Posted on 03/05/2014 2:19:44 PM PST by SeekAndFind
I don’t seem to recall Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI needing much clarification ‘after-the-fact’. Even when reporters tried to play the gotcha game, you were aware of what he meant and how it tied into the magisterial teachings of the Church (and those that did try, they had to parse him to the point where it was very obvious his words were misquoted).
Not so much now.
Regardless of what Pope Francis means, his lack of clarity is providing an occasion to sin.
Funny how this particular Pope seems to have this problem all the time.
I can't recall another Pope in my (short) lifetime who is ALWAYS being "misquoted", and for some reason it's always in a way that liberals really like.
RE: “diverse situations of cohabitation [are] driven by the need to regulate economic aspects among persons, as for instance to assure medical care.”
Well, that COULD mean ( not sure, but just giving Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt ) that as a matter of civil law, he recognizes that such “unions” (note the quotes) may be a way for Catholics to recognize the reality of a secular society without supporting same sex marriage.
The same principle I guess, applies to divorce. The Catholic Church FROWNS upon it, but recognizes that in a secular society, it may be made legal.
Hold the phone and demand a transcript. This is CNN -- remember, lying (by implication, omission, interpolation, extrapolation, or statistics) is what these guys do best.
Demand a transcript and read it with a magnifying glass before you despair and start telling people the Rock has split.
I promise you that when it comes to my church, there is no grey area. These are LIES.
It is another assault on the faithful. At the end of the day we all know who wins this war. I know God has mercy even for the lost souls who unwittingly deceive, but when realize how they have offended our God’s bride the church, I don’t see how they can forgive themselves.
That day will come, who’s side are you on?
RE: THIS is ALL I could find
based on the link and response to the question you provided... here is how I see is view:
As a matter of civil law, he recognizes that such “unions” (note the quotes) may be a way for Catholics to recognize the reality of a secular society without supporting same sex marriage.
The same principle I guess, applies to divorce. The Catholic Church FROWNS upon it, but recognizes that in a secular society, it may be made legal. That by no means tells us that the church will endorse such “unions”.
I promise you that when it comes to my church, there is no grey area. These are LIES.
It is another assault on the faithful. At the end of the day we all know who wins this war. I know God has mercy even for the lost souls who unwittingly deceive, but when realize how they have offended our God’s bride the church, I don’t see how they can forgive themselves.
That day will come, who’s side are you on?
You are a troll. Nothing conservative about you. For anyone to accept this country’s compromised media as an excuse to attack THE ONLY church that stands in the way of Marxism, is a con. a conservative heretic. Consider yourself outed.
I note the use of "their" instead of "our" concerning social conservatives. Clearly you are not one.
Here's the thing. God did not "err" when He said homosexuality is an abomination before Him. So you go ahead and sanction civil unions, or any other kind of union, between perverts, and see how far you get with your argument on Judgement Day.
I will NEVER support such a thing.
It’s not the pope’s problem ... it’s the media’s problem. They twist his words to fit their agenda.
Please someone tell Francis that sodomy is a sin. You guys in Rome still believe that sin exists, right? Real sin, I mean.
If this is an actual quote properly placed in context, then turn out the lights, the party's over. Who was the pope you all were worried about showing up?
Thanks for posting the exact quote, in context. He makes me nervous in general, but this example doesn’t appear to threaten church dogma. I continue to hope that he doesn’t turn out to be a wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing.
Uh, Francis, do you know why the two men want to have a “civil union”? Its not cause they like to play golf together . . . . . . .
I’m a CONSERVATIVE, period.
Socially I am a “social conservative” but my adversion to too much government tends to put me against how far LEGAL “social conservatives” are willing to go to make ILLEGAL what are sometimes, in a democratic pluralistic society, left to social persuasion and not the law - alcohol, marijuana, and sex outside of marriage, for instance.
But, yes, as CONSERVATIVE, I understand the activists in the “gay” community are in part knowledgeable with a segment of the legal community, and in part usefuel idiots of the lawyers and the really knowledgeable ones, whom ARE working not merely for “equal rights” for “gay” couples, but to undermine marriage.
To me, the separate institution of civil unions helps dissipate the attack on marriage on the legal front, because unlike a redefinition of marriage to accomodate “same-sex” couples, it does not open the door to all kinds of “couples” being granted “marriage”, which the LEGALIZED redefinition of marriage does do.
Civil unions for “same-sex” couples, does not open the door to legalized (licenses for) polygamy, the way redefining marriage to include “same-sex” couples does.
If someone is for preserving the legal definition of marriage to the human historical definition of marriage, then having the separate civil unions for “same-sex” couples is preferable and if it was the dominant (state by state) “solution” for “gay couples”, it would KEEP “marriage” defined as it has been. THAT in the long run would be more favorable for “social conservatives”, than the present course of events.
“Regardless of your personal opinions there are gay men who have officially “come out” and said that the LGBT organizations are attacking families and don’t speak for all.”
Your not telling anyone anything most of us don’t already know.
However, among the “gays” that don’t go along with the LGBT activism in favor of marriage being redefined under law as including “gay” couples, they would tell you they are in favor of separate civil unions for monogamous “gay” couples.
I would agree. What the Roman Catholic Pope means by his statement may be more nuanced, theologically, and legally than someone could interpret the raw statement to mean. I suppose, there will be clarification of it in time.
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.