Posted on 02/05/2013 7:49:11 AM PST by fractionated
The Vatican's top official on family policy has opened slightly to the possibility of rights for gay civil unions, although he also stressed that marriage should remain between a man and a woman.
The remarks from Monsignor Vincenzo Paglia, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, wee made at a Vatican press conference on Monday and were quoted in Italian press on Tuesday.
"Marriage is a clear legal dimension. There are then multiple other types of non-family cohabitation for which solutions should be found in terms of individual law and in my view also in terms of property law," Paglia said.
His comments were widely seen as a reference to gay couples.
"I think this is a terrain that politicians should begin to approach," said the archbishop, adding that legal rights for non-traditional families would "prevent injustice against the weakest".
"This seems an important path to pursue," he said.
The Italian prelate also spoke out against homophobia in the Middle East and Africa, saying that in countries where being gay is considered a crime "this should be fought against"....
(Excerpt) Read more at globalpost.com ...
The Catholic Church has surrendered to Satan.
Game over
Hard to argue we’re not living in the last days...
This is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!
There, I just criticized the senior leadership of my Church again. Any of you wanna start hurling invectives and calling me a Protestant again, bring it on.
This means nothing. Press saying things they want to say again.
Toothless white trash making inroads with the vatican. See what it got the RCC when males homos infiltrated the church. Go figure.
Let’s not get carried away, here. Not only does the original article make a great many assumptions (”His comments were widely seen as a reference to gay couples” is rather on the wishful thinking side), but people really do have to get over the media-driven idea that any Vatican spokesman (and there have been many fooling and clueless ones) has any sort of authority to “make policy” for the Church (much less change Church teaching). Stupid comments by “Vatican officials” are as common as dandelions.
“But if the Vatican didn’t approve, he’d smack the spokesman down! The buck stops somewhere!” Blah, blah, blah. No... the Church doesn’t operate the way a corporation, or even a secular country, does. Hyperventilation is not needed... seriously.
Not gonna happen.
Period.
While they’re at it, why not get rid of those inconvenient, bothersome unborn and newly born babies that get in the way.
All right . . . now we’re talking.
*facepalm*
Here we go again. Ignore all the embarrassing things that come out of the Vatican but parade as Gospel the stuff you like.
This is not “gay marriage.” This is something that has been discussed for years (and incidentally, it wouldn’t necessarily be homosexuals, but any household of two people living together - such as a pair of siblings, a parent and a grown child, etc. - giving them tax benefits and legal status, etc.). But the gay lobby emphatically rejected that, because they want to seize the word “marriage” to destroy its meaning.
So I don’t think the civil partnerships comment is the end of the world. But that’s not what gays want.
If a child is conceived via surrogate and raised by inverts and the law does not provide for his inheritance, why should that child be punished for doing absolutely nothing wrong?
This is what is meant by "the weakest" - children who are being put in terrible situations by immoral people should be protected.
Ignoring the problem will not make it just go away.
Remember also that this prelate is in an advisory role - his statements are not "doctrine" and are attempts to deal with larger moral issues.
Are they going to sell indulgences like they did in the Middle Ages?
Why be reasonable and tell the truth when you can just bash the Catholic Church?
Do you not understand, at your age, that media articles consist mostly of spin?
And that what someone actually says, as opposed to what the media is trying to make them say, is more important?
And that the media deliberately quotes people selectively to twist their words?
And that the media conveniently leaves out important details that would sabotage their entire spin if they were mentioned?
Why is it that self-described conservatives take news stories at face value, when they should know better?
Because some stories just tickle their templates.
I’m not a Catholic, however this is a classic hit piece. What he is saying is marriage in the biblical sense and marriage in the legal sense are two different things.
Homosexuals use the law to subvert. They have a long history of subverting words to promote their agenda. The term marriage is just the latest. They have a bent against God and will use any means to warp the law and religion to fit their life style.
His comments were widely seen as a reference to gay couples.
Which is media code for: "in point of fact, he made no such reference whatever, but we wish that he did, so we're just going to imply that he did."
Is it possible, instead, that for every "gay couple" in Europe there are a 100 or more couples consisting of a man and a woman who are living together without benefit of marriage, who have had multiple children by different partners, who are no longer together but who are nominally raising a mutual child, etc.?
That maybe his core comments were about the 99% of cases and not just focused solely on the 1% of cases?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.