I don’t think Pope Francis is giving approval to same sex marriages here. He is acting accordingly to the same principal of not judging such unions. That’s all. I am sure personally he is opposed to such unions in Church but we are talking about nations here and not the Church. He is not giving into their demands but he is interested in not persecuting them. You may call this compromise but deep down it is a pastoral setting when contending with national interests. I find in the Pope he has an interested relationship with certain Eastern Fathers as he quoted from one of many favorite one St. John Chrysostom many times. I wouldn’t worry too much what papers say about him. You have a great Pope in Rome.
I don’t think he’ll be supporting the systematic murdering of tens of millions of defenseless innocent babies either.
The article says he supported civil unions. Why wouldn’t he say he opposed civil unions and gay marriage?
The post above put it well. It’s the NY Times so consider the source…
Everybody is reading way too much into everything Francis says or does and it’s gotten ridiculous. The man’s been in office for less than a week!
You can’t really say that he said this. I think he was saying the state has that right. What I believe to be the Pope’s attitude was one of non judgmental towards such unions. This newspaper person can say what they think the Pope has in his mind and in many cases a newspaper person would take out of context the actual sincere belief that is in a person. Just look what happened to Pope Benedict when he talked once at a University on the crusades and many newspaper people took it out of context. I think those newspaper people should have been the ones to apologize and not sincerely Pope Benedict for the clashes that came afterwards. I don’t believe the Pope believes in such unions. That would contradict his own faith. But I believe he was giving his approval for the state to acknowledge it, that’s all. He was stated he did not believe in same sex marriage. The newspaper reporter can say what he wants to but I don’t believe every word they say in this case to be the truth of the Pope’s personal beliefs.
But the bolded is not Church teaching. Having said that, I’m not convinced he said these things. The article starts by saying “behind the scenes”. Really? Well then how does the reoprter know what he said?
That was my point in addressing to the person’s concern. You can’t know for sure he actually said or did those things by which this paper addresses. The only real source to know the truth is to go to the Pope himself. I am sure he has better concerns to relate to than what another person says about him.
Thank you! You’re right, papers are going to twist whatever he said or did into their own agenda.
Instead of worrying about what he might have said to an anonymous source “behind the scenes” lets focus on what he’s actually done. And so far from just the last week…I love him!
He’s been a Priest, Bishop, and Cardinal, where his views are formed, for over 50 years.
I am not worried about him, since if he errs in teaching the fullness of truth, he will not remain as Pope.
Let’s assume for a minute the article is accurate. How on earth can the head of the Church be non-judgemental on civil unions? Lots of state run matters do not involve the Church per se, abortion being foremost among them. Either the Church believes they are proper, or she doesn’t.
Plus, he railed against the Argentinian govermnment when it sought to legitimize same-sex adoption, and described it as child abuse. Doesn’t really make sense to believe he is okay with civil unions, but not gay adoption.
I don’t really see what the problem is. There is nothing objectionable about supporting someone’s legal right to enter into a contract by consent. This is not the same as morally approving of it and it is definitely not the same as supporting same-sex marriage. A civil partnership is largely a matter of tax credits and inheritance rights- it certainly never does nor ever can approach anything resembling the sanctity of Holy Matrimony. Nor is there anything wrong with the then Archbishop pursuing a course that would simultaneously kill the idea that we are hateful of homosexuals and manage to maintain the the vital premise that marriage is, in contrast with mere civil unions, a special and holy union between a man and a woman. And to be able to do so in the face of the juggernaut of liberalism and moral blindness would have been a singular victory.
And then at the same time oppose the civil union’s legal state sponsored right to adopt children?
The logic train just ran off the tracks. Homosexual adoption (which he opposes) in no way involves the Church at all.
I am sure this present Pope does not articulate doctrine by which newspapers write about him. I do not find newspaper people incredible enough to know someone and give consideration to what they really believe in. If newspaper people had more exact knowledge in regards to Church and Church doctrine they would be more sensitive towards these subjects. I have found in many editorials of recent months towards a unhealthy regards to Church teaching simply because they disregard the Church anyway. I don’t put any importance to individual interpretations when it regards the Church unless it is grounded more within a person’s respect for that Church.
That would be problematic, I agree. It may well be that he supported one but not the other. Then again, given the source, it could be just another piece of liberal spin.
Thank you for being a voice of reason!
Logcially, he can’t endorse no sacramental civil unions and oppose non-sacramental adoptions.
I suspect clarity will come soon enough.
No doubt. Gay adoption really worries me so I would be interested in the response. I wouldn’t worry too much though- no Pope will ever not defend marriage or the family. My main concern about all of this is that what the liars in the anti-Catholic media are up to. I get the feeling that their main agenda is to define an image of the Pope and then spend the next decade attacking him when he turns out to be Catholic.
The “spin masters” are working overtime. This is the NYT we’re talking about here people! There will probably be a lot more spin heading our way, so hang on!
I think a bit of Catholicmemes.com is needed here.
My advice is not to listen to the secular media about the Church. It’s so often wrong it’s not even worth addressing. I say this as someone who once bought the entire line about the Church hook, line and sinker.
Here is a link from the other thread in World News on the subject
When Argentina was on the verge of legalizing gay marriage in 2010, Pope Francis — then Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires — suggested the church support civil unions, according to news reports published at the time.
“We don’t have a fanatic vision,” his spokesman, Federico Wals, told Argentina’s Infonews in 2010. “What we are asking is that the laws are respected. We believe that we must propose more comprehensive civil union rights than currently exist, but no gay marriage.”
Faced with the likelihood that gay marriage would be legalized, Bergoglio, then head of the Argentina Bishop’s Conference, suggested during a meeting with bishops in 2010 that the church support civil unions in the country. The idea was rebuked by the bishops, Pope Francis’ authorized biographer, Sergio Rubin, told the Associated Press.
And the link to the source article in Spanish infonews.com/nota.php?id=80541&bienvenido=1
I’ll have my husband read it when he gets home from work since he is fluent.