side and go with it.

But no, saying that certain civil marriages are not real marriages is different from saying that same-sex unions can be legally enshrined. If Francis says that sin against the natural law is fine for seculars then he has broken with Catholic tradition. (I don't think he has)

 

[RDKirk]

In your first paragraph you say that the RCC already recognizes divisions between the sacred and the profane. In your second paragraph you say that the RCC has never recognized the separate of Church and State before. You ought to pick one side and go with it.

But no, saying that certain civil marriages are not real marriages is different from saying that same-sex unions can be legally enshrined. If Francis says that sin against the natural law is fine for seculars then he has broken with Catholic tradition. (I don't think he has)

What I'm saying is that the RCC has never accepted "separation of Church and State" as a satisfactory situation. The RCC historical position that the Church should dominate the state. In the course of achieving dominance, however, there must be an acknowledgement of that which is not yet within the dominion of the Church and care taken not to mix the yet-profane with the currently sacred.

So the Church has always pointed out that not everyone the state says is joined has been joined by God. In this case, however, the Pope seems to be at a position of accepting "separate of Church and State" as an acceptable condition...maybe.

The Pope has never uttered the term "civil marriage," (not even in the original Spanish). The original Spanish he used does not translate to "civil marriage" by any reasonable interpretation. "Civil cohabitation" maybe, or "civil co-existence." But not "civil marriage." He has not used the term "marriage" in that regard.

 

[zippy2006]

What I'm saying is that the RCC has never accepted "separation of Church and State" as a satisfactory situation. The RCC historical position that the Church should dominate the state. In the course of achieving dominance, however, there must be an acknowledgement of that which is not yet within the dominion of the Church and care taken not to mix the yet-profane with the currently sacred.

So the Church has always pointed out that not everyone the state says is joined has been joined by God. In this case, however, the Pope seems to be at a position of accepting "separate of Church and State" as an acceptable condition...maybe.

The Pope has never uttered the term "civil marriage," (not even in the original Spanish). The original Spanish he used does not translate to "civil marriage" by any reasonable interpretation. "Civil cohabitation" maybe, or "civil co-existence." But not "civil marriage." He has not used the term "marriage" in that regard.

It apparently translates to "civil union."

So the Church has always pointed out that not everyone the state says is joined has been joined by God. In this case, however, the Pope seems to be at a position of accepting "separate of Church and State" as an acceptable condition...maybe.

How so? You seem to think that if Francis promotes civil unions for gays then he has separated Church and State. I don't see how your conclusion follows.