Author Topic: Francis in favor of civil unions for homosexuals  (Read 3941 times)

Offline Sojourn

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 817
  • Thanked: 304 times
Re: Francis in favor of civil unions for homosexuals
« Reply #90 on: January 13, 2021, 12:37:12 PM »
This is from 2000.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001109_de-facto-unions_en.html

This is from 1986.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

The church is changing.

I would consider reframing that statement.

An older *paradigm* is continuing to transform into a newer one. The Church is not the paradigm, rather it is its vehicle.
O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem!
 

Offline Miriam_M

  • Mary Garden
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 7223
  • Thanked: 5401 times
  • Never have been "MiriamB"
  • Religion: Traditional Roman Catholic
Re: Francis in favor of civil unions for homosexuals
« Reply #91 on: January 13, 2021, 12:45:25 PM »
This is from 2000.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001109_de-facto-unions_en.html

This is from 1986.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

The church is changing.

I would consider reframing that statement.

An older *paradigm* is continuing to transform into a newer one. The Church is not the paradigm, rather it is its vehicle.

Incorrect. When it comes to moral behavior, the consistent body of Tradition is the absolute standard, no matter how much the World changes.  What you're suggesting is that there is separate, truer, more persuasive and independent reality on which the Church is dependent and to which she is subordinate, which is heresy.  Are you a Catholic, Sojourn?
 
The following users thanked this post: mikemac

Offline Sojourn

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 817
  • Thanked: 304 times
Re: Francis in favor of civil unions for homosexuals
« Reply #92 on: January 13, 2021, 01:06:28 PM »
Peace be with you Miriam,

This is from 2000.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001109_de-facto-unions_en.html

This is from 1986.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

The church is changing.

I would consider reframing that statement.

An older *paradigm* is continuing to transform into a newer one. The Church is not the paradigm, rather it is its vehicle.

Incorrect. When it comes to moral behavior, the consistent body of Tradition is the absolute standard, no matter how much the World changes.

I am not asserting anything, only raising a possibility. I have for some time now been reflecting and reading over our present situation to find a possible solution to the problem for myself.

You refer to a "consistent body of Tradition" as an absolute standard but with all due respect who are you to make that assertion? My understanding is that the Supreme Teacher and Supreme Legislator in our Lord's Church is the Vicar of Christ who is the Successor of Peter. I don't recall reading in Denzinger that the laity have the right to publicly criticize and even make assertions contrary to the prerogatives of the Supreme Pontiff. In fact, the only thing I recall reading is that I as a lay person must submit even in matters that are fallible and regarding custom or discipline. If I am wrong in any of this please state our argument with references to Denzinger and/or Canon Law.

So we do appear to find ourselves in a conundrum as the the present Magisterium is using its rightful authority that some lay people find objectionable according to their personal understanding. There are only a few possible options and none of them are satisfactory.  My personal goal is to avoid the option that leads to Sedevacantism which I regard as self defeating and one that is most charitably leaning towards the present Magisterium.

Lastly, how do you know any particular behavior has been a "constant" tradition? Do you know that for the first 200 years of our Holy Religion women were not more involved in the Church? My understanding is that the data is quite scant and what is available doesn't exactly show a "consistent" line of behavior. Pliny the Younger referred to so called "deaconesses" in a letter to the Emperor dated circa 110AD. Has this tradition been preserved through the Medieval Era into your contemporary TLM parish?

I try to reserve assertions precisely because there is so little certainty when it comes to history. What I can assert is that if you behaved the way you are doing now in 1910 you would have likely been censured.   

Quote
What you're suggesting is that there is separate, truer, more persuasive and independent reality on which the Church is dependent and to which she is subordinate, which is heresy.

That is not what I am suggesting, that is what you have wrongly inferred. There is nothing in what I said that implies the Church's dependence on anything. The only thing the Church depends on is our Lord.
Quote
Are you a Catholic, Sojourn?

Yes I am, are you?
O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem!
 
The following users thanked this post: abc123

Offline Tennessean

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • Thanked: 47 times
  • Religion: Christian
Re: Francis in favor of civil unions for homosexuals
« Reply #93 on: January 13, 2021, 02:38:31 PM »
Do not confuse compassion with acceptance or moral uprightness with faith.
Isn't this what moderns do when they accept sodomy to look pious in the sight of man? Is it compassionate to dialogue with a sodomite, when the Apostle says "not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat." 1 Corinthians 5:11? The whole idea was that those brothers or sisters be cast out and delivered to satan, that they might be saved, by depriving them of false comfort and convicting their hearts. I'm pretty sure that happened with the man who slept with his father's wife; he or they were cast out of the church and came back in 2 Corinthians, thanks to the church having nothing to do with them.

OTOH, the same NT, with Jesus and the same apostles, as well as various disciples, also welcomed fornicators, tax collectors, harlots, and various undesirables, and likely because they believed that acceptance of a sodomite as a member of a family or a community is not the same as acceptance of sodomy, and that for everyone, there is always a chance of salvation, no matter how slim, which is why even as one remembers what happens to a man who slept with his father's wife, one also remembers the adulterous woman who was about to be stoned to death but was not.

Thus, what is mistakenly seen as a modernist view is likely as old as Christianity itself, and the idea of punishment and shunning for going against God's will even older.
The Corinthians were scolded to shun him until he repented. If these were the old days, they would have been scolded to stone him instead. 1 Cor 5:2 even says the Corinthians were proud he was among them. Imagine swelling with moral superiority for accepting a man even the pagans would shun, only to find out the Apostle who founded their church is so angry, he's sending his man to investigate them all for imperiling the gospel. They were just doing what felt good.
 
The following users thanked this post: mikemac, Michael Wilson

Online Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8328
  • Thanked: 6751 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Francis in favor of civil unions for homosexuals
« Reply #94 on: January 13, 2021, 05:39:15 PM »
Ralfy:
Quote
You are misreading the statements, just like members of the liberal press. He is not encouraging parents to accept homosexuality; rather, they have to accept children who are homosexuals. Why? Because he does not want them to throw them out. Rather, they need to talk to them, and find out how they can change their ways.
Do not confuse compassion with acceptance or moral uprightness with faith.
I'm not "misreading the statements";
Quote
“Homosexual persons have a right to be in the family and the parents have a right to recognize this son as homosexual,
"Parents have a right to recognize this son as homosexual"? No, parents have the duty to admonish their sinful child to repent and go to Confession. There is "no right" to accept another's sinful ways.
Our Lord did not "accept the woman as an adulteress"; He told her not to sin anymore. The same for the Samaritan woman; and the paralitic.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: lauermar

Offline ralfy

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 77
  • Thanked: 24 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Francis in favor of civil unions for homosexuals
« Reply #95 on: January 15, 2021, 10:52:17 PM »

Are you a shill?  Those people REPENTED.  A sodomite steeped in filth is not a member of the community.  He should be allowed access to sit in the back of the Church in the hopes he will repent and save himself from hell, but he's outside of the community and has killed Sanctifying Grace.

And then there is the societal responsibility of the government.  If you catch a pedophile, you don't sanction what he did.  You lynch him.  Before he dies you ask if he would like to talk to a priest.  Even if he repents, you lynch him due to the demands of justice.

Where did you get the ridiculous idea that every unnamed person that Pope Francis is talking about didn't or does not want to repent?

 

Offline ralfy

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 77
  • Thanked: 24 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Francis in favor of civil unions for homosexuals
« Reply #96 on: January 15, 2021, 10:58:12 PM »
The Corinthians were scolded to shun him until he repented. If these were the old days, they would have been scolded to stone him instead. 1 Cor 5:2 even says the Corinthians were proud he was among them. Imagine swelling with moral superiority for accepting a man even the pagans would shun, only to find out the Apostle who founded their church is so angry, he's sending his man to investigate them all for imperiling the gospel. They were just doing what felt good.

Meanwhile, there's Jesus with tax collectors, harlots, and other undesirables, not to mention John 8:1-11.
 

Offline ralfy

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 77
  • Thanked: 24 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Francis in favor of civil unions for homosexuals
« Reply #97 on: January 15, 2021, 11:08:11 PM »
Ralfy:
Quote
You are misreading the statements, just like members of the liberal press. He is not encouraging parents to accept homosexuality; rather, they have to accept children who are homosexuals. Why? Because he does not want them to throw them out. Rather, they need to talk to them, and find out how they can change their ways.
Do not confuse compassion with acceptance or moral uprightness with faith.
I'm not "misreading the statements";
Quote
“Homosexual persons have a right to be in the family and the parents have a right to recognize this son as homosexual,
"Parents have a right to recognize this son as homosexual"? No, parents have the duty to admonish their sinful child to repent and go to Confession. There is "no right" to accept another's sinful ways.
Our Lord did not "accept the woman as an adulteress"; He told her not to sin anymore. The same for the Samaritan woman; and the paralitic.

You're misreading the statements. Recognition is not the same as acceptance. The first is needed to make sure that the homosexual relative remains a member of the family. Otherwise, he or will she will shunned and the family will be broken up.

Indeed, Jesus did not accept the woman as an adulteress. Rather, He accepted the fact that the woman is an adulteress; otherwise, why would He tell her to sin no more?

Two more things you missed: He also said, "Neither do I condemn you," and stated, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."


 

Offline Miriam_M

  • Mary Garden
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 7223
  • Thanked: 5401 times
  • Never have been "MiriamB"
  • Religion: Traditional Roman Catholic
Re: Francis in favor of civil unions for homosexuals
« Reply #98 on: January 16, 2021, 01:19:25 AM »
The Corinthians were scolded to shun him until he repented. If these were the old days, they would have been scolded to stone him instead. 1 Cor 5:2 even says the Corinthians were proud he was among them. Imagine swelling with moral superiority for accepting a man even the pagans would shun, only to find out the Apostle who founded their church is so angry, he's sending his man to investigate them all for imperiling the gospel. They were just doing what felt good.

Meanwhile, there's Jesus with tax collectors, harlots, and other undesirables, not to mention John 8:1-11.

The big difference between Jesus Christ in the 1st century and certain factions of the Church in the 21st century is that Jesus was there to convert tax collectors, harlots, and other grave sinners, not to enable them, pretend that it was not necessary to talk about their sins, and use ambiguous and apologetic language about grave sin.

These same factions in the Church interpret charity as permission for behavior, or even denial that the behavior is harmful when charity does not mean that at all. Recommending civil unions is a form of enabling and approval of grievous sin.  It also directly violates the Church's standing doctrine about natural law and the traditional family. Loving the person of a homosexual, singly, as one's relative (son, brother, uncle, nephew) is a different requirement of charity.  It is distinct from formal support (which is what civil unions are) for a sinful relationship, codified into canon or secular law.  The Church has always taught and reiterated such distinctions before the late 20th century.

Some of us on this forum have studied scripture academically for quite some time. You may believe that you are teaching us something, or correcting some kind of misinterpretation on our part, but you are not. Michael Wilson is correctly interpreting recognition as approval. 

Some of us also have homosexual relatives, so I'm afraid that we do know what we're talking about.
 
The following users thanked this post: Michael Wilson

Online Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8328
  • Thanked: 6751 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Francis in favor of civil unions for homosexuals
« Reply #99 on: January 16, 2021, 10:26:41 AM »
Ralfy:
Quote
You're misreading the statements. Recognition is not the same as acceptance. The first is needed to make sure that the homosexual relative remains a member of the family. Otherwise, he or will she will shunned and the family will be broken up.
No, "recognition" of son as a sodomist is the same as acceptance of the same.
Also, while remaining a member of the family, one cannot welcome them to one's home, while the persist in living a public and scandalous life. "Being shunned" is better than "being made to feel welcome" and comforted in one's sinful ways.
Quote

Indeed, Jesus did not accept the woman as an adulteress. Rather, He accepted the fact that the woman is an adulteress; otherwise, why would He tell her to sin no more?
No, you are making up the part of "accepted the fact..."; Our Lord told her to "sin no more". Francis tells the parents to recognize their children as homosexuals.
Quote

Two more things you missed: He also said, "Neither do I condemn you," and stated, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."
Yes, he approved of her committing adultery; this is where following Francis' perverted teachings lead you.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 

Offline lauermar

  • "Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy night!" from 'All About Eve' (1950).
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1380
  • Thanked: 499 times
  • Baby Boomer
  • Religion: Traditional Roman Catholic
Re: Francis in favor of civil unions for homosexuals
« Reply #100 on: January 16, 2021, 12:11:28 PM »
I agree with everything Michael Wilson is saying. My sibling does not compromise his transgender identity. He said he will take nothing less than my full cooperation with his new female identity, pronouns and name. He canceled his former marriage and his fatherhood. I can't go along with that because I will be damned by God and I told him so. He said he never wants to see me again. He banished me forever. He had no qualms about throwing me out.

Stop and think. If a transgender is applauded by the public for holding his ground in support of grave sin that offends God, why must faithful Catholics be the ones to compromise? Why can't we throw them out? Can't we hold our ground for God?
« Last Edit: January 17, 2021, 11:45:34 AM by lauermar »
"I am not a pessimist. I am not an optimist. I am a realist." Father Malachi Martin (1921-1999)
 
The following users thanked this post: mikemac, Michael Wilson

Online Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8328
  • Thanked: 6751 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Francis in favor of civil unions for homosexuals
« Reply #101 on: January 16, 2021, 01:29:05 PM »
Pope Francis stated that homosexuals are "Children of God":
Quote
"They are children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable over it. What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered."
How is a human being a "Child of God"? Through Sanctifying Grace. Are people who live in the state of Mortal Sin in the state of grace? No, Mortal Sin destroys Sanctifying Grace in the soul, and makes the sinner an enemy of God.
1 Cor. 6:
Quote
[9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.
Romans Ch. 1:
Quote
[24] Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.....

[26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [28] And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, [30] Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Comment:
[26] "God delivered them up": Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins.

[31] Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. [32] Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: abc123

Offline james03

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 9605
  • Thanked: 4063 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Francis in favor of civil unions for homosexuals
« Reply #102 on: January 16, 2021, 08:23:58 PM »
Quote
Where did you get the ridiculous idea that every unnamed person that Pope Francis is talking about didn't or does not want to repent?

Tough question .... Give me a moment ..... Oh yeah, because they want to continue living with their fag lover in a civil union?
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"
 
The following users thanked this post: Michael Wilson

Offline christulsa

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3612
  • Thanked: 2086 times
    • The Okie Traditionalist Blog
  • Religion: Traditional Catholic
Re: Francis in favor of civil unions for homosexuals
« Reply #103 on: January 16, 2021, 08:34:36 PM »
The other day I politely kept asking an obviously homo cashier what they were saying from behind their muzzle, because his voice was unintelligible.  The fudge packer cocked an attitude at me for simply repeating my questions.  I use to give homos a lot of chances, thinking that was charity, but now these open, in your face, identity politics leftist faggots need to be castrated, disemboweled, and beheaded.  Rhetorically speaking if not literally.  Unless they’ll stay in the closet.  And they’re coming out in droves more than ever, setting off my gaydar. 
« Last Edit: January 16, 2021, 08:36:56 PM by christulsa »
 
The following users thanked this post: Michael Wilson

Offline ralfy

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 77
  • Thanked: 24 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Francis in favor of civil unions for homosexuals
« Reply #104 on: January 16, 2021, 09:09:56 PM »

The big difference between Jesus Christ in the 1st century and certain factions of the Church in the 21st century is that Jesus was there to convert tax collectors, harlots, and other grave sinners, not to enable them, pretend that it was not necessary to talk about their sins, and use ambiguous and apologetic language about grave sin.

These same factions in the Church interpret charity as permission for behavior, or even denial that the behavior is harmful when charity does not mean that at all. Recommending civil unions is a form of enabling and approval of grievous sin.  It also directly violates the Church's standing doctrine about natural law and the traditional family. Loving the person of a homosexual, singly, as one's relative (son, brother, uncle, nephew) is a different requirement of charity.  It is distinct from formal support (which is what civil unions are) for a sinful relationship, codified into canon or secular law.  The Church has always taught and reiterated such distinctions before the late 20th century.

Some of us on this forum have studied scripture academically for quite some time. You may believe that you are teaching us something, or correcting some kind of misinterpretation on our part, but you are not. Michael Wilson is correctly interpreting recognition as approval. 

Some of us also have homosexual relatives, so I'm afraid that we do know what we're talking about.


The fact that you refer to "certain factions" discredits your whole argument. Instead of calling for those factions to be educated, you prefer to throw the baby out with the bathwater.