Except when someone doesn’t support it in that specific way, even if it sounds like he do.
If he is standing up for God, why remain anonymous?
“Even if such laws are only so they can have economic or financial security, it would be a grave error to protect such unions as such, i.e., as expressly immoral unions.”
Good question, but I think that many clergy are fearful of directly countering the existing gay friendly structure of some of he hierarchy. What does an unemployed canonist do next?
Continue to preach the Word of God anyway way possible. They wouldn’t be the first.
We haven’t gotten the whole context or what is meant by civil unions. In the same interview the Pope was clear about same-sex acts and same-sex marriage, and the discussion of family was not about any pseudo-marital relationship.
This author equates civil unions to civil marriages founded on a sexual relationship–and to be fair to him, that is how they are commonly practiced where they have been instituted and that has been the general intent of them. He is right to oppose such a thing.
However, other Catholics have proposed civil unions as a kind of civil relationship that is independent of any sexual relationship, and is open to all. At least according to the following Argentinian Archbishop, that is what this Pope has proposed:
The archbishop posted on Facebook that before he became pope, then-Cardinal Bergoglio “always recognized that, without calling it ‘marriage,’ in fact there are very close unions between people of the same sex, which do not in themselves imply sexual relations, but a very intense and stable alliance.”
“They know each other thoroughly, they share the same roof for many years, they take care of each other, they sacrifice for each other. Then it may happen that they prefer that in an extreme case or illness they do not consult their relatives, but that person who knows their intentions in depth. And for the same reason they prefer that it be that person who inherits all their assets, etc.”
“This can be contemplated in the law and is called ‘civil union’ [unión civil] or ‘law of civil coexistence’ [ley de convivencia civil], not marriage.”
“What the Pope has said on this subject is what he also maintained when he was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires,” Fernández added.
Such an arrangement would not be sinful or manifestly immoral at all. The practicality or wisdom of it in particular circumstances could certainly be debated.
But again, the law would have to be clear that it was independent of sexual relations. As a contrary example, in the UK there was a case where two sisters were denied a civil union on the basis of consanguinity, which clearly meant the civil unions established there contemplated a sexual foundation. And the Church has always opposed them on this basis and always should.
This is I think very true. I want to say this delicately and I only have the opinions of other priests and those that entered seminary, but there does seem to be a lot of pro-homosexual sentiment and a lot of homosexual priests that dislike priests that they deem “conservative”. One priest I know says it has driven many straight men away from the priesthood. I have no actual statistics to back this up but this is what I have heard anecdotally.
Pope Francis has made several statements about his non support for homosexual sexual relationships.
If the Pope were to support and condone ss sexual relationships, then he would also be condoning sex outside marriage.
Has he done that?
I do not blame someone for wanting to be anonymous, but as far as I am concerned, it is just as good to say nothing. You can have no credibility if you have no credentials.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.