Skip to comments.Transcript: Pope Francis' March 5 interview with Corriere della Sera
Posted on 03/05/2014 11:59:15 AM PST by Pyro7480
...Many nations have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?
[Pope:]Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn't know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety.
...At half a century from Paul VIs Humanae Vitae, can the Church take up again the theme of birth control? Cardinal Martini, your confrere, thought that the moment had come.
All of this depends on how Humanae Vitae is interpreted. Paul VI himself, at the end, recommended to confessors much mercy, and attention to concrete situations. But his genius was prophetic, he had the courage to place himself against the majority, defending the moral discipline, exercising a culture brake, opposing present and future neo-Malthusianism. The question is not that of changing the doctrine but of going deeper and making pastoral (ministry) take into account the situations and that which it is possible for people to do. Also of this we will speak in the path of the synod.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnewsagency.com ...
Posted on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 11:41:00 AM by tomsbartoo
Pope Francis has said that he could support civil unions between members of the same sex; but could not support same-sex marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...
How is the actual interview spinning anything?
NO media outlet to blame, this is apparently unfiltered. I sure wish he had the courage to name one 'great' Marxist. This man is NOT what he is claiming to be. Marxist reject the Creator and there has never ever been a 'great' Marxist. Stuck on stupid. But the masses swoon.
No, the CNN article is spinning the content of the interview. The Pope did not say what CNN reported him as saying.
How long, I wonder, will it take the MSM to misinterpret every quote?
Depends on what is meant by “great” here. It’s not a synonym for “good”, remember, as much as it is so used colloquially.
Once again, this is not a story about the Pope, but a story about wire services and news agencies manufacturing “news” and pushing a progressive agenda.
Don’t take the bait.
well, if this is an accurate transcript then I do have some concern ...
that Pope Francis “pregnantly” fails to state the Church’s understandings of Biblical teachings on certain moral values, while explicitly acknowledging opposing or secular views.
As the lead shepherd of the Church, I would anticipate that the Pope will start articulating Church teachings more than is perhaps reflected in this interview
and when a Pope acknowledges secular or opposing views (fine so far....) without pointing out THAT they differ from Church teachings.... and HOW they differ....
He leaves the door open for mis-interpretation, that the secular or opposing views are either (in his opinion) either of equal or perhaps superior weight or value to those of the Bible and the RCC
just my concerns. we will see how all this develops in coming months. one short interview is insufficient to draw any conclusions
Marxism = death. Any adherent to Marxism is a follower of death. There is no other way to read this man's answer to the specific question. How ignorant is it to ignore the multiple of millions who die because of and in the name of Marxism? Sorry, I am not interested in bjClinton excuses. Depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.
We must make Jesuitical fine distinctions. The pope did not say knew great Marxists. He said he knows great people who professed Marxism. (the Marxism the Pope said was untrue.)
Not the same thing. You’re equating “great” with “good” again. Julius Caesar was “great”, but was he good?
Pope Francis leaves door open for same-sex unions
Freeper tomsbartoo, like you, posted an excerpted text but from CNN, not CNA. In so doing, erroneous information is highlighted that only serves to confuse and inflame others. A better approach would be to post the entire text from a reputable source that does not need to be excerpted, then post your comment separately for others to discuss. Here is my response to tomsbartoo. It seems to fit here, as well.
Many nations have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldnt know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety.
What did Pope Francis say? Marriage is between a man and a woman. He then clarifies the challenge posed by secular legalization of civil unions and how each one needs to be evaluated. This does not change church doctrine.
For just a moment, set aside your dislike for this particular pope and step back to look at the big picture. Growing up, I watched tv programs like "Ozzie and Harriet" and "My Three Sons". Children growing up today find themselves, as a result of secular society, in very different families. The television networks are responding with programs like "Sister Wives" or the new one "My Five Wives". In the ads, young children asked about their parent's living arrangements respond: "they love each other".
This is the reality of life and the Catholic Church must come to grips with it. The Church, as the pope has said, is like a "field hospital". Jesus went after the lost sheep; the father welcomed back the "prodigal son". It is the mission of the church to bring people back to Christ. You, it seems, would have them turned away.
Today is Ash Wednesday - the entrance into Lent. You had full opportunity to source the full text of the interview from a reputable site but opted, instead, to post an article from a secular media site, and singled out a line of text on one topic without providing the context. This would be an excellent season in which to examine your antipathy towards the Holy Father who is Christ's representative on earth.
Even if they don't restrict, I don't feel comfortable stealing. I like driving traffic to sites that deserve it. In any case, the controversy is over that part of the interview.
What controversy? I don't see it.
One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety.
Does he come out and explicitly state he is open to civil unions? No, of course not. But where does he make clear that any case that involves 2 gay men or 2 gay women are not included in this "evaluation"? This comment definitely leads one to think that he is open to evaluating such cases "depending".
We also need to remember that there were reports that he was open to civil unions as Cardinal in Argentina. Those reports were never debunked.
And I would add that this case by case evaluation sounds an awful lot like the latest coming out about allowing communion for the divorced and remarried.