Breaking: Pope Francis calls for civil union laws for same-sex couples

[Marymog]

Enough said....Mary,
Thanks for the good news.

Why are you so......mean? You don't even know me!

 

[Marymog]

Enough said....Mary,
Thanks for the good news.

I see what's going on here. You can't back up you anti-Christian statements with logic and you don't want to answer my legitimate questions because you probably have realized you have put your foot in your mouth on this one soooooo you resort to sarcasm and act like a petulant child.....almost like a bully.

Feeling sad for you and will pray for you!!!

 

[Taken]

thanks dodge ball......I knew you wouldn't answer.

I see when you get backed into a corner and can't defend what you have said or your logic you become condescending sooooooo I will end it here kiddo!

Respectfully, Mary

Awe...gee. And I thought you had already said enough.
Seems you forgot your snark-remark and had to post to me again.
Hope you feel better.

 

[Taken]

Why are you so......mean? You don't even know me!

You Agaaain?

 

[Taken]

I see what's going on here. You can't back up you anti-Christian statements with logic and you don't want to answer my legitimate questions because you probably have realized you have put your foot in your mouth on this one soooooo you resort to sarcasm and act like a petulant child.....almost like a bully.

Obviously you do not comprehend common courtesy to KEEP what I say separate from your own remarks.

Feeling sad for you and will pray for you!!!

Please deal with your own sadness with prayers for yourself.

 

[101G]

If those Catholics who disagree with the Pope's statement, calling him a heretic and saying the Pope should not be believed or followed in this, doesn't this make these dissenters in effect Protestants?

It would seem that they are protesting the Pope's teaching authority in a manner that reflects the early years of the Reformation when the ex-Catholics were leaving that magisterial authority and moving into something new. Many of these supposed conservative Catholics are actually Protestants of the Old Catholic sect variety. They seem to have the patina of Catholicism but have left it for a Mary-centered liturgical religious cult.

that's interesting,

like in the old saying two wrongs don't make a right.

I think that the crux of this issue is as follows: Pope Francis is sensitive to religious freedom and the conscience. I think that his idea of an acceptance of civil unions for homosexuals has its roots in the basis of the Catholic teaching regarding conscience, and that matters which involve disputes concerning conscience which have especial weight. I doubt that the Pope is really seriously questioning his church's teaching about marriage as only being between one man and one woman. I think that, ultimately, he is concerned about religious and civil freedom for homosexuals. I think that he views civil unions as civil legal contracts merely and not as marriage in the ecclesiastical sense.

again interesting, I will note this.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[aspen]

HI Aspen,

I care because it goes against Church teaching and Christian values. Do you care if a person promotes something against your values and Christian values?

The pope is not the authority on nor does he decide Catholic teaching. What he is promoting is his teaching. The Magisterium is the authority. So the real question is why did the pope break away from the authority of The Magisterium and the teaching of The Church?

Do you agree with his stance?

Curious Mary

Absolutely not. Why should I care? I do care when special interest groups demand me to convert to the values of their religion, especially if I do not belong to their church, but this another issue. Where does the Bible tell us that legal protection for homosexuals is wrong? Since when is the opinion of the Pope a teaching? Are you rejecting the authority of the Pope based on his opinion? Starting the Society of Curious Marymog of Christianity Board?

 

[Marymog]

Absolutely not. Why should I care? I do care when special interest groups demand me to convert to the values of their religion, especially if I do not belong to their church, but this another issue. Where does the Bible tell us that legal protection for homosexuals is wrong? Since when is the opinion of the Pope a teaching? Are you rejecting the authority of the Pope based on his opinion? Starting the Society of Curious Marymog of Christianity Board?

Thank you.

As Christians we should care if someone promotes something against our values. Anyone who promotes something against Christ's (biblical) teaching would make them anti-Christ. You don't care about the anti-Christ(ian) teachings????...I do!

The bible does not have the words "legal protection for homosexuals is wrong"!! (it also doesn't say that "abortion is wrong") 1 Timothy says we know that the law is made not for the righteous but for those practicing homosexuality which is contrary to the sound doctrine. You are promoting a false doctrine according to Scripture! Are you comfortable supporting a false doctrine?

It does say in Leviticas that sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman is detestable and this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Your ok with our nation being defiled...I'm not!

Romans talks about God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. I don't approve of those who practice them....You do?

Corinthians says your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and that men who have sex with men will inherit the kingdom of God. I want to send the clear message that they will not inherit the kingdom of God. Does your pro gay marriage message suggest they could enter the kingdom of God?

The opinion of the Pope is not a teaching. Did I suggest it was?

The Pope does not have the authority to create doctrine on his own. What he gave....as you previously suggested....was HIS opinion.

Bible study Mary

 

[aspen]

Thank you.

As Christians we should care if someone promotes something against our values. Anyone who promotes something against Christ's (biblical) teaching would make them anti-Christ. You don't care about the anti-Christ(ian) teachings????...I do!

The bible does not have the words "legal protection for homosexuals is wrong"!! (it also doesn't say that "abortion is wrong") 1 Timothy says we know that the law is made not for the righteous but for those practicing homosexuality which is contrary to the sound doctrine. You are promoting a false doctrine according to Scripture! Are you comfortable supporting a false doctrine?

It does say in Leviticas that sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman is detestable and this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Your ok with our nation being defiled...I'm not!

Romans talks about God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. I don't approve of those who practice them....You do?

Corinthians says your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and that men who have sex with men will inherit the kingdom of God. I want to send the clear message that they will not inherit the kingdom of God. Does your pro gay marriage message suggest they could enter the kingdom of God?

The opinion of the Pope is not a teaching. Did I suggest it was?

The Pope does not have the authority to create doctrine on his own. What he gave....as you previously suggested....was HIS opinion.

Bible study Mary

come on MaryMog,

you have no leg to stand on and you know it.

the Pope gave his opinion about issues outside the church.

he also believes in democracy, but obviously this does not apply inside the church.

 

[Marymog]

come on MaryMog,

you have no leg to stand on and you know it.

the Pope gave his opinion about issues outside the church.

he also believes in democracy, but obviously this does not apply inside the church.

Hi Aspen,

Yup....the pope gave his opinion. Sooooooo what’s your point??? I almost feel as if you want an argument from me. I have said ‘What he gave...was his opinion’ AND “The opinion of the Pope is not a teaching.” Sooooooo I do not understand why you are reiterating that the pope gave his opinion!!! I have made it VERY clear that it was HIS opinion. Talk about beating a dead horse....ugggg!!!

I don’t know what you mean by I have no leg to stand on.....????

I gave multiple passages from Scripture supporting what I believe and why we as Christians should not support in anyway same sex marriage!!! You have only given your opinion AND DID NOT ANSWER ONE QUESTION FROM MY POST.....Why is that aspen????? Is it because knowyou have no legs to stand on???

Do you know the definition of the word democracy? Do you know how the “inside” of The Church works?

Keeping it real....Mary

 

[aspen]

Marymog,

I feel your exasperation! My point is you are making a mountain out of a molehill - the Pope is welcome to his opinion, even if you disagree with it - Ex Cathedra is, of course, another story. So why are you putting so much weight on an opinion that provides protection for people outside the church? He is not even saying they are welcome to take the Eucharist! A civil union is not a marriage.

I am not sure what you mean about the dead horse? Maybe you can beat it a bit more.....

Like democracy, protection for civil unions can be good things, outside the church. The church is a hierarchy, which is kind of reflected in that whole 'office of the Pope' thingy....

And your list of scripture against homosexuality apply within our community of faith. Paul was not picketing the Roman bathhouses.

As far as all of your questions, like the early church, I am in agreement with church teachings, as they apply to members of our faith community. Secular people are not required to follow church teachings.

 

[Yan]

Every church have its own torn, in catholic there are saints but there were also sinners, similar to protestant also have both of them or in any other religion also. In politic, they always tried to judge as generalization between catholic & protestant. Protestant right wing politician tried to blame catholic as communist, and vice versa. Those people who tried to lead many people into astray will be judged by God because their actions are contrary with the teaching of bible.
Becoming true christian is to love each other both good and evil people, but churches leaders these days was promoting both racial and classification of social justice. This was the example of false teachers which will be condemned by God in the judgement day.
These verses was our main concern as a disciples of Christ. It was simple commandment, but many peoples are fall into it, because nobody love their own neighbour and everybody was condemning each other because of money and political position. Separate yourself from those guys who judge others because of political view and profane the name of God into worldly interest.

James 2:8-9
8. But if you keep the greatest law of all, as it is given in the holy Writings, Have love for your neighbour as for yourself, you do well:
9. But if you take a man's position into account, you do evil, and are judged as evil-doers by the law.

Galatians 5:14
For all the law is made complete in one word, even in this, Have love for your neighbour as for yourself.

Romans 13:8, 10
8. Be in debt for nothing, but to have love for one another: for he who has love for his neighbour has kept all the law.
10. Love does no wrong to his neighbour, so love makes the law complete.

 

[Rapture and End Times]

I don't think the Pope's position could be more clear: The Bride and Babylon

 

[Randy Kluth]

Pope Francis has spoken up in defense of homosexual families and called for civil union laws for same-sex couples — a major shift from both his own and the Vatican’s position on the matter. What does the Holy Bible say about gay unions?

Breaking: False Prophet Pope Francis calls for civil union laws for same-sex couples

Yea, I'm floored by this change in RCC policy--ancient and historical policy against homosexuality. This is a slippery slope designed to appease US and European Catholics who support homosexuals.

Francis did not openly embrace homosexuality, but like any politician he asserts his support for people, Christian or otherwise. It's as if he's for being good to both the good and the bad, showing love for friend and enemy alike.

But we all know what he's really doing. The symbolism is unmistakable. He is sliding in the direction of religious neutrality, failing to clarify the distinctives of Christian regeneration and doctrinal orthodoxy. By blurring the lines he is in effect supporting homosexuality.

It does not show "love" or any sense of "social justice" to support "civil unions between gay couples." The support of government-supported social structures is in effect taking an historically-non-Catholic position. After all, many countries in the distant past were openly and distinctly Catholic. And now, Catholicism under Francis is supporting the idea of a purely secular State.

Maybe that isn't as big a change in the modern world as many think. But looking at it historically, I think it's a huge change, particularly in matters of Catholic doctrine.

 

[Illuminator]

Yea, I'm floored by this change in RCC policy--ancient and historical policy against homosexuality. This is a slippery slope designed to appease US and European Catholics who support homosexuals.

Francis did not openly embrace homosexuality, but like any politician he asserts his support for people, Christian or otherwise. It's as if he's for being good to both the good and the bad, showing love for friend and enemy alike.

But we all know what he's really doing. The symbolism is unmistakable. He is sliding in the direction of religious neutrality, failing to clarify the distinctives of Christian regeneration and doctrinal orthodoxy. By blurring the lines he is in effect supporting homosexuality.

It does not show "love" or any sense of "social justice" to support "civil unions between gay couples." The support of government-supported social structures in in effect taking an historically-non-Catholic position. After all, many countries in the distant past were openly and distinctly Catholic. And now, Catholicism under Francis is supporting the idea of a purely secular State.

Maybe that isn't as big a change in the modern world as many think. But looking at it historically, I think it's a huge change, particularly in matters of Catholic doctrine.

There is no change in Catholic doctrine.
Vatican breaks silence, explains pope’s civil union comments
ROME (AP) — The Vatican says Pope Francis' comments on gay civil unions were taken out of context in a documentary that spliced together parts of an old interview, but still confirmed Francis' belief that gay couples should enjoy legal protections.

The Vatican secretariat of state issued guidance to ambassadors to explain the uproar that Francis' comments created following the Oct. 21 premiere of the film “Francesco,” at the Rome Film Festival. The Vatican nuncio to Mexico, Archbishop Franco Coppola, posted the unsigned guidance on his Facebook page Sunday.

In it, the Vatican confirmed that Francis was referring to his position in 2010 when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires and strongly opposed moves to allow same-sex marriage. Instead, he favored extending legal protections to gay couples under what is understood in Argentina as a civil union law.

While Francis was known to have taken that position privately, he had never articulated his support while as pope. As a result, the comments made headlines, primarily because the Vatican’s doctrine office in 2003 issued a document prohibiting such endorsement. The document, signed by Francis' predecessor as pope, says the church’s support for gay people “cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”

The recent uproar gained even more attention because it turned out director Evgeny Afineevsky misled journalists by claiming Francis had made the comments to him in a new interview. A week before the premiere, when he was asked about the civil union comments, Afineevsky told The Associated Press that he had two on-camera interviews with the pope. In comments to journalists after the premiere, he claimed that the civil union footage came from an interview with the pope with a translator present.

It turned out, Francis' comments were taken from a May 2019 interview with Mexican broadcaster Televisa that were never broadcast. The Vatican hasn’t confirmed or denied reports by sources in Mexico that the Vatican cut the quote from the footage it provided to Televisa after the interview, which was filmed with Vatican cameras.

Afineevsky apparently was given access to the original, uncut footage in the Vatican archives.

“More than a year ago, during an interview, Pope Francis answered two different questions at two different times that, in the aforementioned documentary, were edited and published as a single answer without proper contextualization, which has led to confusion,” said the guidance posted by Coppola.

In the film, Afineevsky recounts the story of Andrea Rubera, a married gay Catholic who wrote Francis asking for his advice about bringing into the church his three young children with his husband.

It was an anguished question, given that the Catholic Church teaches that gay people must be treated with dignity and respect but that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.” The church also holds that marriage is an indissoluble union between man and woman, and as a result, gay marriage is unacceptable.

In the end, Rubera recounts how Francis urged him to approach his parish transparently and bring the children up in the faith, which he did. After the anecdote ends, the film cuts to Francis' comments from the Televisa interview.

Francis was not endorsing the right of gay couples to adopt children, even though the placement of the quote right after Rubera told his story made it seem that Francis was.

The pope’s comments about gay civil unions came from a different part of the Televisa interview and included several caveats that were not included in the film.

In the Televisa interview, Francis made clear he was explaining his position about the unique case in Buenos Aires 10 years ago, as opposed to Rubera’s situation or gay marriage as a whole.

In the Televisa interview, Francis also insisted that he always maintained Catholic doctrine and said there was an “incongruenza” for the Catholic Church as far as “homosexual marriage” is concerned.

The documentary eliminated that context.

The Televisa footage is available online, and includes an awkward cut right after Francis spoke about the “incongruity” of homosexual marriage. Presumably, that is where he segued into his position as archbishop in favoring extending legal protections to gay couples.

Neither the Vatican nor Afineevsky have responded to repeated questions about the cut quote or its origin. Francis is known to hunker down in silence when controversy mounts.

“Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God,” Francis said. “You can’t kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this. What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.”

Francis' comments about gays having the right to be in a family referred to parents with gay children, and the need for them to not kick their children out or discriminate against them, the Vatican guidance said.

Francis was not endorsing the right of gay couples to adopt children, even though the placement of the quote right after Rubera told his story made it seem that Francis was.

The pope’s comments about gay civil unions came from a different part of the Televisa interview and included several caveats that were not included in the film.

In the Televisa interview, Francis made clear he was explaining his position about the unique case in Buenos Aires 10 years ago, as opposed to Rubera’s situation or gay marriage as a whole.

In the Televisa interview, Francis also insisted that he always maintained Catholic doctrine and said there was an “incongruenza” for the Catholic Church as far as “homosexual marriage” is concerned.

The documentary eliminated that context.

The Televisa footage is available online, and includes an awkward cut right after Francis spoke about the “incongruity” of homosexual marriage. Presumably, that is where he segued into his position as archbishop in favoring extending legal protections to gay couples.

Neither the Vatican nor Afineevsky have responded to repeated questions about the cut quote or its origin. Francis is known to hunker down in silence when controversy mounts.
Vatican breaks silence, explains pope’s civil union comments (kswo.com)

 

[Illuminator]

There is no change in Catholic doctrine.
Vatican breaks silence, explains pope’s civil union comments
ROME (AP) — The Vatican says Pope Francis' comments on gay civil unions were taken out of context in a documentary that spliced together parts of an old interview, but still confirmed Francis' belief that gay couples should enjoy legal protections.

The Vatican secretariat of state issued guidance to ambassadors to explain the uproar that Francis' comments created following the Oct. 21 premiere of the film “Francesco,” at the Rome Film Festival. The Vatican nuncio to Mexico, Archbishop Franco Coppola, posted the unsigned guidance on his Facebook page Sunday.

In it, the Vatican confirmed that Francis was referring to his position in 2010 when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires and strongly opposed moves to allow same-sex marriage. Instead, he favored extending legal protections to gay couples under what is understood in Argentina as a civil union law.

While Francis was known to have taken that position privately, he had never articulated his support while as pope. As a result, the comments made headlines, primarily because the Vatican’s doctrine office in 2003 issued a document prohibiting such endorsement. The document, signed by Francis' predecessor as pope, says the church’s support for gay people “cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”

The recent uproar gained even more attention because it turned out director Evgeny Afineevsky misled journalists by claiming Francis had made the comments to him in a new interview. A week before the premiere, when he was asked about the civil union comments, Afineevsky told The Associated Press that he had two on-camera interviews with the pope. In comments to journalists after the premiere, he claimed that the civil union footage came from an interview with the pope with a translator present.

It turned out, Francis' comments were taken from a May 2019 interview with Mexican broadcaster Televisa that were never broadcast. The Vatican hasn’t confirmed or denied reports by sources in Mexico that the Vatican cut the quote from the footage it provided to Televisa after the interview, which was filmed with Vatican cameras.

Afineevsky apparently was given access to the original, uncut footage in the Vatican archives.

“More than a year ago, during an interview, Pope Francis answered two different questions at two different times that, in the aforementioned documentary, were edited and published as a single answer without proper contextualization, which has led to confusion,” said the guidance posted by Coppola.

In the film, Afineevsky recounts the story of Andrea Rubera, a married gay Catholic who wrote Francis asking for his advice about bringing into the church his three young children with his husband.

It was an anguished question, given that the Catholic Church teaches that gay people must be treated with dignity and respect but that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.” The church also holds that marriage is an indissoluble union between man and woman, and as a result, gay marriage is unacceptable.

In the end, Rubera recounts how Francis urged him to approach his parish transparently and bring the children up in the faith, which he did. After the anecdote ends, the film cuts to Francis' comments from the Televisa interview.

Francis was not endorsing the right of gay couples to adopt children, even though the placement of the quote right after Rubera told his story made it seem that Francis was.

The pope’s comments about gay civil unions came from a different part of the Televisa interview and included several caveats that were not included in the film.

In the Televisa interview, Francis made clear he was explaining his position about the unique case in Buenos Aires 10 years ago, as opposed to Rubera’s situation or gay marriage as a whole.

In the Televisa interview, Francis also insisted that he always maintained Catholic doctrine and said there was an “incongruenza” for the Catholic Church as far as “homosexual marriage” is concerned.

The documentary eliminated that context.

The Televisa footage is available online, and includes an awkward cut right after Francis spoke about the “incongruity” of homosexual marriage. Presumably, that is where he segued into his position as archbishop in favoring extending legal protections to gay couples.

Neither the Vatican nor Afineevsky have responded to repeated questions about the cut quote or its origin. Francis is known to hunker down in silence when controversy mounts.

“Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God,” Francis said. “You can’t kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this. What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.”

Francis' comments about gays having the right to be in a family referred to parents with gay children, and the need for them to not kick their children out or discriminate against them, the Vatican guidance said.

Francis was not endorsing the right of gay couples to adopt children, even though the placement of the quote right after Rubera told his story made it seem that Francis was.

The pope’s comments about gay civil unions came from a different part of the Televisa interview and included several caveats that were not included in the film.

In the Televisa interview, Francis made clear he was explaining his position about the unique case in Buenos Aires 10 years ago, as opposed to Rubera’s situation or gay marriage as a whole.

In the Televisa interview, Francis also insisted that he always maintained Catholic doctrine and said there was an “incongruenza” for the Catholic Church as far as “homosexual marriage” is concerned.

The documentary eliminated that context.

The Televisa footage is available online, and includes an awkward cut right after Francis spoke about the “incongruity” of homosexual marriage. Presumably, that is where he segued into his position as archbishop in favoring extending legal protections to gay couples.

Neither the Vatican nor Afineevsky have responded to repeated questions about the cut quote or its origin. Francis is known to hunker down in silence when controversy mounts.
Vatican breaks silence, explains pope’s civil union comments (kswo.com)

Bottom line: The anti-Catholic jumps on the Satan-controlled media bandwagon in every effort to discredit the moral authority of the Church.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There is no change in Catholic doctrine.
Vatican breaks silence, explains pope’s civil union comments
ROME (AP) — The Vatican says Pope Francis' comments on gay civil unions were taken out of context in a documentary that spliced together parts of an old interview, but still confirmed Francis' belief that gay couples should enjoy legal protections.

What does that mean? We all agree that gay couples in a secular State should enjoy legal protections. But this does not mean a Christian leader should even present the secular State as the ideal! At best it indicates a careless use of language that appears to condone secularism, which embraces gay unions as morally acceptable, when the standard view in Christian history is that it is wrong.

Certainly Christians in ancient pagan Rome had no choice but to embrace Roman law. A Christian leader at any level should express submission to State law, but not endorse policies that are clearly non-Christian. Explaining this language is a job best done by the Pope himself, and certainly not in ambiguous terms, such as you are describing. That's the "slippery slope" I'm talking about.

The Vatican secretariat of state issued guidance to ambassadors to explain the uproar that Francis' comments created following the Oct. 21 premiere of the film “Francesco,” at the Rome Film Festival.

This clearly indicates that the Pope's language should've been seen for what it was--a back door embrace of Catholics who are tolerant of gay unions. The Pope should be teaching on "religious protections" rather than on "legal protections." It is not showing love to the pagan world by softening the Christian attitude towards gay unions.

In it, the Vatican confirmed that Francis was referring to his position in 2010 when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires and strongly opposed moves to allow same-sex marriage. Instead, he favored extending legal protections to gay couples under what is understood in Argentina as a civil union law.

Yes, it was wrong then, and it is wrong today. Supporting gay civil unions is as wrong as supporting gay marriage. If you also support such a thing you are guilty of condoning homosexuality.

While Francis was known to have taken that position privately, he had never articulated his support while as pope. As a result, the comments made headlines, primarily because the Vatican’s doctrine office in 2003 issued a document prohibiting such endorsement. The document, signed by Francis' predecessor as pope, says the church’s support for gay people “cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”

That's called "talking out of both sides of your mouth." It is, in fact, approving of homosexual unions. You can't have it both ways. This is called "rationalization." Even worse, taking the position the Pope did "privately" indicates where his heart is really at, and it's not a Christian perspective. There is no difference with God between a person's "private opinion" and their "public opinion"--God sees it all.

...“More than a year ago, during an interview, Pope Francis answered two different questions at two different times that, in the aforementioned documentary, were edited and published as a single answer without proper contextualization, which has led to confusion,” said the guidance posted by Coppola.

It really matters not if the story is somewhat under scrutiny for manipulation. There is enough there just in knowing the Pope's "private opinion" about gay unions! And I think this is what has rightly sparked Catholic outrage against the Pope.

In the film, Afineevsky recounts the story of Andrea Rubera, a married gay Catholic who wrote Francis asking for his advice about bringing into the church his three young children with his husband.

It was an anguished question, given that the Catholic Church teaches that gay people must be treated with dignity and respect but that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.” The church also holds that marriage is an indissoluble union between man and woman, and as a result, gay marriage is unacceptable.

In the end, Rubera recounts how Francis urged him to approach his parish transparently and bring the children up in the faith, which he did. After the anecdote ends, the film cuts to Francis' comments from the Televisa interview.

Francis was not endorsing the right of gay couples to adopt children, even though the placement of the quote right after Rubera told his story made it seem that Francis was.

There would've been a much better Christian answer by the Pope to this dilemma. He simply had to inform the gay husband and father that the proper way to bring up children was in a Christian family.

The pope’s comments about gay civil unions came from a different part of the Televisa interview and included several caveats that were not included in the film....

“Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God,” Francis said. “You can’t kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this. What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.”

Francis' comments about gays having the right to be in a family referred to parents with gay children, and the need for them to not kick their children out or discriminate against them, the Vatican guidance said.

The alternative is Christian repentance, and not secular counseling services. Christianity is a ministry--not a social agency of the State!

Francis was not endorsing the right of gay couples to adopt children, even though the placement of the quote right after Rubera told his story made it seem that Francis was.

The Pope is inadvertently separating religion from the State. It's one thing to submit to the Secular State and another thing to support its policies. He is supporting gay unions while out the other side of his mouth he's saying the position of the RCC is agnostic about gay unions, whereas he personally supports them.

In the Televisa interview, Francis also insisted that he always maintained Catholic doctrine and said there was an “incongruenza” for the Catholic Church as far as “homosexual marriage” is concerned.

The documentary eliminated that context.

All of these explanations do not justify the Pope's contradictory beliefs about gay unions. His "private support of gay unions," while at the same time viewing gay marriage as "incongruent," separates religion and life in the State, and misrepresents the true Christian view. We are to submit to the State--not support it. That's clear and unambiguous, and the Pope should know this and state it quite clearly. Christianity is a ministry, and not a pawn of the Secular State.

 

[Illuminator]

What does that mean? We all agree that gay couples in a secular State should enjoy legal protections. But this does not mean a Christian leader should even present the secular State as the ideal! At best it indicates a careless use of language that appears to condone secularism, which embraces gay unions as morally acceptable, when the standard view in Christian history is that it is wrong.

Certainly Christians in ancient pagan Rome had no choice but to embrace Roman law. A Christian leader at any level should express submission to State law, but not endorse policies that are clearly non-Christian. Explaining this language is a job best done by the Pope himself, and certainly not in ambiguous terms, such as you are describing. That's the "slippery slope" I'm talking about.

This clearly indicates that the Pope's language should've been seen for what it was--a back door embrace of Catholics who are tolerant of gay unions. The Pope should be teaching on "religious protections" rather than on "legal protections." It is not showing love to the pagan world by softening the Christian attitude towards gay unions.

Yes, it was wrong then, and it is wrong today. Supporting gay civil unions is as wrong as supporting gay marriage. If you also support such a thing you are guilty of condoning homosexuality.

That's called "talking out of both sides of your mouth." It is, in fact, approving of homosexual unions. You can't have it both ways. This is called "rationalization." Even worse, taking the position the Pope did "privately" indicates where his heart is really at, and it's not a Christian perspective. There is no difference with God between a person's "private opinion" and their "public opinion"--God sees it all.

It really matters not if the story is somewhat under scrutiny for manipulation. There is enough there just in knowing the Pope's "private opinion" about gay unions! And I think this is what has rightly sparked Catholic outrage against the Pope.

There would've been a much better Christian answer by the Pope to this dilemma. He simply had to inform the gay husband and father that the proper way to bring up children was in a Christian family.

If you can't see the wrong in this statement by the Pope you are blinded by Catholic prejudice!

The alternative is Christian repentance, and not secular counseling services. Christianity is a ministry--not a social agency of the State!

The Pope is inadvertently separating religion from the State. It's one thing to submit to the Secular State and another thing to support its policies. He is supporting gay unions while out the other side of his mouth he's saying the position of the RCC is agnostic about gay unions, whereas he personally supports them.

All of these explanations do not justify the Pope's contradictory beliefs about gay unions. His "private support of gay unions," while at the same time viewing gay marriage as "incongruent," separates religion and life in the State, and misrepresents the true Christian view. We are to submit to the State--not support it. That's clear and unambiguous, and the Pope should know this and state it quite clearly. Christianity is a ministry, and not a pawn of the Secular State.

This is nothing but a regurgitation of the same lies over and over again. The Pope is clear and unambiguous, repeatedly, and you give no context to his "private opinion of gay unions". Should parents of supposedly gay children throw their own kids out of the house? Obviously you don't care about them. You miss the point entirely. You are just another angry anti-Catholic media zombie. We don't shoot our wounded and it seems you want to burn all gay people at the stake. "unjust discrimination" are words not in your vocabulary.
Courage (couragerc.org) (<<Kluth thinks this is a secular counseling service)

Why don't you pick on all the MANY Protestant churches that have lost their moral compass and openly endorse same sex unions? No. you don't. Instead, you pick on the last bastion on earth of true moral teaching, red flagging some opinion as if his opinions are ill-informed. Or worse, thinking that the pope's opinions are dogmatic. As if the pope is not entitled to have any in the first place. As if the pope's opinions are accurately reported by the media that is 90% controlled by Satan. Your bigotry is glaring.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is nothing but a regurgitation of the same lies over and over again. The Pope is clear and unambiguous, repeatedly, and you give no context to his "private opinion of gay unions". Should parents of supposedly gay children throw their own kids out of the house? Obviously you don't care about them. You miss the point entirely. You are just another angry anti-Catholic media zombie. We don't shoot our wounded and it seems you want to burn all gay people at the stake. "unjust discrimination" are words not in your vocabulary.
Courage (couragerc.org) (<<Kluth thinks this is a secular counseling service)

I'm not anti-Catholic. I've had Catholic friends all my life, and I even helped perform in a Mass with a Catholic friend (he is a singer, guitarist, and I played keyboards). It was very fun!

Theology is what I'm talking about, and "flaming" is not what this is about. I take the Bible seriously, and any suggestion that this is "hate rhetoric" I see as a tactic to avoid scrutiny. You want to publicly advance the Catholic message, and tone down any criticism, while my tradition has historically been to reform the Catholic Church (I was raised a Lutheran). So don't hide behind that "persecution complex."

I didn't take a single thing out of context--I explained myself quite plainly, with consideration of the context. I said that all "rationalization" of what the Pope said does not obscure his *private belief* that civil unions are okay. If I'm wrong about what I read, please correct me?

I fully understand there is a context to this, and I fully understand the difference between embracing love for pagans and condoning pagan behavior. I fully know the difference between submitting to the State and endorsing the policies of the State. You completely ignored this, which is what explained my points, regardless of the context, and regardless of any manipulation of the facts by hostile parties.

The Catholic Charismatic movement had a strong impact, indirectly, in my life many, many years ago. And I highly respect the high level of discipline exhibited by faithful Catholic priests. I also respect the long duration of holding onto orthodox Christian teaching. That's why I'm so concerned about what this Pope is attempting to do, in watering down beliefs, and in terms of obscuring the issues. His "private view" is what concerns me.

Why don't you pick on all the MANY Protestant churches that have lost their moral compass and openly endorse same sex unions?

Why don't you research what I actually do before accusing me of *not* doing something? I criticize and critique Protestant beliefs and practices *all the time!* This isn't a Catholic v. Protestant thing to me. In my view the Catholic Church was THE Church in the West for centuries. I have no interest in tearing it down. My concern is if the leadership in the Catholic Church continues to stray, as it has for centuries. And my concern is if the Catholic people have lost their footing, as many of them have for centuries. So I would try to encourage faithful Catholics to stay on track, even if the leadership and the majority fail them.

 

[Illuminator]

I'm not anti-Catholic. I've had Catholic friends all my life, and I even helped perform in a Mass with a Catholic friend (he is a singer, guitarist, and I played keyboards). It was very fun!

Theology is what I'm talking about, and "flaming" is not what this is about. I take the Bible seriously, and any suggestion that this is "hate rhetoric" I see as a tactic to avoid scrutiny. You want to publicly advance the Catholic message, and tone down any criticism, while my tradition has historically been to reform the Catholic Church (I was raised a Lutheran). So don't hide behind that "persecution complex."

I didn't take a single thing out of context--I explained myself quite plainly, with consideration of the context. I said that all "rationalization" of what the Pope said does not obscure his *private belief* that civil unions are okay. If I'm wrong about what I read, please correct me?

I fully understand there is a context to this, and I fully understand the difference between embracing love for pagans and condoning pagan behavior. I fully know the difference between submitting to the State and endorsing the policies of the State. You completely ignored this, which is what explained my points, regardless of the context, and regardless of any manipulation of the facts by hostile parties.

The Catholic Charismatic movement had a strong impact, indirectly, in my life many, many years ago. And I highly respect the high level of discipline exhibited by faithful Catholic priests. I also respect the long duration of holding onto orthodox Christian teaching. That's why I'm so concerned about what this Pope is attempting to do, in watering down beliefs, and in terms of obscuring the issues. His "private view" is what concerns me.

Why don't you research what I actually do before accusing me of *not* doing something? I criticize and critique Protestant beliefs and practices *all the time!* This isn't a Catholic v. Protestant thing to me. In my view the Catholic Church was THE Church in the West for centuries. I have no interest in tearing it down. My concern is if the leadership in the Catholic Church continues to stray, as it has for centuries. And my concern is if the Catholic people have lost their footing, as many of them have for centuries. So I would try to encourage faithful Catholics to stay on track, even if the leadership and the majority fail them.

The Pope hasn't failed anybody and you are regurgitating media hype.
Pope Francis, Same-Sex Unions, & Chicken Little Mass Hysteria
by Dave Armstrong

I’ve seen this process take place over and over, in my seven-and-a-half years of defending Pope Francis: now literally 176 times:

1) Pope Francis says something (for some people, virtually anything).

2) At first glance (and usually filtered through an increasingly untrustworthy and unbalanced Catholic media; and forget the secular media!), it sounds (especially to jaded cynical “ears”) like it is anti-traditional or downright subversive to the traditional Catholic faith. This accusation quickly becomes the norm in social media discourse, people compete to see who can be the most critical and conspiratorial and ridiculous, and it’s off to the dog races once again...

3) But invariably what the Holy Father said or wrote is either
A) taken out of context or
B) wrongly or at least dubiously translated, or
C) both.

4) Or it is sufficiently “shocking” (or nuanced) within development of doctrine and the hermeneutic of continuity, so that many ears simply can’t “receive” it, which is no scandal to me, knowing that the teachings of Our Lord Jesus and St. Paul were often of this very same nature, and wrongly perceived in much the same way:
John 7:16-24
Mark 3:22

5) So folks find Pope Francis “confusing” and “hard to understand”? Sounds like Jesus and the Apostle Paul again:

John 6:60, 66-67
Matthew 13:13-15
Matthew 15:16
Mark 8:17
John 3:10
1 Timothy 1:7
2 Peter 3:16
Jude 10

6) At length when it is examined closely by those who haven’t jumped on the ultra-popular, fashionable, chic pope-bashing bandwagon, it turns out to be a “tempest in a teapot” and “much ado about nothing.”

We’ve seen it all erupt again, folks. Catholics are soiling themselves en masse and going bananas. I have defriended about 14 people because I have less than zero tolerance for the irrational, hysterical pope-bashing, and I have for some time now. I am just sick and tired of seeing pseudo-Protestantism and warmed-over, half-baked liberal dissident and quasi-schismatic attitudes come across my feed. One can only take so much of that. It’s not good for the soul. It’s not edifying (to put it very mildly).

Many others among my Facebook friends have simply asked me to clarify things and have not joined in on the nonsense and fanaticism. That’s fine. I respect that, and am happy to respond as an apologist: whose job it is to defend the Holy Father and the holy Catholic faith and to bring reason into the equation, even though we move in two days and the last thing I should be doing right now is tackling a major controversy. In fact, I am here typing at 3:18 AM [finished at around 5:30] because I was thinking about all this stuff and couldn’t sleep...

From the left, and especially in the secular media, many seem to be treating the pope’s words as an epochal shift in the Church’s teachings. While Pope Francis’s statements didn’t mention same-sex marriage or sexuality, they have been construed as some kind of earthquake in Church doctrine. For example, as reporter Edward Pentin displayed on Twitter, British tabloids and other newspapers are running with this. . . .
*
First, I want to be straightforward about the level of importance of these statements, with regard to doctrine and how they relate to Church teaching. Let’s be clear about this (whether you agree with them or not): the hoopla is over two sentences spoken by Pope Francis in an interview. They are not official magisterial teachings, nor do they represent official changes in doctrine or discipline. Others have pointed out that we don’t have the full context, but (at least in my opinion) we can fairly easily glean Francis’s meaning based on his previous statements on these topics. . . .
*
The Church approaches plenty of people and groups differently than it did in prior centuries: women, non-Catholics, non-Christians, prisoners, the disabled, the divorced, and many others. . . .
*
That said, let’s take a look at what Pope Francis actually says. The first of the two statements that set off the firestorm was, “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it.”
The second statement was, “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered. I stood up for that.”

It is difficult to imagine that the first of the two statements—that LGBT people “have a right to be part of a family”—would be all that controversial, except to perhaps the most extreme and least pastoral of today’s Catholics. . . .
We have a right to a family. Francis is trying to teach us that shunning our children is not the Christian way. As a general principle, as parents our doors and our hearts should always be open for our children, even if they are different than we’d like them to be. Our Father in heaven is our model for this; he loves us as we are—unconditionally. He forgives us our trespasses, he welcomes us with open arms when we ask him for forgiveness, and he remains present to us even when we try to run from him.

Once again, the issue of how we should treat family members who are not perfectly living out the Catholic faith falls under what is frequently described as a “prudential” matter, not a doctrinal question. . . .
*
For Francis, there is a clear distinction between treating someone with dignity (or, dare I say, with fraternal love), and embracing an idea that contradicts Catholic doctrine. The types of rights that accompany civil unions (things such as health insurance, rights of inheritance, tax laws, the ability to visit a loved one in a hospital or nursing home), should not be contingent on whether that person lives a life in total conformity to Catholic moral doctrine. . . .
continued