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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Outis View Post
    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."

    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?
    On matters of faith and morals, through councils or infallible statements? I can't think of any.
    Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by phank View Post
      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.
      That certainly sounds like "separate and unequal" to me.

      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.
      If the Church (any church) feels the need to do something over and above civil marriage, that's their business. If they feel the need to perform marriages only according to their doctrines, that is also their business. I just want them to stop trying to make secular law match their doctrine when there is no compelling state interest in excluding gays from marriage. So far, most of the challenges haven't even passed rational review standards, much less strict scrutiny.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
        On matters of faith and morals, through councils or infallible statements? I can't think of any.
        Heresy is not an issue of faith and morals? Please explain that.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Outis View Post
          Heresy is not an issue of faith and morals? Please explain that.
          Through councils or infallible statements, not the findings of small panels of curial cardinals or from the personal opinions of the Pope.
          Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
            Through councils or infallible statements, not the findings of small panels of curial cardinals or from the personal opinions of the Pope.
            Precisely. You cannot seriously contemplate something that is "outside the box." Oh, you could consider it as a hypothetical ... but always with that reserve of "The Church says it, it must be true."

            Facts don't always work like that, Spartacus. And because facts don't always work like that, even if I had a completely unassailable argument for marriage equality, you could not, or would not (the difference is immaterial) accept it.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Outis View Post
              Precisely. You cannot seriously contemplate something that is "outside the box." Oh, you could consider it as a hypothetical ... but always with that reserve of "The Church says it, it must be true."

              Facts don't always work like that, Spartacus. And because facts don't always work like that, even if I had a completely unassailable argument for marriage equality, you could not, or would not (the difference is immaterial) accept it.
              Umm... wow. No. You really don't get what I meant.
              Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                Umm... wow. No. You really don't get what I meant.
                Yeah, Spartacus ... I do. The options that you can give intellectual assent to are restricted. That's your choice, and I have no problem with that. But there will be certain topics that we will be unable to effectively communicate on.

                And that communication gap goes both ways. There will be topics that you discuss that I will be unable to agree with ... or, at least, I will not be able to evaluate them with the same epistemic basis that you do.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Outis View Post
                  Yeah, Spartacus ... I do. The options that you can give intellectual assent to are restricted. That's your choice, and I have no problem with that. But there will be certain topics that we will be unable to effectively communicate on.

                  And that communication gap goes both ways. There will be topics that you discuss that I will be unable to agree with ... or, at least, I will not be able to evaluate them with the same epistemic basis that you do.
                  If a proposition is true and apparently outside of the box, I am at least as likely to assume that the box is bigger than I initially thought as I am to assume that the proposition is false.
                  Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Outis View Post
                    If the Church (any church) feels the need to do something over and above civil marriage, that's their business. If they feel the need to perform marriages only according to their doctrines, that is also their business. I just want them to stop trying to make secular law match their doctrine when there is no compelling state interest in excluding gays from marriage. So far, most of the challenges haven't even passed rational review standards, much less strict scrutiny.
                    Seems to me that the Pope is struggling here, caught between his religious conviction that marriage is a sacred heterosexual bond, and his personal conviction that there is no compelling rational reason to prohibit same-sex marriage. So he's equivocating, which I think is at least a step in the right direction. He seems about to come down on the position that civil marriage between same sex couples is unobjectionable as a practical legal matter, but that the Catholic Church won't regard them as theologically legitimate.

                    And I suspect he's pointedly aware of the fact that Catholic women are no less likely than the population as a whole to use birth control, to get abortions, to get divorced. And that means the Catholic Church is becoming increasingly irrelevant. The Church isn't surviving its effort to prohibit what its members do anyway and regard as routine.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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.
                      Never, never, never rely on the liberal media to properly paraphrase the Pope's words. Always look for the original, and if that fails a translation from the original transcript. Here is the relevant part of the interview, with the interviewer's question in italics:

                      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 wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety.
                      It's clear that with regards to the civil unions, Francis has only described reality, and has not approved of it. However, the liberal media carries on as usual to distort and spin.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        It's clear that with regards to the civil unions, Francis has only described reality, and has not approved of it. However, the liberal media carries on as usual to distort and spin.
                        But neither has he condemned them. He's only said they come in a wide variety, and must be evaluated case by case. It's hard to draw the impression here that he disapproves of ensuring health care. He gives the impression of being open minded, and willing to see the value of same-sex marriage so long as he can call it something different, like "regulated cohabitation pacts" or some such.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by phank View Post
                          But neither has he condemned them. He's only said they come in a wide variety, and must be evaluated case by case. It's hard to draw the impression here that he disapproves of ensuring health care. He gives the impression of being open minded, and willing to see the value of same-sex marriage so long as he can call it something different, like "regulated cohabitation pacts" or some such.
                          That's the impression you draw from him, and I'm not going to bother arguing against it. It's clear, however, that Francis in the interview did not say what CNN and Outis (in the title) attributed to him.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                            It's clear that with regards to the civil unions, Francis has only described reality, and has not approved of it.
                            Boy, it's a really good thing that I said he has "approved of it," isn't it?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Outis View Post
                              Boy, it's a really good thing that I said he has "approved of it," isn't it?
                              Boy, isn't it a good thing too that I didn't claim you did?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                                Boy, isn't it a good thing too that I didn't claim you did?
                                Oh, so "It's clear, however, that Francis in the interview did not say what CNN and Outis (in the title) attributed to him" is only an objection when you state it's an objection?

                                Paprika, if you have something substantive to contribute to the discussion, feel free to contribute it. If your contributions all consist of hair-splitting, please go play your games in another thread.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 09-19-2021, 07:03 PM
                                5 responses
                                52 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 09-19-2021, 12:34 PM
                                19 responses
                                151 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by Gondwanaland, 09-19-2021, 10:21 AM
                                5 responses
                                76 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, 09-17-2021, 08:16 PM
                                14 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 09-17-2021, 05:33 PM
                                36 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Working...
                                X