Pope officially endorses Same Sex Civil Unions

[Drakle]

https://twitter.com/AP/status/1318917841404497923

BREAKING: Pope Francis endorses same-sex civil unions for the first time as pope while being interviewed for the feature-length documentary “Francesco.” “Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God,” Francis said.

Not quite marriages, but basically the best to honestly expect of the Catholic Church. This pope is such an improvement on the last one.

There are still quite a few Catholic countries without even Civil unions, so this could be good for pushing LGBT rights. And hopefully, this means pressure from the church to allow adoption.

However, Trad Catholics and conservative third world Catholics have long been okay with horsehocky-talking the Pope to various degrees. So this possibly just accelerates them doing more of that, or switching to an Evangelical Protestanism, Orthodoxy or Catholic heresy. Trad Catholics are already basically another religion to modern Catholicism.

 

[AmazonQueen]

He did endorse LGBT civil unions when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires so it isn't a total surprise. Nor is it a change in official church policy. Still, its good that hes been willing to say it on record.

 

[Cutlass]

Not good enough.

Man up, Frankie.

 

[Naskra]

Not good enough.

True. He should resign. A pope that can't be Catholic ought to hang it up.

 

[Ajidica]

True. He should resign. A pope that can't be Catholic ought to hang it up.

I thought the Pope was Catholic?

 

[Naskra]

I thought the Pope was Catholic?

Not this one.

 

[El_Machinae]

I remember the marriage debates in Canada (and the more progressive nations). Of course, the conservatives were in alliance with Abrahamics and homophobes to prevent same-sex marriage. Even then, we'd comment that if they were smart they would have done a center-line rush for civil unions and wrap them in Constitution-proof language. Because we all knew that our Constitutions would eventually grant civil unions with enough court cases AND we knew that getting marriage legislation would be basically irreversible.

But no, they fought civil unions too, and for a lot of reasons that we're so used to that they look tired now. And so the Same Sex Marriage was the feasible goal, because the conservatives couldn't pick their battles.

 

[Cutlass]

Not this one.

He's clearly more catholic than the one that came before him. What'd they call him? Benedict Arnold 16 or some crap like that?

 

[Kyriakos]

It is about civil unions, which anyway are not a matter of the church
And don't hold your breath to see marriage-in-church of homosexual couples.

 

[Ajidica]

Not this one.

I see, since the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, I would ask who died and made you Pope and pronounce whether people are Catholic or not?

 

[Kyriakos]

I see, since the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, I would ask who died and made you Pope and pronounce whether people are Catholic or not?

You don't seem to be aware of the list of popes - which includes warmongers and schemers. Either that is officially part of being catholic, or your point has no sense.

I like this pope, but let's not pretend he is more than one man.

 

[Birdjaguar]

True. He should resign. A pope that can't be Catholic ought to hang it up.

I thought the Pope was Catholic?

He certainly is. And when he pronounces, he speaks for the Catholic Church. It's Naskra who is not Catholic.

 

[Kyriakos]

He certainly is. And when he pronounces, he speaks for the Catholic Church. It's Naskra who is not Catholic.

You believe in the "infallibility of the pope" doctrine? That's catholic too, and not very realistic. All previous popes have to be infallible too, for starters.

 

[Ajidica]

He certainly is. And when he pronounces, he speaks for the Catholic Church. It's Naskra who is not Catholic.

Well, the Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. Here, as I understand it, the Pope isn't even speaking as the Pope, but merely as a Catholic.

 

[IglooDame]

And Fulton v. City of Philadelphia is getting heard by SCOTUS in a couple weeks, where a Catholic adoption agency that refuses to place adoptees in same-sex homes was dropped by Philly as a public service (for foster care, specifically).

Pennsylvania has no "civil unions", only marriage that now allows same-sex couples, so Catholic Social Services in Philly is still justified in their objection on the basis of Catholic doctrine even taking Pope Francis' statements as liberally as possible, but still, you would think that his statements might give them a bit of pause.

 

[El_Machinae]

Catholicism has a pretty scholarly tradition. Now, they try to shoe-horn morality into their interpretation of Christian history, so sometimes it takes them time to figure out how to work around previous scholastic precedent.

You'll find that Matthew 19:11-12 will increasingly be interpreted to mean that One-Man One-Woman marriage is only for those who're naturally heterosexual. That there will be different loving unions available for people not that way.

11 “Not everyone can accept this word,” He replied, “but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way; others were made that way by men; and still others live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.

 

[El_Machinae]

I thought the Pope was Catholic?

Y'all remember Inqvisitor?

 

[Kyriakos]

And Fulton v. City of Philadelphia is getting heard by SCOTUS in a couple weeks, where a Catholic adoption agency that refuses to place adoptees in same-sex homes was dropped by Philly as a public service (for foster care, specifically).

Pennsylvania has no "civil unions", only marriage that now allows same-sex couples, so Catholic Social Services in Philly is still justified in their objection on the basis of Catholic doctrine even taking Pope Francis' statements as liberally as possible, but still, you would think that his statements might give them a bit of pause.

Isn't that marriage arranged by the mayoral service or similar? (ie not in a church/religious setting). If so, it is pretty much a version of civil union, just having the political meaning of marriage, not forcing the church into anything (I am not pro-church, but it is entirely unrealistic to ask the church to become another social club; it wouldn't be competitive).

 

[Cutlass]

Isn't that marriage arranged by the mayoral service or similar? (ie not in a church/religious setting). If so, it is pretty much a version of civil union, just having the political meaning of marriage, not forcing the church into anything (I am not pro-church, but it is entirely unrealistic to ask the church to become another social club; it wouldn't be competitive).

There are 2 "marriage", which unfortunately have an extremely large overlap. The "traditional" marriage is a legal union. Hasn't got a damned thing to do with religion. It is a legal contract for a specific purpose, and has defined legal rights and limits. And then there is the religious marriage, which is a sacrament with varying significance to varying sects and people.

By defining marriage as only the religious meaning, it corrupts the legal meaning. And renders the legal meaning ruined. In short, you cannot deny legal marriage on religious grounds without destroying the legal basis of it.

 

[Kyriakos]

Catholicism has a pretty scholarly tradition. Now, they try to shoe-horn morality into their interpretation of Christian history, so sometimes it takes them time to figure out how to work around previous scholastic precedent.

You'll find that Matthew 19:11-12 will increasingly be interpreted to mean that One-Man One-Woman marriage is only for those who're naturally heterosexual. That there will be different loving unions available for people not that way.

That passage rather clearly refers to people who either due to physical alteration (eunuchs) or love of monasticism, don't or cannot go into marriage. No LGBT angle - besides, seven verses before this passage, you read that god supposedly created humans as male and female with the intention that they will be united (by marriage).
In your verse, Jesus argues that those who really are devoted to god, won't wish to have relationships of this kind in the first place - and this was said when the jewish people asked if only permitting divorce due to adultery didn't render marrying a very costly business ^_^

There are 2 "marriage", which unfortunately have an extremely large overlap. The "traditional" marriage is a legal union. Hasn't got a damned thing to do with religion. It is a legal contract for a specific purpose, and has defined legal rights and limits. And then there is the religious marriage, which is a sacrament with varying significance to varying sects and people.

By defining marriage as only the religious meaning, it corrupts the legal meaning. And renders the legal meaning ruined. In short, you cannot deny legal marriage on religious grounds without destroying the legal basis of it.

Afaik political marriage gives one the same civil rights (tax plan, other) that religious marriage does, so to the state it is the same thing. Still, the church isn't involved in political marriage, so its existence means next to nothing (the right to organize marriage without the church is a very old one anyway).