Pope Francis says same sex civil unions are fine.

Spanish Eyes

Now that is a turn up for the books. But I think he really means that SS couples should avoid sex (the Catholic view) and just make it legal to protect themselves.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...tary-1.4387301

What do you think, or do you care?

Overheal

I for one welcome our new same sex overlords.

Man with broke phone

We should probaly tell religeous leaders to buck off really , all of them.

Encourage personal religon.

Encourage people reading and comprehending things for themselves instead of needing a man in a dress to tell them what it means.

Objective thinking.

Itssoeasy

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Now that is a turn up for the books. But I think he really means that SS couples should avoid sex (the Catholic view) and just make it legal to protect themselves.

What do you think, or do you care?

Is this the first time the Catholic Church has gone this far in regards to Same sex couples and the issue of civil unions ? I know we won’t ever see them say same sexy marriage is allowed in the CC because it goes against the whole marriage is ordained between a man and a woman in the churches eyes which does seem like something they couldn’t move on. It’s something to acknowledge I suppose but probably best not to expect anything more.

Quantum Erasure

I think he's the anti-Pope, destroying the church from the inside. It's not the first time he's done something like this, ....

KaneToad

He's the head of the catholic church. What he says are the rules. If you don't like it, why would you stay a catholic? Vote with you feet folks.

Overheal

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I think he's the anti-Pope, destroying the church from the inside. It's not the first time he's done something like this, ....

Don’t think there’s been an anti-pope quite this near to the destruction of the order since at least the one who adopted the spherical earth theory

Spanish Eyes

Pope Francis is a Christian in the best sense of the word AFAIS. I have no religion now but actually admired him for saying what he did.

We shall see what the fallout is from the Fundies soon enough, or they may just stay quiet, who knows.

Man with broke phone

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I think he's the anti-Pope, destroying the church from the inside. It's not the first time he's done something like this, ....

What about the one who was into the whole molesting, forced adoption and cover up stuff were they posi-popes?

Montage of Feck

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I think he's the anti-Pope, destroying the church from the inside. It's not the first time he's done something like this, ....

Or maybe he's just following in the example of jesus christ, like a Christian.

Itssoeasy

Montage of Feck wrote: »

Or maybe he's just following in the example of jesus christ.

It’s a novel idea of the leader of the church founded by Jesus to follow his example. But I mean the trial period is over I suppose at this stage.

One eyed Jack

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

What do you think, or do you care?

I like Pope Frank, but he’s a clever bastard too. He’s saying nothing about the Catholic view of marriage, but rather encouraging Catholic homosexuals and people who are transgender to see civil unions as a way to protect themselves in civil law and exercise their right to have a family.

Essentially, the Church’s position (and his own) on marriage within the Church hasn’t changed, he’s just encouraging civil unions, which he knows no doubt do not carry the same legal protections and rights in most jurisdictions, as marriage.

I don’t think it’s any big change, it’s just the same thing, said differently.

Spanish Eyes

And there I was thinking that the previous incumbent with the red shoes was the Anti Pope, whats his name, Benny I think, he scarpered quick enough and is still eating his pasta. I bet the Borgias were squeaky clean too.

But we can all read about the history of the Popes, this one Francis is something else though and full marks for his bravery in saying what he did. Not that I give any credence to his rules, but it is a signal of sorts I think.

Why would anyone care what a celibate who believes in virgin births and bread becoming the body of a dead man risen thinks about such things?

Pope Francis, along with all the others who live such truly unnatural lives are the last people anyone should pay attention to when it comes to personal relationships.

You might as well ask your mechanic or your butcher. There’s a better chance that one of them have experience to rely upon, rather than a book of nonsense and 2020 years of twisted thinking.

440Hertz

It's an organisation that really needs to change if it's going to survive. The history of hardcore ultra conservative dogma hasn't always been at it's core and when and where it has been, including in Ireland for much of the 20th century, it did huge damage.

It's certainly not going to get me rushing to mass, I was never religious but I formally defected, when it was still possible, because I didn't want to be part of an organisation that held extremely negative views of people like me and that had failed to do very much about any of the horrendous abuse that went on here and elsewhere in institutions it ran. Its positions on women's rights, contraception and many, many other things also just don't sit very well with me at all.

However, it's a hugely influential organisation and I'm glad to see its leadership is finally starting to look at the reality of being human and getting past some of the nonsense that caused misery for very many people.

It could do a lot of good by standing up to the fundies.

LillySV

Wouldn’t make a difference what he says ... pathetic dickheads would still find fault

Donald Trump

Man with broke phone wrote: »

We should probaly tell religeous leaders to buck off really , all of them.

Encourage personal religon.

Encourage people reading and comprehending things for themselves instead of needing a man in a dress to tell them what it means.

Objective thinking.

When people read, they read things written by other people. Reading something that someone else wrote is no different to hearing them saying it.



Ironically, you probably heard about what the Pope said by reading about it and making up your own mind. Same as everyone else.

Spanish Eyes

LillySV wrote: »

Wouldn’t make a difference what he says ... pathetic dickheads would still find fault

Better to say it and have a rant/debate than keep the oul Fundies in their bubble though.

Real Donald Trump

Man with broke phone wrote: »

We should probaly tell religeous leaders to buck off really , all of them.

Encourage personal religon.

Encourage people reading and comprehending things for themselves instead of needing a man in a dress to tell them what it means.

Objective thinking.

Careful now, this might upset our Muslim friends, we dont want to be classed as racist now, do we?

eviltwin

LillySV wrote: »

Wouldn’t make a difference what he says ... pathetic dickheads would still find fault

When he embraces full equality it will be something worth mentioning. Until then it’s like everything else that lot do, bullsh1t.

Donald Trump

eviltwin wrote: »

When he embraces full equality it will be something worth mentioning. Until then it’s like everything else that lot do, bullsh1t.

It's a massive organization with well over a billion members. How fast would you expect such an organization to move? You have to be realistic here.



Also, out of all those diverse billion-odd individuals, it would be unlikely that any organization can find a magic formula that suits each and every single one of their preferences exactly simultaneously. And it's unlikely that they will choose the particular set of rules or guidelines that you yourself would like to see. It's unrealistic to expect it too.

AllForIt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I like Pope Frank, but he’s a clever bastard too. He’s saying nothing about the Catholic view of marriage, but rather encouraging Catholic homosexuals and people who are transgender to see civil unions as a way to protect themselves in civil law and exercise their right to have a family.

Essentially, the Church’s position (and his own) on marriage within the Church hasn’t changed, he’s just encouraging civil unions, which he knows no doubt do not carry the same legal protections and rights in most jurisdictions, as marriage.

I don’t think it’s any big change, it’s just the same thing, said differently.

What marriage issues do transgender ppl face particularly? I never knew they had any. They were always able to get married as far as I was aware. I didn't read PF said anything about transgender people in any of the reports and can't think of any reason why they might prefer to opt for a civil marriage.

One eyed Jack

AllForIt wrote: »

What marriage issues do transgender ppl face particularly? I never knew they had any. They were always able to get married as far as I was aware. I didn't read PF said anything about transgender people in any of the reports and can't think of any reason why they might prefer to opt for a civil marriage.

Depending upon the jurisdiction they’re in, they may face significant differences in what rights and protections they are afforded on the basis of their legal status as to whether they are qualified to enter into marriage in the first place, whether they may be recognised in law as their preferred gender, whether they may benefit from their spouses medical cover provided by their employer, and just what that medical cover covers and whether or not they may be forced to divorce in order to be recognised in law as their preferred gender, at which point if they have children they will encounter a whole other type of discrimination that is specifically only experienced by being transgender, which is how they are regarded in family law, depending upon the jurisdiction.

Pope Frank only a couple of months ago again muddied the waters by not saying anything different that hadn’t been said before about the Catholic Church’s position on transgenderism, basically that it undermines the family and so on, and as such it’s not even a real thing.

I can imagine one reason why they might opt for civil marriage, because they would have more rights and legal recognition as a family and their children would have greater legal recognition and protection than if they were only in a civil union. All Pope Francis is basically saying is that the Church’s position hasn’t changed, and won’t be changing, but instead of supporting civil marriage equality, he says “we” have to create “civil union law”, which he knows damn well has nothing to do with him or the Church. He’s put the pressure on political leaders while he again looks like the good guy for having merely reiterated what the Church has always maintained.

eviltwin

Donald Trump wrote: »

It's a massive organization with well over a billion members. How fast would you expect such an organization to move? You have to be realistic here.



Also, out of all those diverse billion-odd individuals, it would be unlikely that any organization can find a magic formula that suits each and every single one of their preferences exactly simultaneously. And it's unlikely that they will choose the particular set of rules or guidelines that you yourself would like to see. It's unrealistic to expect it too.

Not expecting anything DT. They have their views on homosexuality and probably will never change them. My point is more to do with all the people saying it’s wonderful and amazing etc. It’s not. What exactly has changed as a result of this? Nothing.

Graces7

LillySV wrote: »

Wouldn’t make a difference what he says ... pathetic dickheads would still find fault

And he made it very clear that he referred to "civil UNIONS" and not any form of marriage, in compassion as everyone needs family.

Perfectly... Christian, in the deepest sense.

NB there is an interesting discussion on this on the Catholic Answers forum by Catholics and non-Catholics

stoneill

Overheal wrote: »

Don’t think there’s been an anti-pope quite this near to the destruction of the order since at least the one who adopted the spherical earth theory

Stop that nonsense, next thing you'll be saying is Earth orbits the Sun instead of the big crystal spheres

SEPT 23 1989

and women will still not be allowed become priests

storker

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Pope Francis is a Christian in the best sense of the word AFAIS. I have no religion now but actually admired him for saying what he did.

We shall see what the fallout is from the Fundies soon enough, or they may just stay quiet, who knows.

Funny how the Pope is infallible until he says something certain Catholics don't like.

storker

eviltwin wrote: »

Not expecting anything DT. They have their views on homosexuality and probably will never change them. My point is more to do with all the people saying it’s wonderful and amazing etc. It’s not. What exactly has changed as a result of this? Nothing.

I think you have to give the RCC some credit. Compare and contrast with some of the co-called "Christian" religions in the US with their gay-hating, faith-healing and young-earth creationism and the Vatican starts to look progressive.

And I'm not a fan of the church at all.

ohnonotgmail

storker wrote: »

Funny how the Pope is infallible until he says something certain Catholics don't like.

was the pope speaking ex cathedra when he made those comments? if not papal infallibility is irrelevant.

storker

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

was the pope speaking ex cathedra when he made those comments? if not papal infallibility is irrelevant.

Ah, so he has to say "Here's the infallible bit...". Right. Makes total sense.

ohnonotgmail

storker wrote: »

Ah, so he has to say "Here's the infallible bit...". Right. Makes total sense.

pretty much, yes. not everything the pope says is assumed to be infallible.

storker

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

pretty much, yes. not everything the pope says is assumed to be infallible.

It only makes sense if you assume a lot of other non-sense.

ohnonotgmail

storker wrote: »

It only makes sense if you assume a lot of other non-sense.

no, it is pretty straightforward. papal infallibility only applies when the pope speaks ex cathedra.

storker

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no, it is pretty straightforward. papal infallibility only applies when the pope speaks ex cathedra.

Your talking rules and regs. I'm talking about the belief set that underpins them.

ohnonotgmail

storker wrote: »

Your talking rules and regs. I'm talking about the belief set that underpins them.

there is no underlying belief that the pope is infallible. it is a relatively modern invention.

ohnonotgmail

nthclare wrote: »

I'm not a Christian myself, but no matter what the church does or doesn't do it will be scrutinized.

Especially by Atheists who say they don't believe in God, there's no God and laugh about the belief systems.
Yet these moany plebs are still having a psychological war within their head's and getting all riled up about something about the Pope again.

So what it's organised religion and that's what it is, ye know the score and have been moaning about religion since ye reached your enlightenment of walking away from religion.

it still has ye by the nuts if it's controling your emotions, not a day goes by when an atheist think's about religion, God or the fact they're an Atheist...

It reminds me of Tommy Tiernans joke about walking down Pana and saying to yourself "I'm from Cork" and a big grin on your face..

The popcorn is out for this discussion

the only person getting riled up is you. everybody else is either welcoming what he said or thinks his opinion is irrelevant.

breezy1985

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I like Pope Frank, but he’s a clever bastard too. He’s saying nothing about the Catholic view of marriage, but rather encouraging Catholic homosexuals and people who are transgender to see civil unions as a way to protect themselves in civil law and exercise their right to have a family.

Essentially, the Church’s position (and his own) on marriage within the Church hasn’t changed, he’s just encouraging civil unions, which he knows no doubt do not carry the same legal protections and rights in most jurisdictions, as marriage.

I don’t think it’s any big change, it’s just the same thing, said differently.

He is clever alright. He knows the church has already lost its traditional base in Europe and it's shedding numbers massively in terms of countries that follow the church in law like we used to and he knows that getting with the times is the only way to stop the rot.

I don't understand any of it to be honest I mean how does the word of God change surely all religions should just say these are the rules follow us or if you believe in something else set up your own thing. But it's never been about belief or god really has it

nthclare

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the only person getting riled up is you. everybody else is either welcoming what he said or thinks his opinion is irrelevant.

Im not rilled up attal, I'm only observing the post's.

It's hard to get me riled up to be honest.

I gave you a thanks for your validation too

seamus

I expect this to cause some fractures in the organisation. There are a few pockets of Catholicism where homophobia is one of the core pillars of their religious identity.

For the most it won't make much of a difference. The majority of Catholics in the developed world have been just ignoring the Vatican's position on homosexuality because it's inconvenient.

What was said yesterday will give them the warm and snugglies because it resolves a internalised contradiction for them. "I have no problem with gay people at all, but I really, really, want to stay Catholic, so I'll just ignore that bit."

When really it should make them ask why they've been part of an organisation that only started talking positively about it in 2020.

ohnonotgmail

nthclare wrote: »

Im not rilled up attal, I'm only observing the post's.

It's hard to get me riled up to be honest.

I gave you a thanks for your validation too

your post was just a pathetic attack on atheists. nothing more.

nthclare

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

your post was just a pathetic attack on atheists. nothing more.

Feeling attacked are you, there's a lot of Atheists debunking and laughing at religious folk too and they love to post meme's and joke's about the biblical stories and some of the Easter one's are quite distasteful too.

Attack is a strong word or accusation, maybe you could rephrase your response.

Attack on Atheists, that's typical of how you interpret an observation.
A bit of social justice warrior are we

ohnonotgmail

nthclare wrote: »

Feeling attacked are you, there's a lot of Atheists debunking and laughing at religious folk too and they love to post meme's and joke's about the biblical stories and some of the Easter one's are quite distasteful too.

Attack is a strong word or accusation, maybe you could rephrase your response.

Attack on Atheists, that's typical of how you interpret an observation.
A bit of social justice warrior are we

no, attack is pretty correct. there has nothing negative said about the popes comments but you just had to jump in and complain about atheists.

and social justice warrior? get with the times grandad, nobody uses that any more.

bocaman

The Iona Institute wont be too happy. But to hell with them

nthclare

seamus wrote: »

I expect this to cause some fractures in the organisation. There are a few pockets of Catholicism where homophobia is one of the core pillars of their religious identity.

For the most it won't make much of a difference. The majority of Catholics in the developed world have been just ignoring the Vatican's position on homosexuality because it's inconvenient.

What was said yesterday will give them the warm and snugglies because it resolves a internalised contradiction for them. "I have no problem with gay people at all, but I really, really, want to stay Catholic, so I'll just ignore that bit."

When really it should make them ask why they've been part of an organisation that only started talking positively about it in 2020.

With all the different perspectives in the Catholic church and different personalities it's very hard to be progressive.

Having been Christian myself and not anymore, you're up against a lot of opinions and fear.

Fear of change,fear of how God will judge you if you go against the doctrinal teaching's of the church.

There's a lot of ego's in religious organizations and believe you me it's very serious.
You've moderates, and then you've the hardcore members who stick to every word and that's that.

I myself think it's good news, because for those gay people who are religious and spiritual it's a bit of a relief
I'm bisexual myself and think it's progress rather than perfection.

After all the church wasn't built in a day and it won't be deconstructed in a day either.

It's a step in the right direction..

I'm a moderate pagan myself.

nthclare

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no, attack is pretty correct. there has nothing negative said about the popes comments but you just had to jump in and complain about atheists.

and social justice warrior? get with the times grandad, nobody uses that any more.

Thanks × 1000,000

Have a nice day sir.

storker

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there is no underlying belief that the pope is infallible. it is a relatively modern invention.

I don't see what difference that makes.

breezy1985

bocaman wrote: »

The Iona Institute wont be too happy. But to hell with them

I love the Iona institute because they tell me how to vote in a referendum.

If I'm unsure on a subject I just vote the opposite to them

The funny thing is that most of the criticism seems to be coming from people who aren't religious... and the same posters here who would criticise the RCC regardless of the topic.

Within my chat group, there are a few gay people who are religious and who welcome this announcement. It's a minor gesture towards acceptance but it's still a step away from the hatred that went before. It creates a precedent in an institution where such gestures have weight.

So, I see this as a great gesture.. Just as gesture, and I figure he's testing the water, to see what kind of repercussions might arise, before he commits to anything more serious (and unable to retract later)

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

The funny thing is that most of the criticism seems to be coming from people who aren't religious... and the same posters here who would criticise the RCC regardless of the topic.

Within my chat group, there are a few gay people who are religious and who welcome this announcement. It's a minor gesture towards acceptance but it's still a step away from the hatred that went before. It creates a precedent in an institution where such gestures have weight.

So, I see this as a great gesture.. Just as gesture, and I figure he's testing the water, to see what kind of repercussions might arise, before he commits to anything more serious (and unable to retract later)

who has criticised the decision?

J.O. Farmer

What the pope appears to be talking about is civil marriage but instead of calling it marriage (which is a religious sacrament between a man and a woman from the church's point of view) it's called civil union with all the legal protections offered by this. The sacrament doesn't actually offer any legal protections it's the legal union recognised by state that does this.

Maybe if the state had a different word for civil marriage it would make the issue less contentious.