Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

[Hazelelponi]

What I object to is forcing Christian churches to accept this arrangement as an actual Christian marriage, which is not, and cannot ever be

I also object to that, likely far more vehemently than you.

But what will happen in the future will happen, and we as Christians are to worry only about the day we are in...

Here in America we aren't being forced to perform same sex unions.. so the what-ifs of the future isn't what we base our decisions on, but rather, what is right and just now, in the situation we find ourselves in.

The situation the Pope proposes, the secular legality of same sex union, is what I am speaking of only.

We cant treat people unfairly because of what may happen in the future. We deal with each day as it comes.

 

[Ananias]

India has been influenced by its contact with western missionaries, something the Supreme Court of India has recognized as being responsible for injustice against gay persons in India. But Hinduism itself is not the root of this.

So super-Hindu India is now also a Christian stronghold? This is just delusional. Muslims vastly outnumber Christians in India, and Hindus vastly outnumber Muslims (particularly since the Partition). The notion that Christianity could have any large, normative influence on Indian culture is just...pretty hilarious, actually.

Like I said: you really should visit India and get some on-the-ground info from people who actually live there.

 

[Ananias]

Here in America we aren't being forced to perform same sex unions.. so the what-ifs of the future isn't what we base our decisions on, but rather, what is right and just now, in the situation we find ourselves in.

The problem is what I said earlier. They push; we step back. They push; we step back again. Again. And again. And pretty soon we're standing on the edge of the cliff and wondering how we got there. And the answer is: one step at a time.

Remember back in the 80's when the issue of gay clergy first came up? Remember how liberals assured us that we weren't talking about gay marriage, gosh, not at all! Yet, a few decades later, here we are. At some point Christians are going to have to push back on this, or get pushed out of civic life entirely. And if you think that orthodox Christianity will not be made illegal in our lifetimes, you haven't been paying attention. If you think that, just remember the legal wringer liberal Democrats put the Little Sisters of the Poor through. Liberals absolutely want to break the power of Christianity over people, or render it powerless.

This isn't about "fairness" or "equality". Never accept their framing of the issues. This is about breaking the authority of the Christian church and replacing it with a postmodern liberalist pagan ethos. It's already happening; you can see it everywhere.

This news about Pope Francis isn't even all that shocking; I've been expecting it ever since he ascended to the Papacy. It's the legacy of two Marxist creeds that have corrupted the Christian church: Liberation Theology and Critical Theory. Pope Francis advocates both.

 

[FireDragon76]

The problem is what I said earlier. They push; we step back. They push; we step back again. Again. And again. And pretty soon we're standing on the edge of the cliff and wondering how we got there. And the answer is: one step at a time.

Remember back in the 80's when the issue of gay clergy first came up? Remember how liberals assured us that we weren't talking about gay marriage, gosh, not at all! Yet, a few decades later, here we are. At some point Christians are going to have to push back on this, or get pushed out of civic life entirely. And if you think that orthodox Christianity will not be made illegal in our lifetimes, you haven't been paying attention. If you think that, just remember the legal wringer liberal Democrats put the Little Sisters of the Poor through. Liberals absolutely want to break the power of Christianity over people, or render it powerless.

This isn't about "fairness" or "equality". Never accept their framing of the issues. This is about breaking the authority of the Christian church and replacing it with a postmodern liberalist pagan ethos. It's already happening; you can see it everywhere.

This news about Pope Francis isn't even all that shocking; I've been expecting it ever since he ascended to the Papacy. It's the legacy of two Marxist creeds that have corrupted the Christian church: Liberation Theology and Critical Theory. Pope Francis advocates both.

It sounds to me like your attitude is not really about anything spiritual. After all, Jesus said, "don't resist an evil man" and "go the extra mile". Its about politics, just as many of us have been saying for years about the Christian Right.

I doubt you have even studied anything about liberation theology with any seriousness. Your reaction to it seems inherently political and in bad faith. As somebody who has actually studied it, I believe you are just being a reactionary and trying to engage in a shallow ad hominem against the Pontiff because you don't want to acknowledge that there are other legitimate perspectives that have even more integrity behind them than reactionary theology.

As it is, studying liberation theology is perfectly acceptable in Catholic seminaries and it's part of the religious culture of Latin America (BTW, Liberation Theology actually has its roots in the theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer). It is not heretical or forbidden, and doesn't somehow indicate there is anything wrong with the Pope for doing so.

 

[Ananias]

reactionary

Captain, I've detected a Marxist on the scope!

 

[coffee4u]

Romans 16:17-18
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.

Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

 

[Ananias]

Its about politics, just as many of us have been saying for years about the Christian Right.

This is projection; Liberation Theology itself is explicitly political in nature, resting as it does on Marxist social and economic theory.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is projection; Liberation Theology itself is explicitly political in nature, resting as it does on Marxist social and economic theory.

And that doesn't mean its wrong. Don't try to poison the well. Liberation theology only relies upon some Marxist categories to understand the material conditions human beings live under, but it is fundamentally a Christian theology.

 

[Ananias]

And that doesn't mean its wrong. Don't try to poison the well. Liberation theology only relies upon some Marxist categories to understand the material conditions human beings live under, but it is fundamentally a Christian theology.

No, it isn't. At all. It inverts Christianity. It subverts individual sin by trying to corporatize it; it subverts the concept of salvation by placing it in an earthly rather than spiritual context; it subverts evangelism and missionism by calling it "colonization" and "imperialism"; and it destroys the unity of the church militant by casting Christians into Marxist classes of "oppressor" and "oppressed".

Liberation Theology divides rather than unifies, corrupts rather than mends, and fosters resentment rather than love for one's neighbor. It could not possibly be further from the message of Jesus Christ. (And you are correct that the Roman Catholics teach it in seminaries, which explains why we are seeing this news of Pope Francis today. The two events are not unrelated.)

Liberation Theology is a poison creed, and poison is a good word to to describe it, because it was designed and intended as a poison to Christian faith.

 

[Ananias]

Be aware: this may be (yet another) case of fake news. I have no doubt about Pope Francis' true feelings on this matter, and the Vatican hasn't debunked the story yet, but this bears watching.

 

[Strathos]

There was never any Biblical proscription against people of different races marrying each other (though there are remaining arguments as to whether Christians should wed non-Christians). Only of different genders.

That's irrelevant. My point is that churches can still refuse to marry interracial couples if they don't want to, so there is no reason to assume they will be forced to marry same sex couples.

 

[Ananias]

My point is that churches can still refuse to marry interracial couples if they don't want to

Churches can also prevent you from marrying a fat partner, or an ugly one. But I don't think any of them actually do, which makes me wonder what your point is. Maybe some fringe churches somewhere refuse to marry people based on non-Christian principles, but 'twas ever thus. It's not doctrine in any Christian faith. It is doctrine that only a male and a female may be married under Christ.

 

[Ananias]

so there is no reason to assume they will be forced to marry same sex couples

Remember back when we were saying that about civic marriages? Good times, man, good times.

 

[Strathos]

Churches can also prevent you from marrying a fat partner, or an ugly one. But I don't think any of them actually do, which makes me wonder what your point is. Maybe some fringe churches somewhere refuse to marry people based on non-Christian principles, but 'twas ever thus. It's not doctrine in any Christian faith. It is doctrine that only a male and a female may be married under Christ.

Once again, you are missing the point entirely.

I'm not talking about what is doctrine in Christianity, but how laws are applied in the US.

Despite interracial marriage being legal since Loving vs. Virginia, over 50 years ago, churches in America are not legally compelled to marry interracial couples if they don't wish to.

It doesn't matter if most of them don't exercise this right, or if there is no solid theology arguing against interracial marriage, the point is that legally, under the laws of the United States, churches have the right to refuse to carry out such weddings.

Therefore, why would you think that churches would be legally compelled to marry same-sex couples?

From a legal standpoint (not a scriptural standpoint), interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are equivalent in US law, in that they were once illegal and are now legal. So if, in over 50 years of legal interracial marriage, the government has never forced a church to solemnize an interracial marriage, why do you think they would do so for a same sex marriage?

 

[Strathos]

Remember back when we were saying that about civic marriages? Good times, man, good times.

Please show me one example of the United States government forcing a church to conduct a marriage that they did not wish to.

 

[RDKirk]

I think it is possibly an attempt to position the Church as an/the arbiter of marriage. If the pope promotes civil unions, he can grant rights to the married without having to recognize civil-union couples.

Call me cynical.

Inasmuch as the Roman Catholic Church had already created a divide between religious marriage as recognized by the RCC and civil marriage (particularly civil marriages following divorces), this statement is simply an extension of long-standing RCC policy.

The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the religious validity of many civil marriages anyway. So what is one more type of civil marriage that the RCC will not recognize as valid within the Church?

 

[RDKirk]

The bottom line is people are either going to live by God's standards and commandments or not. The day is which we live can easily be described by the line in Judges that said people did what they thought was right in their own eyes. :sigh*

But there will always be a remnant that live by the Word of God.

I've been involved in Christian forums, newsgroups, and bulletin boards (remember them?) for 35 years now. I've seen a lot of people making declarations of "God's standards and commandments" that are just plain loony and unbiblical...and many in this forum as well.

 

[RDKirk]

It's a terrifyingly short step in going from "Christians must tolerate this" to "Christians must affirm this". If you think the secularists are going to be happy with mere tolerance, you aren't paying attention. There is an assault on Christianity taking place all over the world right now (partly coming from within the church itself). It won't be long before a Christian church will be liable to legal sanction for, e.g., refusing to marry two gay men or to deny ordination to a practicing homosexual.

It's going to come to civil disobedience for Christians, and a lot sooner than you think.

Well, I've said before in this forum (although it's been a few years), that homosexuality (LGBTQ+ and all) will be for Christians in the near future what "failing to sacrifice to the divine Caesars" was for Christians in the 2nd century: The legal foundation for secular oppression. Yeah, I do think they're eventually going to be coming for us on that issue.

Yes, the world will come to a point that Christian tolerance of that which is incompatible with a Christian life outside the Church is not sufficient for them, but they will demand that there must also be celebration of such things within the Church. Interestingly, it's not only Christians who will be facing that charge. Stand-up comedians, popular authors, even the most prominent old-guard Second Wave feminists--are being accused.

The question is not whether the clash is coming, the question is: How should the Body of Christ today respond? Should the Body of Christ today respond the way the world would respond, or should the Body of Christ respond as given by the examples of Christ and the apostles?

 

[ralfyman]

He makes out that homosexual "couples" are in a genuine family.

The man is a heretic. Flat out.

The old joke response is "Is the Pope Catholic". Well the answer is now "Not anymore".

What he is calling for various governments have been doing without any recognition from the Church: heeding voters calling for legal coverage of various groups, including not just gays but those who are separated or divorced, offspring of non-civil unions, etc.

The implication, then, is that he is not forcing the idea of a "genuine family" but facing the reality of a world where there are "non-genuine" families.

Given that, the answer to that question will depend on having to balance righteousness, compassion, and what is practical.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes but I'm behind the Pope here, from a Biblical standpoint.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13 says, in short, let the church judge the church, God will judge those outside the church.

Civil Unions in most countries entitles those who aren't Christian the same legal advantages that are found in Christian marriages.

And as a Christian we have to examine if its right to make second class citizens out of those outside our faith... which disallowing the same legal advantages does.

I would rather propose removing all legal advantages to marriage, that way the sanctity of the institution be saved, but Christians don't want to part with those legal advantages, and it's wrong to deny legal benefit to any who desire the same.

I think as a whole, we need to recognize the fact Christianity is in decline overall, and how we should go forward as a people with this in mind.

The Pope mentioned civil unions, and as such, I agree with him.

Churches need not teach anything against God's law for God's people, but going forward we aren't the Christian nations we once might have been. God's laws are for His people, it's what separates us from the world, and not something I believe should be imposed, but rather, accepted willingly.

I likely agree with you, but we'd have to discuss details (not a necessary discussion at the moment).

But indeed, trying to control pagans is not the business of the Body of Christ. Let's take notice that Paul uses "judge" in this passage several times, referring to the role of the Old Testament judges as national leaders (not just arbiters of judicial morality). This very much fits in with what Peter calls "meddling" in 1 Peter 4:15. Trying to dictate the actives of people over whom you have no authority or responsibility ("business" as Paul puts it) is "meddling."

Christians are not in that business. Nowhere are Christians given the mission to fix the Roman empire and make pagans act like Christians.

I think the early issue with marriage is that the Church in Europe, once it gained power equal to the king, acceded to melding the sacred with the profane. The Church should have always, in all instances, recognized that those whom Caesar has joined together are not necessarily those who God has joined together, even though that bond might later be sanctified through the faith of either or both of the partners.