// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Pope Francis: Church may support civil unions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pope Francis: Church may support civil unions

    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/0...ons/?hpt=hp_t2

    States, for instance, justify civil unions as a way to provide economic security to cohabitating couples, the Pope said in a wide-ranging interview published Wednesday in Corriere della Sera, an Italian daily. State-sanctioned unions are thus driven by the need to ensure rights like access to health care, Francis added.

    A number of Catholic bishops have supported civil unions for same-sex couples, including Pope Francis when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires in 2010, according to reports in National Catholic Reporter and The New York Times.
    I have to say, I'm pleasantly astonished.

  • #2
    Lizardoids gonna lizardoid.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Outis View Post
      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/0...ons/?hpt=hp_t2



      I have to say, I'm pleasantly astonished.
      He'd said something to that effect way back when he was in Argentina. But he also calls gay marriage: "an anthropological regression."
      Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
        He'd said something to that effect way back when he was in Argentina. But he also calls gay marriage: "an anthropological regression."
        He would, Spartacus. To him, it is a "sin," and as such (considering his views on the interaction of sin and human nature) is a "regression" in that it goes back to "pagan" values and to a "pagan" humanity.

        That's neither a view I can agree with, nor sympathize with, as you can understand.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Outis View Post
          He would, Spartacus. To him, it is a "sin," and as such (considering his views on the interaction of sin and human nature) is a "regression" in that it goes back to "pagan" values and to a "pagan" humanity.

          That's neither a view I can agree with, nor sympathize with, as you can understand.
          Not a theological regression, an anthropological one.
          Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
            Not a theological regression, an anthropological one.
            Spartacus, Francis bases his anthropological understanding on his theology.

            This is what I was trying to communicate about your thinking in the post (almost a month ago) that you so objected to. It's not that you are "incapable of independent thought," it's that all thought must be subsumed to, and submissive to, the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition as interpreted by the Magisterium.

            Now, to be sure, you could most likely say "OK, for the sake of argument, let me take a position that's actually contrary to doctrine." Most everybody can do that, and I have no doubt you could as well. You could most likely follow that argument to its conclusion for the sake of the debate, with no problem. But when you argue that a position is true (as opposed to just a rhetorical exercise), the position you argue for must be founded in, or at least compatible with, Catholic teachings.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Outis View Post
              Spartacus, Francis bases his anthropological understanding on his theology.

              This is what I was trying to communicate about your thinking in the post (almost a month ago) that you so objected to. It's not that you are "incapable of independent thought," it's that all thought must be subsumed to, and submissive to, the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition as interpreted by the Magisterium.

              Now, to be sure, you could most likely say "OK, for the sake of argument, let me take a position that's actually contrary to doctrine." Most everybody can do that, and I have no doubt you could as well. You could most likely follow that argument to its conclusion for the sake of the debate, with no problem. But when you argue that a position is true (as opposed to just a rhetorical exercise), the position you argue for must be founded in, or at least compatible with, Catholic teachings.
              The contrary is not even theoretically possible for someone who takes paragraph 1 of Gaudium et Spes seriously; if a proposition is true, I assume that it's compatible with Catholicism even before it is definitively proven to be compatible.
              Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Outis View Post
                http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/0...ons/?hpt=hp_t2



                I have to say, I'm pleasantly astonished.
                I have to say, I'm disgusted.
                Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                -Thomas Aquinas

                I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                -Hernando Cortez

                What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                  I have to say, I'm disgusted.
                  Why?
                  Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                    The contrary is not even theoretically possible for someone who takes paragraph 1 of Gaudium et Spes seriously; if a proposition is true, I assume that it's compatible with Catholicism even before it is definitively proven to be compatible.
                    And this is what I meant when I said that you are not capable of thinking (I should have used "arguing," instead, to avoid confusion or the appearance of insult) "outside the box." Your thought, your ethics, your worldview, is built on the foundation of Scripture and Tradition as interpreted by the Magisterium.

                    Yet the conclusions of the Magisterium have not always been true. Spartacus, had you lived at the appropriate time in Church history, you, too, would have rejected heliocentrism.

                    What other errors has the Magisterium made?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Outis View Post
                      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/0...ons/?hpt=hp_t2



                      I have to say, I'm pleasantly astonished.
                      Well, he also said he opposes same-sex marriage. As I read it, he was taking pains to distinguish what I have called LEGAL marriage, from what I suppose he would call Godly marriage. He seems to have no objection to civil unions which are legally identical to current legal marriage in every respect down to the last detail. The distinction would be whether or not the civil union was blessed by the ecclesiastical authorities. That is, he's distinguishing a marriage in the eyes of the State, from a marriage in the eyes of God. And if nobody but God can tell the differnce, for the Pope that's all that matters anyway.

                      Now, I have been happily married for decades, and my wife has never been any more religious than I am. We went down to the courthouse, purchased the licences, signed the forms, and walked out married. Didn't take 10 minutes. If the Pope wishes to consider that I'm not "really" married because he doesn't think his god blessed us, and because I think his god is imaginary, that's fine with me. My marriage won't become any less satisfying or essential to me regardless of what the Pope thinks.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Outis View Post
                        And this is what I meant when I said that you are not capable of thinking (I should have used "arguing," instead, to avoid confusion or the appearance of insult) "outside the box." Your thought, your ethics, your worldview, is built on the foundation of Scripture and Tradition as interpreted by the Magisterium.

                        Yet the conclusions of the Magisterium have not always been true. Spartacus, had you lived at the appropriate time in Church history, you, too, would have rejected heliocentrism.

                        What other errors has the Magisterium made?
                        Copernicus was never censured. Galileo was censured not ultimately because he disagreed with heliocentrism, but because he was insolent and arrogant. Try again

                        That said, I should have known you wouldn't quite grasp what I mean. I said that I assume that a thing that is proven to be true is ultimately compatible with Catholicism, not that anything associated with Catholicism must immediately be presumed to be true.
                        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by phank View Post
                          He seems to have no objection to civil unions which are legally identical to current legal marriage in every respect down to the last detail.
                          I would still posit that a civil union is an attempt at a "separate but equal" provision that will not withstand Constitutional review once the matter comes to the Courts.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Outis View Post
                            I would still posit that a civil union is an attempt at a "separate but equal" provision that will not withstand Constitutional review once the matter comes to the Courts.
                            I had an interesting discussion with a gay guy from Illinois recently. Illinois did try to institute "civil unions" which were supposed to be separate but equal, at least as far as Illinois was concerned. Now, at that time it didn't have Federal recognition (before the DOMA case), but after the DOMA case, it STILL didn't have federal recognition. They "weren't married", don't you know? And it turned out that a whole lot of the legal aspects of marriage proved unavailable or not honored, because he "wasn't married". There was no body of law or case precedents to establish that civil unions were really marriages only not CALLED marriages. In Illinois, in actual daily practice, you were either married or you were not - and civilly united wasn't married.

                            So clearly, in the eyes of the state, the Pope's civil union would have to be called marriage and treated as a marriage. Presumably those "Pope-style married" would need an additional piece of paper indicating church approval, which would be meaningful only for certain church activities. I think few would bother with it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                              Copernicus was never censured. Galileo was censured not ultimately because he disagreed with heliocentrism, but because he was insolent and arrogant. Try again
                              I spoke nothing about Copernicus or Galileo. In 1611, the Church declared heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture."

                              That said, I should have known you wouldn't quite grasp what I mean. I said that I assume that a thing that is proven to be true is ultimately compatible with Catholicism, not that anything associated with Catholicism must immediately be presumed to be true.
                              Oh, I quite caught the distinction: I resist the notion that the problem is irreversible. The Church made a positive claim as regards to the status of a question: that claim was in error.

                              Again I ask: what other errors has the the Magisterium made?

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 08:11 PM
                              4 responses
                              33 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Bill the Cat  
                              Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 07:16 PM
                              28 responses
                              115 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 12:47 PM
                              17 responses
                              70 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 10:00 AM
                              34 responses
                              305 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Juvenal
                              by Juvenal
                               
                              Started by seanD, 10-18-2020, 05:25 PM
                              2 responses
                              63 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post seanD
                              by seanD
                               
                              Working...
                              X