Skip to comments.Another Vatican voice backs civil unions for same-sex couples
Posted on 04/21/2013 9:03:52 AM PDT by ebb tide
Another veteran Vatican figure has signaled openness to civil recognition of same-sex unions, in the wake of similar comments in early February from the Vaticans top official on the family. Its a position also once reportedly seen with favor by the future pope while he was still Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The latest expression of support for civil recognition as an alternative to gay marriage comes from Archbishop Piero Marini, who served for 18 years as Pope John Paul IIs liturgical Master of Ceremonies.
There are many couples that suffer because their civil rights arent recognized, Marini said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncronline.org ...
Excommunicate him, STAT!
do it....take govt out of marriage....
but marriage in a church is a completely different thing...
marriage is between a man and a woman, and no religion, no culture, no society, or civilization EVER has officially condoned two people of the same sex being "married" to one another...
I'd like to see what our govt is going to do when daddy wants to marry his dtr, or his son, or when brother wants to marry his sister, or when 3 perverts want to marry as a threesome...
I agree, to me it has the ring of rending unto Caesar, or in this case Obamabub.
But is there any reason why "civil unions" would have to be sexual unions? They could -- in theory, it seems --- just be private contracts for the settlement of property, taxation, inheritance -- for any group of 2 or more contractees: could be three sisters, a disabled adult child and parent/caregiver, etc.
In that case, why have a special package called "civil union" at all? Why not just go with private contract law?
What about quadruple unions? Tri-unions? Unions of man and dog?
No union left behind?
Communist! Italy is full of them.
For the love that is all Holy!
NO GAY ANYTHING SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY THE CHURCH!
Unless it’s confession of it’s sins and promise to do it no more.
Full of the evil one. The man has no place of authority in any church.
The Pope is presumably consulting with his select group of Cardinals concerning how to deal with the Vatican hierarchy.
I hope they clean the trouble makers out, including this guy. And while he’s at it, I wish he’d excommunicate John L. Allen, Jr. Unfortunately, he doesn’t directly control The National Catholic Reporter. But he could at least condemn it as not Catholic.
Let them have it. Gay marriage and civil unions are a joke anyway. Very few of them will be able to marry in a church. Treat it like a joke, and if you’re a florist or a baker or whatever, give them what they want and make money off of it.
But do they approve of homosexual couples using contraceptives?
Excommunicate John L. Allen for what? For being the one (or one of the very few) people at the Reporter who writes the truth?
I guess it would be okay as long as they were CIVIL to each other. And you know that old joke, if you want to find out who really loves you, lock your wife and your dog in the trunk of your car for two hours and see which one is happy to see you!
Uh, that's the issue/problem. The perverts want the government to have the power to force churches (any of them, or at least any of the Christian religious assemblies) into having to give place for, and recognition towards these unions they seek to be regarded as equal to the institution of marriage, as it has been more universally known of, the world over, for as long as mankind has written records...
If they can force the State into adopting language granting the word "marriage" to their own [blech] unions, then they can sue any and all who refuse to do the same, like the baker in Des Moines who balked at making a lesbian couple a wedding cake [FR thread Lesbian couple mulls action against Christian wedding cake baker and the Washington state florist sued again for refusal to service gay wedding[Reuters].
If the Cardinal mentioned civil unions at all, I don't think it was to legitimize homosexual unions. I think I remember reading that he thought if the government wanted to create civil unions, they should be allowed for any particular reason the persons entering into them wanted, so as to separate them from the idea of marriage. It could be an elderly parent with a son or daughter for legal and medical purposes, or even for inheritance purposes. Pope Francis is completely AGAINST 'marriage' for homosexuals, and has been roundly criticized by the government of Argentina for his very vocal opposition.
Woites's statements contradict a New York Times article published yesterday stating, "Faced with the near certain passage of the gay marriage bill, Cardinal Bergoglio offered the civil union compromise as the 'lesser of two evils,' said Sergio Rubin, his authorized biographer. 'He wagered on a position of greater dialogue with society.'"
Rubin's words carry some weight, because he is the one of the two individuals who co-authored the only authorized biography of the current pope, entitled The Jesuit, published by Ediciones B in 2010. The biography was based on conversations with Bergoglio.
The claim has been seconded by homosexual activist Marcelo Marquez, who told the Times that Bergoglio "told me that homosexuals need to have recognized rights and that he supported civil unions, but not same-sex marriage." Lifesite News
It depends on who you want to believe. I can't see Cardinal Bergoglia approving an authorized biography, if it wasn't true.
He who would destroy the institution of marriage, destroys the culture. It’s the fundamental building block of civilization.
The Pope’s Gang of Eight cardinals, includes Sean O’Malley. Here’s a little info about this special papal advisor:
The book by Scott Pomfret is called Since My Last Confession: A Gay Catholic Memoir. The real names of many priests are listed in the book. A simple google search on passages from the book reveals rather clearly who one of the key pseudonymous characters is in real life. Here is an excerpt from the chapter that talks about Fr. Butterballino and his blessing of the gay unions (3rd page of the chapter preview):
He admitted, Ive been to four civil weddings of gay people After the rite is over, I do some kind of prayer or blessing. If Im called on it, I can say I was there and I performed a prayer. I didnt perform a wedding.
This priest is still a pastor today, as are other priests known to have performed blessings on gay unions. These situations mislead the faithful, lead souls away from salvation and scandalize the faithful. Sources indicate Cardinal OMalley has been made aware of this information, and BCI has also sent an email to the archdiocese about the situation with an excerpt from this blog post.
Why did diocesan priests agree to be interviewed for a book by a known writer of gay pornography? Why is that not a problem for the Boston Archdiocese?
Given there was a shake-up with Cardinal OMalleys Franciscan brothers at St. Anthony Shrine right after the book was publishedwith the Franciscans having acted on the information in the book by removing the author as lectorand since local and national media reported that the book suggested some local clergy, given fictional names, are sexually active, what was done at the time of publication to investigate and address the revelations in the book?
Why is Cardinal OMalley apparently not so troubled by pastors blessing gay marriages that he has not removed these priests from pastoral leadership roles and/or corrected their false teachings?
If bishops should be disciplined for failing to move against sexually abusive priests (which BCI agrees with), what should happen to bishops for failing to move against out gay priests or those in a gay network whose public actions can lead the faithful to sin (and to think those sins are permissible and worthy of public blessing)and lead souls away from salvation? Is that not a form of spiritual abuse that needs to be disciplined and corrected?
They’ll never get that power. Churches aren’t businesses. Neither is the Boys Scouts of America for that matter. They can tell homosexuals to go pound sand if they want to.
When you go into business — a bed and breakfast, a bakery, a florist shop, whatever, you give up the right to decide who you will serve under public accommodation laws. However, a church was sued in NJ after they refused to accommodate a lesbian couple and let them hold a reception on their boardwalk. Apparently, the church rented out space for that purpose to the general public. The church lost the case.
He might have been looking for something that wouldn't be equated with marriage, that would be acceptable to all parties. It is CLEAR that the Pope supports marriage ONLY between one man and one woman.
If true, sounds just like Obama early on.
Oh, well, going to Latin Mass later today and escape, if only temporary, in the pre-1960's world that entails.
“No union left behind”...that’s perfect!
To borrow a phrase from the late Lady Thatcher, I hope the Vatican isn’t going wobbly on us.
But Bergoglio’s proposal to recognize civil sodomite unions wasn’t, nor should it have been, accepted by “all parties”. It was justly rejected by his fellow bishops in Argentina.
“Bergoglio privately debated with fellow bishops over the issue, advocating the endorsement of civil union legislation, apparently as an alternative to homosexual “marriage” in 2010. A majority of bishops rejected his stance and Bergoglio accepted their decision, remaining silent about civil unions during the debate over homosexual “marriage” that year. “
But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. Revelation 3:16
“But is there any reason why “civil unions” would have to be sexual unions? They could — in theory, it seems -— just be private contracts for the settlement of property, taxation, inheritance — for any group of 2 or more contractees: could be three sisters, a disabled adult child and parent/caregiver, etc.”
These supposed alternate unions you suggest have never been advertised, promoted or passed as law. It’s a straw man to cover up the state recognition and financial support of public sodomites as if they were man and wife.
Passage of such gay civil union laws would give perverts better footing to adopt children and to sexual molest the as a form of parental love. NAMBLA is now drooling.
“...better footing to adopt children and to sexually molest them as a form of parental love. NAMBLA is now drooling.”
"In that case, why have a special package called "civil union" at all? Why not just go with private contract law?"
So you’re OK with it, sodomy, if it’s blessed by private contract law?
How do you feel about polygamy or bestiality contracts?
I said that various people (for various innocent purposes) might want to set up a contract if they share income, domicile, etc. The examples I gave were three elderly sisters or a disabled adult + parent-caregiver. Anything that directly intentionally facilitates perverse mating is wrong.
That part of the Civil Rights act of 1964 ought to have been ruled unconstitutional, but never will be because it was useful in destroying the segregation regime in the South. It shows how injustice opens the door to injustice. Freedom of association has as good a claim to a human right as anything, which however. shows how politics corrupts everything.
Hang on a moment here, you’re actually a few facts short.
First, let me say that I agree with your basic premise: take the government out of marriage. Mind you, they’ll probably keep the term marriage, but the sacrament is a religious thing, and that’s specific to whatever church they will. In the same way that we call an Buddhist couple “married” and an atheist couple “married”, I see no harm in the term being the widespread word for “in a recognized partnership of romantic value” or some-such. Frankly, that won’t change much.
At the same time, I think that churches should be able to marry or not marry according to their own tenants - it should have no bearing on the government as to weather you were married in a courthouse or a chapel, and so no church should be forced to marry anyone they don’t want to.
However, you’re not quite right in saying that no religion, culture, society, or civilization has ever married people of the same gender.
To begin with, the Roman Emperor Nero was married to a man - twice, actually. Straight from Wikipedia: First with one of his freedmen, Pythagoras, to whom Nero took the role of the bride, and later as a groom Nero married a young boy, who resembled one of his concubines, named Sporus in a very public ceremony with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse. A friend gave the “bride” away as required by law. The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies. Mind you, I can’t get behind that second one owing to of some of the other nastiness about it that I won’t get into, but it happened, and was celebrated.
Also Roman, Emperor Elagabalus referred to his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, as his husband. He also married an athlete named Zoticus in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.
Mind you, the Roman law at the time *did* list marriage as between a man and a woman, so the above couples would not have had recognition under the law, but that sounds awfully familiar - in any case, their society clearly had a precedent for this, even if there was no law about it.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but the Netherlands (2001), Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010) and Denmark (2012), as well as Mexico (and some parts of the US) all recognize marriages between members of the same gender. While I’m sure you meant older cultures, these are all examples of cultures who have officially condoned two people of the same sex marrying.
And just to discuss your last bit:
The major reason incestuous pairings are disallowed - and indeed, the major reason that we actually feel revulsion when considering such things, is because of the genetic problems with it - inbreeding makes negative traits or mutations more likely to become exacerbated and shown. Essentially, our complaints are on reproductive grounds, given that the offspring would be potentially disadvantaged. The argument could be made that a non-reproductive pairing would be fine so long as the people involved were consenting adults; there are cases where this has happened between long-lost siblings who didn’t grow up together, for example (see, studies say that growing up together actually makes you think they’re icky; without that, there is potential for attraction).
You will notice that I’m speaking dispassionately about this - that is because I can repress revulsion for the sake of an argument; this is necessary, in that revulsion alone is not a solid ground for prohibiting something - otherwise I’d be lobbying to ban Twinkies.
Now then, the other example you mention is polygamous relationships - and that one generally is attacked for being exploitative, like in certain fundamentalist Mormon or Islamic sects. However, legislature in place to allow and regulate such relationships would fix that problem; you see, one of the reason that the exploitative forms of these relationships are still around is because *every* form of polygamy is illegal, and thus even in cases where it does no moral harm, it is hushed up and not mentioned - and that creates an environment where abuse can flourish, because they can’t get law enforcement involved.
Actually, I’m going to have to do the conservative thing here and stand in favor of allowing polygamous relationships. Oh, the laws will be annoying to redraft and they’ll get a measure of scorn, but nothing’s preventing loving trios-and-such from living together and sharing what is a marriage (civil, not sacred) already, and I see no reason not to extend the same sorts of civil duties towards such relationships. Frankly, when it comes down to it, I advise monogamy, but that’s not because it’s somehow morally better than polygamy (or, more broadly, polyamory), but because it’s *easier*. Hell, most people can’t properly handle a romantic relationship with *one* other person; adding more moving parts is only going to complicate things, and in the same way that independence is the staple of a lasting monogamous relationship, demanding trust between the couple and avoiding jealousy and things like that, and that’s only going to get harder if there’s another person for you to potentially feel jealous of. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that most people are not suited to it; it would require quite a bit of trust, independence, and self-respect. But that’s no reason not to let couples (trios? Quartets? Hah, can’t wait to hear which terms are PC...) make it work or die trying - that’s what marriage is all about these days.
Now, you might be confused: how can I call allowing polygamy the conservative thing? Well, it’s just like with interracial couples or couples of the same sex; frankly, it’s not of my business who anyone else loves or wants to spend their lives with, just so long as they are both able and willing to give consent and no non-consensual harm is done. If you’re not hurting anyone, your bedroom and home is not mine to meddle in, and nor should it be the government’s. That’s being conservative in my humble opinion.