Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

On Gay Unions, a Pragmatist Before He Was a Pope
NY Tlimes ^ | May 19th, 2013 | SIMON ROMERO and EMILY SCHMALL

Posted on 03/20/2013 7:13:04 AM PDT by bronxville

On Gay Unions, a Pragmatist Before He Was a Pope

By SIMON ROMERO and EMILY SCHMALL

Published: March 19, 2013

BUENOS AIRES — The very idea was anathema to many of the bishops in the room.

Argentina was on the verge of approving gay marriage, and the Roman Catholic Church was desperate to stop that from happening. It would lead tens of thousands of its followers in protest on the streets of Buenos Aires and publicly condemn the proposed law, a direct threat to church teaching, as the work of the devil.

But behind the scenes, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who led the public charge against the measure, spoke out in a heated meeting of bishops in 2010 and advocated a highly unorthodox solution: that the church in Argentina support the idea of civil unions for gay couples.

The concession inflamed the gathering — and offers a telling insight into the leadership style he may now bring to the papacy.

Rachel Donadio contributed reporting from Rome, and William Neuman and Jonathan Gilbert from Buenos Aires. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/world/americas/pope-francis-old-colleagues-recall-pragmatic-streak.html?pagewanted=2&smid=tw-share&pagewanted=all&_r=0

A lot to unpack when one reads the full report by 5 reporters working for the NYSlimes. This report is confusing to say the least but achieved their objective, in that, Pope Francis once approved civil cermonies.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: homosexuals; popefrancis Comment #1 Removed by Moderator

To: bronxville

My daddy taught me that ALL unions were gay! (Especially the UAW and Teamsters.)


2 posted on 03/20/2013 7:18:12 AM PDT by Slump Tester (What if I'm pregnant Teddy? Errr-ahh -Calm down Mary Jo, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bronxville
Can anybody name any place where the gay mafia has been happy with civil unions or legal rights equivalent to marriage for very long?

Their objective is the redefinition of marriage to such an extent that it becomes legally meaningless. They will then use this legally mandated "equality" to suppress and silence any who do not embrace their perversions.

I challenge anyone to show me where I'm wrong here.

3 posted on 03/20/2013 7:23:08 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bronxville

hum?
Publicly he said homosexual marriage was of the devil
Privately he said it’s okey dokey
The government banished him
huh?


4 posted on 03/20/2013 7:24:08 AM PDT by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: svcw

But many who witnessed Bergoglio’s public hardline persona — even while he quietly pushed for compromise — are not as convinced by the new pope’s apparent pragmatism:

“The reality, beyond what he may have said in private meetings, was that he said some terrible things in public,” Esteban Paulón, president of the Argentine Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transsexuals, said. “He took a role, in public, that was determinedly combative.”

In addition to supporting widespread protests against gay marriage, Bergoglio called the political battle to defeat the measure “God’s war” and denounced gay parenting as “the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”


He ignited a storm of protestors - tens of thousands to protest the bill. Why would he do that if he agreed with the bill?


5 posted on 03/20/2013 8:19:58 AM PDT by bronxville (Margaret Sanger - “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Slump Tester
The "gays" want "gay unions" the same way that "Palestinians" want a "Palestinian state," meaning they don't.

They want the issue. It gives them power. Defusing the issue defuses their power.

6 posted on 03/20/2013 8:20:18 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("Somebody has to be courageous enough to stand up to the bullies." --Dr. Ben Carson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

“They will then use this legally mandated “equality” to suppress and silence any who do not embrace their perversions.”

They’re already doing that in Canada.


7 posted on 03/20/2013 8:22:13 AM PDT by bronxville (Margaret Sanger - “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: svcw
Publicly he said homosexual marriage was of the devil Privately he said it’s okey dokey The government banished him

The article says he supported the idea of civil unions in private, not gay marriage.

8 posted on 03/20/2013 8:25:40 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear; svcw
Correct me somebody if I'm wrong, but I think the only way any Christian group (e.g. Catholic) could approve "domestic partnership" or "civil union," would be if it did not presume any analogy to marriage and in particular did not assume a sexual component.

In other words, if any two people wished to commit to a union of common property and financial resources, there could be a "civil contract package" for that: it could involve two religious nuns, a person with a chronic disease or disability and their caretaker, two adult sisters, two unrelated adult men, a parents and a mentally handicapped adult son, a couple of celibate monastics, whatever. Sex would not be a question that came up: it ould simply be irrelevant for the purposes of the contract.

The presumption would be that anyone who wanted to commit long-term to a joint household and shared mutual responsibilities with the other person, could do it.

No violation of marriage. No redefinition of marriage. No parody of marriage. Nothing to do with marriage. Just a two-person legally-recognized agreement. Am I wrong here?

9 posted on 03/20/2013 9:38:16 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (May the Lord bless you and keep you. May He turn to you His countenance and give you peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

hum?
I really like the way you worded the issue.


10 posted on 03/20/2013 10:38:48 AM PDT by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: svcw

Thank you.


11 posted on 03/20/2013 11:32:41 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("You can observe a lot just by watchin'. " - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
No violation of marriage. No redefinition of marriage. No parody of marriage. Nothing to do with marriage. Just a two-person legally-recognized agreement. Am I wrong here?

I cannot speak for Catholic orthodoxy, however I do think you present an example of how a "civil union" might be consistant with Christianity. Also we can not be sure what the new pope had said exactly and the context. For example suppose some reporter asked him if it he would at least agree that civil unions recognized by the state would be more palitble to the church than demanding that the church perform gay weddings...and he said something like "Well yes, but..." and then the reporter said "Thank you sir that is all I need for my story".

12 posted on 03/20/2013 11:39:56 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
No violation of marriage. No redefinition of marriage. No parody of marriage. Nothing to do with marriage. Just a two-person legally-recognized agreement. Am I wrong here?

You're right, of course, but considering the context within which this supposedly occurred (Argentina on the verge of approving gay marriage) the motive of those supporting "civil unions" was apparently compromise; an effort to preserve the biblical definition of marriage and protect it from the homosexual assault. Unfortunately, as we know, compromising with evil in an effort to preserve what is good is always a lost cause.

13 posted on 03/20/2013 11:51:15 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut
As I remember it, a couple of years ago San Francisco required that all employers cover gay partners in their health insurance plan. The Archdiocese of San Francisco offered to cover, not "gay partners," but the option that any covered employee could also cover one more adult --- any adult --- no questions asked. It could be --- like I said --- a spouse, an adult son or daughter, a disabled sister, whatever.

Not a "compromise," but an accommodation acceptable to Christian conscience.

I don't remember the ultimate outcome, but I think the SF Board of Supervisors said "no dice."

Showing that they did not actually just want to extend insurance to people lacking coverage. They wanted, pointedly, expicit valorization of gay sexual relations.

14 posted on 03/20/2013 11:58:10 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("You can observe a lot just by watchin'. " - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/group-marriage-is-next-admits-dutch-father-of-gay-marriage


15 posted on 03/20/2013 7:12:27 PM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Now, more than ever, we need to call to mind the words of Archbishop Charles Chaput:

We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, or MSNBC for reliable news about religion. These news media simply don’t provide trustworthy information about religious faith—and sometimes they can’t provide it, either because of limited resources or because of their own editorial prejudices. These are secular operations focused on making a profit. They have very little sympathy for the Catholic faith, and quite a lot of aggressive skepticism toward any religious community that claims to preach and teach God’s truth.

Things of the Church reported in the secular media, particularly about the Holy Father, need to be viewed with the most jaundiced eye.

16 posted on 03/21/2013 2:12:45 AM PDT by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good -- Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson