Pope Francis says same sex civil unions are fine.

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.

breezy1985

[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)

I don't criticize what he said but I do see it for what it is which is a PR stunt. The fact that he needs to "test the water" shows how sick they are in the Vatican I mean if the organisation you are in is homophobic enough that you need to test the waters then I think what you should really question is whether or not it's an organisation worth your membership

ohnonotgmail

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

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.

The catholic church doesn't own the word marriage.

breezy1985

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

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.

Maybe if the church stopped perving on people and feeling the need to meddle in the private sexual lives of the general public it would make the issue less contentious

One eyed Jack

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

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.

He’s acutely aware of the differences between civil marriage and civil unions in Civil Law (neither of which has anything to do with the Catholic Church or the sacrament of marriage within the Catholic Church according to Canon Law) -


Before he was elected pope, Francis served as archbishop of Buenos Aires, and in that role, he advocated for same-sex civil unions in an attempt to block a same-sex marriage law.

Argentina legalized same-sex marriage in 2010, which then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio called a “destructive attack on God’s plan.” But in meetings with other Argentine bishops, Cardinal Bergoglio urged them to support civil unions as a way to keep marriage distinctly heterosexual. Bishops rejected the idea, but an L.G.B.T. activist in Argentina said the cardinal called him to say he personally supported the idea of civil unions. The comments in this new documentary represent his most public declaration of support for same-sex unions since becoming pope.


Pope Francis declares support for same-sex civil unions for the first time as pope

nthclare

breezy1985 wrote: »

Maybe if the church stopped perving on people and feeling the need to meddle in the private sexual lives of the general public it would make the issue less contentious

Perving on people's private lives, for the sake of Zeus what are you on about ???

breezy1985

nthclare wrote: »

Perving on people's private lives, for the sake of Zeus what are you on about ???

The Catholic church is obsessed with sex more so than almost any other organisation in this country. They are desperately concerned with not for people and what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

Utterly obsessed with other people's sex lives so ya I call that pervy

440Hertz

The Irish branch of the Catholic Church was seemingly extra obsessed with sex. It was like a mixture of Victorian (very Protestant) puritanical values that came in via the same influences that made the British and Americans so conservative, combined with a very extreme form of conservative Catholicism.

The church in general has a major issue with its fixation on bedrooms, but the experience of it that we had here was far worse than what was experienced in a lot of predominantly Catholic parts of Europe, where it was at least ignored a lot more.

You could probably draw a cultural linkage between Irish Catholic ultra conservative history and Cromwell’s social attitudes, they all connect to the same wave of dangerous puritanical cult like behaviour that swept these islands and North America.

breezy1985

440Hertz wrote: »

The Irish branch of the Catholic Church was seemingly extra obsessed with sex. It was like a mixture of Victorian (very Protestant) puritanical values that came in via the same influences that made the British and Americans so conservative, combined with a very extreme form of conservative Catholicism.

The church in general has a major issue in with fixation on bedrooms, but the experience of it that we had here was far worse than what was experienced in a lot of predominantly Catholic parts of Europe, where it was at least ignored a lot more.

You could probably draw a cultural linkage between Irish Catholic ultra conservative history and Cromwell’s social attitudes.

Italy and Spain had it pretty bad too. Spain had a full on catholic dictatorship up until the late 70s

440Hertz

breezy1985 wrote: »

Italy and Spain had it pretty bad too. Spain had a full on catholic dictatorship up until the late 70s

It also coexisted with relatively less conservative situations in plenty of places that had overarching secular values.

We made the mistake of wrapping nationalism and identity into the Catholic Church or allowing it to hijack it anyway. Combining religious identity and politics is always a recipe for damage and disaster.

You can see the same (or at least a recognisable) pattern in Poland at present. We went ultra Catholic exerting our independence from the British history of oppressing catholics. The poles are doing exactly the same, just with a different history of oppression and a hundred years later. Reactionary politics playing out in a similar way. It has different influences, but you can see the same issue with ultra conservatives wrapping themselves in the flag and wearing the clothes of nationalism - instead of independence, they’re forcing a religious identity on to a fledgling modern state.

Hopefully Poland’s journey is accelerated by the 21st century and they don’t spent the best part of a century under the thumb of this stuff as we did.

breezy1985

440Hertz wrote: »

It also coexisted with relatively less conservative situations in plenty of places that had overarching secular values.

We made the mistake of wrapping nationalism and identity into the Catholic Church or allowing it to hijack it anyway. Combining religious identity and politics is always a recipe for damage and disaster.

You can see the same (or at least a recognisable) pattern in Poland at present. We went ultra Catholic exerting our independence from the British history of oppressing catholics. The poles are doing exactly the same, just with a different history of oppression and a hundred years later. Reactionary politics playing out in a similar way.

Leaving a door open does not excuse a thief. Fine we went ultra catholic after independence but we didn't force them to do all the horrible things they done. Giving someone power does not give them the right to abuse it