Pope Francis: Second look at civil unions?

posted at 3:21 pm on March 5, 2014 by Allahpundit

Did he really mean this or is this yet another case of the media exaggerating Francis’s more liberal-sounding pronouncements to better suit their agenda? Seems fairly clear, at least, that he thinks the Church could tolerate civil unions between heterosexual couples, although that raises the question of what “tolerance” would mean. Cohabitation presumably isn’t a problem, just as contracts between men and women aren’t a problem. The problem, potentially, is relaxing the sanction against premarital sex.

Pope Francis suggested the Catholic Church could tolerate some types of nonmarital civil unions as a practical measure to guarantee property rights and health care. He also said the church would not change its teaching against artificial birth control but should take care to apply it with “much mercy.”…

“Matrimony is between a man and a woman,” the pope said, but moves to “regulate diverse situations of cohabitation (are) driven by the need to regulate economic aspects among persons, as for instance to assure medical care.” Asked to what extent the church could understand this trend, he replied: “It is necessary to look at the diverse cases and evaluate them in their variety.”

More:

In January, the Pope recalled a little girl in Buenos Aires who told her teacher that she was sad because “my mother’s girlfriend doesn’t like me.”

“The situation in which we live now provides us with new challenges which sometimes are difficult for us to understand,” the Pope told leaders of religious orders, adding that the church “must be careful not to administer a vaccine against faith to them.”

A Christian friend who supports gay marriage has always insisted to me that there’s no real contradiction between her faith and her views on SSM. Religion has its sphere and civil society has its sphere; so long as the Church gets to set the rules in its own house, i.e. by not having to recognize or perform same-sex marriages, it can be agnostic about which sorts of relationships the government chooses to legally recognize. I don’t know if Francis would go that far, although there are credible reports that he privately endorsed civil unions for gays in Argentina as a potential compromise position while the country was debating legalizing gay marriage. Either way, the bit above about taking care not to vaccinate people against faith is consistent with his pronouncements on family/sexual matters so far: He seems reluctant to get caught up in these disputes for fear that they’ll sidetrack his bigger-picture vision for the Church, which has more to do with charity for the poor and less with culture-war flashpoints that risk alienating more socially liberal believers. It’s not quite a “truce” a la Mitch Daniels but more a matter of emphasis. Or so it seems to a humble atheist.

Meanwhile, back home in the U.S., 59 percent now support legalizing gay marriage versus 34 percent who oppose it. Those who “strongly” oppose it are down to 24 percent, the first time in ABC/WaPo’s polling that that number has dipped below 30. The numbers that really grabbed me, though, come from another recent poll on SSM conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute. Can this really be true?

ssm

Only 22 percent of gay-marriage opponents know that most Americans now support the practice? That makes me wonder if, as some SSM supporters (like me) expected, the rash of high-profile court decisions has convinced opponents that legalization is a purely top-down phenomenon imposed by cultural elites rather than something that’s gained wide popular acceptance. Politically, you’re much better off having this done through legislatures to show that the changes enjoy democratic legitimacy than having it done by judges. Oh well. Too late now.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I am still Catholic.

I’m wondering if our Pope still is.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:25 PM

FABULOUS!

El_Terrible on March 5, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Only 22 percent of gay-marriage opponents know that most Americans now support the practice?

Perhaps they are basing their opinion on the weight of states that have voted for and against, vs loosey-goosey public opinion polls taken by liberal pollsters?

slickwillie2001 on March 5, 2014 at 3:28 PM

“The Church of What’s Happening Now….”

— Flip Wilson

viking01 on March 5, 2014 at 3:28 PM

A Christian friend who supports gay marriage has always insisted to me that there’s no real contradiction between her faith and her views on SSM.

Obviously, your friend has no real faith AP. I would appreciate if those who chose not to adhere to the tenets of Christianity to not claim that they are Christians. To any Christian, obedience to God is paramount. We don’t get to chose our own morality. I can’t stand it when I hear people who profess to be Christians who say things like “I’m a Christian/Catholic and I support gay marriage and abortion rights.”

antifederalist on March 5, 2014 at 3:29 PM

the pope = the oscars

rik on March 5, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Look, can you blame him? I mean, who wants to get pelted with condoms (and God knows what else) by ACT-UP goons during Mass?

Bullying works.

CurtZHP on March 5, 2014 at 3:32 PM

I favor being able to marry (and thus live with and have sex with) as many women as I want.

Seriously. If “marriage” means whatever we want it to mean, why not? Who is to say multiple partner marriages are less valid than same sex marriages?

Don’t Jim Crow me, bro!

One other thing: I totally buy a minority of same sex marriage opponents being unaware they are in the minority. Many are still using talking points from 8 – 12 years ago, when states were voting it down in elections en masse.

DRayRaven on March 5, 2014 at 3:35 PM

A Christian friend who supports gay marriage has always insisted to me that there’s no real contradiction between her faith and her views on SSM. Religion has its sphere and civil society has its sphere; so long as the Church gets to set the rules in its own house, i.e. by not having to recognize or perform same-sex marriages, it can be agnostic about which sorts of relationships the government chooses to legally recognize.

Spot on.

JetBoy on March 5, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Ed to the rescue?

LaughterJones on March 5, 2014 at 3:36 PM

“The Church of What’s Happening Now….”

— Flip Wilson

viking01 on March 5, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Sadly.

If the rock that Christ built his Church on is crumbling away we are near the end times to be sure…

Like I said, I am Catholic, even if my Church and my Pope aren’t anymore…

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:37 PM

America also thinks that 30 percent of Americans are gay, and that Obamacare was swell.

melle1228 on March 5, 2014 at 3:37 PM

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:25 PM

I’m Catholic too-and this pope has left me wanting. A leftist pope doesn’t do it for me. How I wish that we had Benedict back.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 5, 2014 at 3:37 PM

A Christian friend who supports gay marriage has always insisted to me that there’s no real contradiction between her faith and her views on SSM. Religion has its sphere and civil society has its sphere; so long as the Church gets to set the rules in its own house, i.e. by not having to recognize or perform same-sex marriages, it can be agnostic about which sorts of relationships the government chooses to legally recognize.

Spot on.

JetBoy on March 5, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Coming soon: Ghey Mafia sues Church that refuses to perform gay “weddings”.

You know it will happen. Christians can already be compelled to bake cakes or photograph these “events” against our will, next we’ll be forced to allow them to use our Houses of Worship.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:38 PM

“The Church of What’s Happening Now….”

— Flip Wilson

viking01 on March 5, 2014 at 3:28 PM

(:->)
…forgot about that!

KOOLAID2 on March 5, 2014 at 3:39 PM

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:37 PM

My parish is on the conservative side-yet today @ Mass the Monsgr in his homily, said that we are to fast for ‘justice’.
I’d appreciate it if he would define ‘justice’

annoyinglittletwerp on March 5, 2014 at 3:40 PM

I know conservative Catholics that lean this way.

This isn’t a total shocker.

chris0christies0donut on March 5, 2014 at 3:40 PM

his bigger-picture vision for the Church

So big you can’t even see the church anymore…

Kensington on March 5, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, right? The civil authority is right to manage affairs as it sees fit. The Church can critique, can offer opinions, and can provide guidance to the Faithful on how to properly respond to the situation, but short of grossly immoral acts (like wholesale slaughter or something like that), the Church should, and usually does, leave Caesar alone. That’s what Jesus directed, after all. For the Church, that some sort of civil-based accommodation for same-sex couples is neither here nor there, and arguably falls in line with showing charity and mercy to everyone. The Church, of course, draws the line at Caesar attempting to define Church doctrine, or at Caesar punishing the Faithful for practicing their faith, but even that is about Caesar overstepping his bounds. The problem with re-defining “marriage” has been about the use of the word, I think. The Church worries (and with plenty of justification) that if the word “marriage” is allowed to mean things other than traditional marriage, and the Church performs “marriages”, that some troublemaker who probably isn’t even Catholic will drag the Church into civil courts and demand that “marriage” be performed as Caesar has defined it, even within the walls of the Church.

SteveJ on March 5, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Coming soon: Ghey Mafia sues Church that refuses to perform gay “weddings”.

You know it will happen. Christians can already be compelled to bake cakes or photograph these “events” against our will, next we’ll be forced to allow them to use our Houses of Worship.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:38 PM

That’s some epic strawman right there.

JetBoy on March 5, 2014 at 3:41 PM

My parish is on the conservative side-yet today @ Mass the Monsgr in his homily, said that we are to fast for ‘justice’.
I’d appreciate it if he would define ‘justice’

annoyinglittletwerp on March 5, 2014 at 3:40 PM

I thought the priests were supposed to teach that from the Bible.

chris0christies0donut on March 5, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Last Pope, eh?

CrazyGene on March 5, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Spot on.

JetBoy on March 5, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Wrong.

Nothing in the First Amendment limits religious belief to just “the church”. It is a guaranteed right of the individual to profess and practice their religious beliefs without discrimination by their government.

And gay-sex marriage is nothing more than an attempt to force discrimination against people based on their religious beliefs.

northdallasthirty on March 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM

The church views marriage as sacremental, on a par in importance with baptism, confirmation, eucharist, and holy oriders. Civil unions, by definition, are not. Why is the RCC weighing in on this at all?

gryphon202 on March 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Civil unions, by definition, are not. Why is the RCC weighing in on this at all?

gryphon202 on March 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Why does the RCC weigh in on a lot of stuff?

chris0christies0donut on March 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM

JetBoy on March 5, 2014 at 3:36 PM

No-the Church can’t be agnostic on same-sex marriage.
The Church stands for eternal truths. The eternal truth is that SSM is WRONG.
Either the Church can continue to stand up/ speak boldly about what is right/wrong…those eternal truths-or She can stand for nothing.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Coming soon: Ghey Mafia sues Church that refuses to perform gay “weddings”.

You know it will happen. Christians can already be compelled to bake cakes or photograph these “events” against our will, next we’ll be forced to allow them to use our Houses of Worship.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:38 PM

That’s some epic strawman right there.

JetBoy on March 5, 2014 at 3:41 PM

That’s what the gay mafia said when we warned that Christians would be compelled to do *anything*.

A straw man is when an adversary argues against a position you did not take, which I have not seen ConstantineXI do.

If freedom requires the state’s sanction, it’s not freedom.

gryphon202 on March 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM

I wonder if the Pope has read this book that, from what I understand, isn’t all that important to Christianity. Some nearly unheard of work called the Bible or something. Y’know, Sodom and Gomorrah, Leviticus, things like that. But I suppose that’s only of interest to religious folks, and not people who are in secular positions of authority like the Pope.

Stoic Patriot on March 5, 2014 at 3:44 PM

The church views marriage as sacremental, on a par in importance with baptism, confirmation, eucharist, and holy oriders. Civil unions, by definition, are not. Why is the RCC weighing in on this at all?

gryphon202 on March 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Condoning civil unions is condoning the sin.

The Church has always allowed gays to be members, but the position has always been that they can’t be “practicing” gays. Meaning they can’t commit Sodomy.

This seems to me that the Pope is willing to allow Sodomy. And that is troubling. That is definitely not supported by scripture in any way.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Men, or women living together, being gay, the bible has no problem with that, none.

However, sexual relationships between men, or between women, that is well defined as being a no no…

It get’s back to, if you support something, just ignore the parts of the bible that doesn’t.

right2bright on March 5, 2014 at 3:44 PM

chris0christies0donut on March 5, 2014 at 3:41 PM

They should-but depending on the political leanings of the priest…
That statement just rubbed me as very ‘social-justicy’.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 5, 2014 at 3:45 PM

It get’s back to, if you support something, just ignore the parts of the bible that doesn’t.

right2bright on March 5, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Exactly. If the Church is going to condone Sodomy, what’s the difference between that and condoning premarital sex or other sins.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Civil unions, by definition, are not. Why is the RCC weighing in on this at all?

gryphon202 on March 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Why does the RCC weigh in on a lot of stuff?

chris0christies0donut on March 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Because many of the political questions of the day are tied up in morality, that’s why. But morally speaking, the question of whether it’s okay to engage in certain behavior, like sex outside of marriage, is a settled question. The RCC views it as a sin. Or doesn’t it anymore?

gryphon202 on March 5, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Seems fairly clear, at least, that he thinks the Church could tolerate civil unions between heterosexual couples,

What’s a het.. he…hetero..sexual?

Dongemaharu on March 5, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Wrong.

Nothing in the First Amendment limits religious belief to just “the church”. It is a guaranteed right of the individual to profess and practice their religious beliefs without discrimination by their government.

And gay-sex marriage is nothing more than an attempt to force discrimination against people based on their religious beliefs.

northdallasthirty on March 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM

+1

It’s astounding how many SSM supporters who swore up and down that other liberties were not at stake with state recognition of gay relationshps and who are now coming out and saying that these liberties only apply to your house or church building and that you need to abandon your liberties as a condition of entering civil society.

gwelf on March 5, 2014 at 3:47 PM

It’s important to remember the context of “Render unto Caesar” also was Jesus’ response to counter a subversive trap by the Pharisees content with business as usual.

Much like our congress and courts and preznit. Would the NSA have monitored Jesus? Probably.

… and ATF for all that wine and the IRS for contributions, the USDA for feeding 5000, FDA for miracles and the FAA for ascension.

viking01 on March 5, 2014 at 3:48 PM

It’s astounding how many SSM supporters who swore up and down that other liberties were not at stake with state recognition of gay relationshps and who are now coming out and saying that these liberties only apply to your house or church building and that you need to abandon your liberties as a condition of entering civil society.

gwelf on March 5, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Well, add Pope Francis to the list now. And I don’t give a greasy brown shit about the difference between marriage and “civil unions.” Civil unions are for greasy politicians who don’t want to piss off too many voters.

gryphon202 on March 5, 2014 at 3:48 PM

That’s what the gay mafia said when we warned that Christians would be compelled to do *anything*.

A straw man is when an adversary argues against a position you did not take, which I have not seen ConstantineXI do.

If freedom requires the state’s sanction, it’s not freedom.

gryphon202 on March 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM

20 years ago saying that gays should be allowed to “marry” would have gotten an almost universally HOSTILE reaction from the audience.

10 years ago they started condoning Civil Unions.

Today states are having gay “marriage” forced on them by unelected Federal Judges, and Christians are being forced to provide services against their will to them.

It’s no great stretch to believe that the next phase will be forcing Churches to service them too.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Good for the Pope. The USA will have nationwide SSM in a few years, and the Catholic Church won’t approve of those anytime soon, but civil unions are something some countries have or are considering, so it is good to know the Catholic Church probably won’t be fighting against those.

DisneyFan on March 5, 2014 at 3:50 PM

What we need is that any kind of union heterosexual or whatever comes next, multiple sheep whatever, is governed by the government. Now if you want to get married, you can only do that at the church of your choice. That way we separate the legal aspect from the traditional.

Sven on March 5, 2014 at 3:50 PM

I know that Ed is off to CPAC for a few days of debauchery with other bloggers, but between doing flaming shots of 151 with Jazz Shaw, I’d hope he can add to this from a devout Catholics perspective as opposed to AP ‘s aetheist view.

simkeith on March 5, 2014 at 3:51 PM

just reread a book I’ve had a while
http://www.amazon.com/The-President-Parker-Hudson/dp/0966661419
extremely similar to todays scenarios including ssm, repeal dadt in military, etc.
worth a read.

Originally published in 1995, The President reads like today’s newspaper. Mid-way through his term, a secular-humanist President becomes a Christian and has to decide how his new worldview must change his policies. His wife, children, siblings, staff and the entire nation grapple with how his new faith informs his actions. Meanwhile, terrorists are plotting to detonate a nuclear warhead in New York. The many strands of the story all come together in Manhattan as the terrorists use the World Trade Towers to launch their attack, the center of action is a place called Ground Zero and one of the characters yells, “Let’s Roll” near the end. The President is a gripping action thriller with a strong Christian message for the individual and the nation.

dmacleo on March 5, 2014 at 3:51 PM

Does the Eastern, or Greek Orthodox Church still hold to traditional doctrine?

I really don’t know because I’ve never attended Mass there. That is the Church that is closest to Catholicism, and in fact used to be part of it, before Constantinople split from Rome in 1054 over an argument over who outranked whom…

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:51 PM

What we need is that any kind of union heterosexual or whatever comes next, multiple sheep whatever, is governed by the government. Now if you want to get married, you can only do that at the church of your choice. That way we separate the legal aspect from the traditional.

Sven on March 5, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Get the government out of it entirely.

Marriage was never part of Caeser’s realm. It’s a Union between a Man and a Woman witnessed by God.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Religion has its sphere and civil society has its sphere; so long as the Church gets to set the rules in its own house

Church, bakery….whatever.

Dongemaharu on March 5, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Good for the Pope. The USA will have nationwide SSM in a few years, and the Catholic Church won’t approve of those anytime soon, but civil unions are something some countries have or are considering, so it is good to know the Catholic Church probably won’t be fighting against those.

DisneyFan on March 5, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Yeah. Let’s have civil unions which are marriages in every sense except recognition by Christian churches which have no political influence outside their own walls. That’s the ticket!/

gryphon202 on March 5, 2014 at 3:52 PM

DisneyFan on March 5, 2014 at 3:50 PM

The Church should not be condoning same-sex ANYTHING.

Love the sinner-hate the sin. It’s not: Love the sinner-embrace the sin!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 5, 2014 at 3:52 PM

That’s some epic strawman right there.

JetBoy on March 5, 2014 at 3:41 PM

individual priests already been sued for not taking part in this stuff.
it didn’t go anywheres but that strawman turned into a real man about 2 years ago.

dmacleo on March 5, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Well, add Pope Francis to the list now. And I don’t give a greasy brown shit about the difference between marriage and “civil unions.” Civil unions are for greasy politicians who don’t want to piss off too many voters.

gryphon202 on March 5, 2014 at 3:48 PM

It will be interesting to see how the gaystapo advances next against churches.

They’ll probably go after tax exempt status for churches at some point.

Since clergy can be claimed to be to some small degree an agent of the state in that they can administer/validate marriage licenses if that’s next: if the baker cannot deny a gay wedding cake how can a priest?

gwelf on March 5, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Yeah. Let’s have civil unions which are marriages in every sense except recognition by Christian churches which have no political influence outside their own walls. That’s the ticket!/

gryphon202 on March 5, 2014 at 3:52 PM

That is insufficient to please the gay agenda. Tolerance is insufficient, they must be ACCEPTED. Acceptance is insufficient, they must be “NORMAL”. “Normal” is insufficient, they must be SUPERIOR.

You get the picture. The whole gay “marriage” movement is about forcing heterosexuals to recognize their lifestyle as “normal”. When it clearly is not. I still believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder. It clearly is not normal, for if it were, it’d produce children, and male homosexuals would live a normal life expectancy instead of being rare past 50.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:56 PM

It will be interesting to see how the gaystapo advances next against churches.

They’ll probably go after tax exempt status for churches at some point.

Since clergy can be claimed to be to some small degree an agent of the state in that they can administer/validate marriage licenses if that’s next: if the baker cannot deny a gay wedding cake how can a priest?

gwelf on March 5, 2014 at 3:56 PM

The one thing I know for sure is that this is the closest I’ve ever seen the RCC come to condoning sin.

gryphon202 on March 5, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Pope Farncis is the Obama of the Catholic Church.

RovesChins on March 5, 2014 at 3:58 PM

20 years ago saying that gays should be allowed to “marry” would have gotten an almost universally HOSTILE reaction from the audience.

10 years ago they started condoning Civil Unions.

Today states are having gay “marriage” forced on them by unelected Federal Judges, and Christians are being forced to provide services against their will to them.

It’s no great stretch to believe that the next phase will be forcing Churches to service them too.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:49 PM

20 years ago the gay community was hostile to “gay marriage”.
Gay icon Harvey Milk hated it.

But agreeing with the gay community of 20 years ago and Obama of 2 years ago now makes you a vicious hater not fit for society.

gwelf on March 5, 2014 at 3:58 PM

t will be interesting to see how the gaystapo advances next against churches.

They’ll probably go after tax exempt status for churches at some point.

Since clergy can be claimed to be to some small degree an agent of the state in that they can administer/validate marriage licenses if that’s next: if the baker cannot deny a gay wedding cake how can a priest?

gwelf on March 5, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Going after Churches is clearly next. They won’t be happy, well, they will NEVER be happy, but I digress, they won’t be “satisfied” until they DESTROY our institutions.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:58 PM

That is insufficient to please the gay agenda. Tolerance is insufficient, they must be ACCEPTED. Acceptance is insufficient, they must be “NORMAL”. “Normal” is insufficient, they must be SUPERIOR.

You get the picture. The whole gay “marriage” movement is about forcing heterosexuals to recognize their lifestyle as “normal”. When it clearly is not. I still believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder. It clearly is not normal, for if it were, it’d produce children, and male homosexuals would live a normal life expectancy instead of being rare past 50.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Slightly OT:

Doesn’t this put to lie the theory of Darwinian evolution? The central tenet of Darwinian evolution is that traits which make individuals more likely to reproduce will supplant those traits which make individuals less likely to reproduce. Just sayin.

gryphon202 on March 5, 2014 at 3:58 PM

individual priests already been sued for not taking part in this stuff.
it didn’t go anywheres but that strawman turned into a real man about 2 years ago.

dmacleo on March 5, 2014 at 3:54 PM

All you need is a federal judge somewhere to declare homosexuality as a “protected class” and it’s game over.

gwelf on March 5, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Sorry… had to stop reading where you quote your “Christian” friend. Whatever she may think she is, she is not a Christian. Christians are tolerant and loving, but they don’t embrace sin.

tyketto on March 5, 2014 at 4:00 PM

The numbers that really grabbed me, though, come from another recent poll on SSM conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute. Can this really be true?
=========

***************** TransFormational Change of America ******************!!

canopfor on March 5, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Get the government out of it entirely.

Marriage was never part of Caeser’s realm. It’s a Union between a Man and a Woman witnessed by God.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:52 PM

The point is that marriages can ONLY be performed by the church, keeping the religious aspect of marriage. The government would only have something to say about unions (or whatever you want to call it, except marriage) then you have your separation of church and state. I mean are they more concerned about legal rights or a name?

Sven on March 5, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Today is Ash Wednesday.

Just when I was teetering on whether to go to the Ash Wed. service, despite all the bs and hypocrisy of the CC and how it is worshipping the poor and too materialistic and becoming secular, another thing from this Pope that leads me that my hunch is correct.

What’s the point?

As Christianity goes so goes the country.

You can’t have limited government if nothing is a sin. You simply cannot have a country of more self-government.

The legal/social/fiscal/foreignpolicy is all related and linked.

We are watching the CC become a rationalization cult.

KirknBurker on March 5, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Well, Team WH and the MSM, have successfully changed the NARRATIVE/NARRATION
on everything LGBT,…in less than five years!!

UnBoinkyBeLievable!!!!!!!!

canopfor on March 5, 2014 at 4:03 PM

I can’t stand it when I hear people who profess to be Christians who say things like “I’m a Christian/Catholic and I support gay marriage and abortion rights.”

antifederalist on March 5, 2014 at 3:29 PM

You have my sympathy, since the rest of your life is going to go pretty badly. 90% of the Jews and the Christians I know support marriage equality.

thuja on March 5, 2014 at 4:04 PM

“Just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those who oppose it. The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ constitutionally protected right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution. The Church is also entitled to maintain its standards of moral conduct and good standing for members.

Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.

While these matters will continue to evolve, we affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same-sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully. The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree.

As members of the Church, we are responsible to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to illuminate the great blessings that flow from heeding God’s commandments as well as the inevitable consequences of ignoring them. We invite you to pray that people everywhere will have their hearts softened to the truths of the gospel, and that wisdom will be granted to those who are called upon to decide issues critical to society’s future.”

My (non-Catholic) church’s position on SSM.

NativeTexan on March 5, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Doesn’t this put to lie the theory of Darwinian evolution? The central tenet of Darwinian evolution is that traits which make individuals more likely to reproduce will supplant those traits which make individuals less likely to reproduce. Just sayin.

gryphon202 on March 5, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Homosexuality is obviously an UNDESIRABLE trait because it does not lead to the reproduction of the species.

It is only modern civilization that makes it possible for them to exist today. Their means of “reproduction” in fact, REQUIRES modern civilization… (ie: schools and pop culture, ie, things that can only BE INDULGED IN because of frivolity enabled by modern technology)

It is clearly either a mental disorder or a genetic defect that causes homosexuality.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Does the Eastern, or Greek Orthodox Church still hold to traditional doctrine?

I really don’t know because I’ve never attended Mass there. That is the Church that is closest to Catholicism, and in fact used to be part of it, before Constantinople split from Rome in 1054 over an argument over who outranked whom…

The core doctrine is pretty much the same and the liturgy is very similar, though the dates on the church calendar vary.

Theadora on March 5, 2014 at 4:06 PM

I think there’s the usual exaggeration on the media’s part. I’ll wait to read and hear the Catholic media take on it, like that from Catholic Answers.

Ward Cleaver on March 5, 2014 at 4:06 PM

MeanWhile,…….:

Retweeted by Reuters Top News
Reuters Business ‏@ReutersBiz 51m

Equality aside, filing jointly isn’t for all gay couples http://reut.rs/1ia4JXs
Expand
========

Equality aside, filing jointly isn’t for all gay couples

By Beth Pinsker
NEW YORK Wed Mar 5, 2014 2:54pm EST
************************************

(Reuters) – Same-sex couples have a new right to celebrate in April, when they can file joint federal tax returns for the first time.

It might actually make sense for some couples to stay asunder in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service, even though the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act in June 2013. Tax experts say only about 5 percent of married couples file separately because of significant downsides such as limited itemized deductions and a much higher tax bite, but it may work out better than filing jointly in specific circumstances.

“Many couples see the pain, going from two singles to married,” said Terry Durkin, director of the National Association of Enrolled Agents.

Here’s what married couples, regardless of gender, need to consider as they decide how to file their taxes in 2014:(More……)
========================================================

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/05/us-taxes-married-advice-idUSBREA241WX20140305?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews

canopfor on March 5, 2014 at 4:06 PM

Here’s a take, and I think it’s fairly accurate:

I am fairly certain the Church is okay with civil unions, and always has been, even given one simple caveat: that the man and woman (or honestly, a same sex couple?…really unsure there for reasons I’ve not explicitly stated) in such an arrangement will live together as brother and sister (i.e. no sexual relations since those are reserved for those who are married). FULL DISCLOSURE: I, as a Catholic, also do not recognize living arrangements/agreements between same-sex couples as a marriage in any way, shape or form, just to be clear here on the use of the word “married”.

That being said, if a couple chooses a civil union as opposed to marriage, then I am not sure why the Church would oppose those provided the caveat above. Remember, the Church is interested in fostering Christ’s message of salvation for all…because God loves us all so much he wants us to be with Him for all eternity in Heaven. If a man and woman are called to such a state of life, then I don’t see why the Church would be against it. I am thinking here of two divorcees who decide to come together but understand that unless their previous marriages are annulled, they cannot (lawfully…God’s law as understood by the Catholic Church) consumate their new relationship. If you’re already married and get divorced, the divorce is only recognized by the state and not the Church (unless the Church has reason to say the marriage was never valid in the first place and hence never really existed). I hope this makes sense.

I am not sure why this is news, unless (as others have stated) the media is spinning it.

RI_Red on March 5, 2014 at 4:07 PM

I mean are they more concerned about legal rights or a name?

Sven on March 5, 2014 at 4:01 PM

They’re concerned about getting laws passed that affirm their moral choices so they can use govt power to attack and repress those – individuals and religious organizations – that publicly disagree.

kcewa on March 5, 2014 at 4:07 PM

Coming soon: Ghey Mafia sues Church that refuses to perform gay “weddings”.

You know it will happen. Christians can already be compelled to bake cakes or photograph these “events” against our will, next we’ll be forced to allow them to use our Houses of Worship.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:38 PM

That’s some epic strawman right there.

JetBoy on March 5, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Just because you might not go there doesn’t mean someone else won’t.

Bitter Clinger on March 5, 2014 at 4:07 PM

You mean Catholicism is more socially liberal than Protestant evangelism?

The deuce you say!

Add to that, this is a South American social justice advocate, and you Catholics will be lucky if he doesn’t end up riding on a Pride float.

HugoDrax on March 5, 2014 at 4:07 PM

You have my sympathy, since the rest of your life is going to go pretty badly. 90% of the Jews and the Christians I know support marriage equality.

thuja on March 5, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Oh, so you associate with people who you demonize as idiots and fools because they have religious beliefs?

northdallasthirty on March 5, 2014 at 4:08 PM

You have my sympathy, since the rest of your life is going to go pretty badly. 90% of the Jews and the Christians I know support marriage equality.

thuja on March 5, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Meaning you probably don’t know many.

And even so, that doesn’t make them right as far the faith goes.

Bitter Clinger on March 5, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Remove the word “even” from my first sentence. Missed that in my proof-read.

RI_Red on March 5, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Just because you might not go there doesn’t mean someone else won’t.

Bitter Clinger on March 5, 2014 at 4:07 PM

And JetBoy will go there anyway, so it’s rather beside the point.

northdallasthirty on March 5, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Add to that, this is a South American social justice advocate, and you Catholics will be lucky if he doesn’t end up riding on a Pride float.

HugoDrax on March 5, 2014 at 4:07 PM

I hope not. I keep trying to believe that stories like this are deliberate media distortions, but it’s getting increasingly difficult to do so.

I absolutely believe in Catholic Doctrine. The Pope is a man, just like any other of us, is as flawed as the rest of us. He can be wrong, and about this, he clearly is.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Pope Farncis is the Obama of the Catholic Church.

RovesChins on March 5, 2014 at 3:58 PM

…I don’t think he ran on HOPE ‘n CHANGE…and I wonder what the other Bishops are feeling about their votes……………now!

KOOLAID2 on March 5, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Get the government out of it entirely.

Marriage was never part of Caeser’s realm. It’s a Union between a Man and a Woman witnessed by God.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:52 PM

+1

LaughterJones on March 5, 2014 at 4:10 PM

The percentage of people in this country who prefer a deviation of their natural sexuality – and hence require normalcy attached to it – is in the 3-4% of total population range. Those that deviate from the male-female natural order and intend to “marry” a same sex person is estimated at 50-60% of their population.
Its fringe minority – regardless of how much Liberal Pravda media coverage they get. The numbers are not there to suggest mainstream normalcy.
.
Everyone is not gay.
.
The Pope should (does)have bigger Fish to fry. (Pun intended)

FlaMurph on March 5, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Homosexuality is obviously an UNDESIRABLE trait because it does not lead to the reproduction of the species.

It is only modern civilization that makes it possible for them to exist today. Their means of “reproduction” in fact, REQUIRES modern civilization… (ie: schools and pop culture, ie, things that can only BE INDULGED IN because of frivolity enabled by modern technology)

It is clearly either a mental disorder or a genetic defect that causes homosexuality.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Agreed. I think the next DSM (DSM-6) will be only about five pages long. The only thing defined as a mental illness will be Christianity. Everything else – bestiality, pedophilia, incest – will be considered “normal”.

Ward Cleaver on March 5, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Dominus vobiscum

Schadenfreude on March 5, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Agreed. I think the next DSM (DSM-6) will be only about five pages long. The only thing defined as a mental illness will be Christianity. Everything else – bestiality, pedophilia, incest – will be considered “normal”.

Ward Cleaver on March 5, 2014 at 4:11 PM

That is clearly coming next. Pedophilia and incest will be legal in a Blue State near you within the next decade. And it’ll be legal in YOUR state soon as they can get it in front of a federal judge.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Coming soon: Ghey Mafia sues Church that refuses to perform gay “weddings”.
You know it will happen. Christians can already be compelled to bake cakes or photograph these “events” against our will, next we’ll be forced to allow them to use our Houses of Worship.
ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:38 PM

That’s some epic strawman right there.
JetBoy on March 5, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Oh, it’s coming. All it will take is one lawsuit in front of the right judge and that can of worms will be opened. And don’t make the mistake of believing that there aren’t people out there that want to go after the church and will use this as a weapon to do so. Just because you are content to let the Church “set the rules in its own house” to quote AP doesn’t mean that everybody is.

Shadow on March 5, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Sing us some Natural Blues

Murphy9 on March 5, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Sede vacante…

mumbojumbo on March 5, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Oh, it’s coming. All it will take is one lawsuit in front of the right judge and that can of worms will be opened. And don’t make the mistake of believing that there aren’t people out there that want to go after the church and will use this as a weapon to do so. Just because you are content to let the Church “set the rules in its own house” to quote AP doesn’t mean that everybody is.

Shadow on March 5, 2014 at 4:12 PM

An all powerful government by it’s very definition recognizes no limits on it’s authority. And liberals are NEVER content to leave anyone alone. ALL must be controlled.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 4:13 PM

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:25 PM

I’m Catholic too-and this pope has left me wanting. A leftist pope doesn’t do it for me. How I wish that we had Benedict back.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 5, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Are you really questioning the “will” of God?

mazer9 on March 5, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Next he will approve homosexual marriage… This a liberal communist Pope, make no doubt about it… If liberals love him then he is bad… This is the Golden Rule… Whatever or whoever liberals love then it is bad without any doubt…

mnjg on March 5, 2014 at 4:14 PM

I don’t know how you’re going to resolve this with the Most High Exalted One you’re representing, your Eminence.
.
.
He’s more than made it clear that homosexuality IS “abnormal”, . . . period.

listens2glenn on March 5, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Meanwhile, back home in the U.S., 59 percent now support legalizing gay marriage versus 34 percent who oppose it. Those who “strongly” oppose it are down to 24 percent, the first time in ABC/WaPo’s polling that that number has dipped below 30. The numbers that really grabbed me, though, come from another recent poll on SSM conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute. Can this really be true?

Not for it. Never will be. But I know when I’ve been defeated. The courts will not stop until its the law of the land. At this point the gays should stop pushing and enjoy the victory- but we all know that wont happen.

As to the Pope. It’s becoming clear he’s a hippie.

I don’t think he, or many, understand the mood of the real (the seven day a week mass old ladies who I’m sure make up the bulk of their annual income) Catholic Church which is decidedly NOT lib. They do not like what they see going on with the church and the country. They’re looking for someone to defend the church. And plenty of conspiracy theorist are more than happy to fill that void.

Sit & have lunch with a group of elderly devote Catholic women. Open your ears & I’m sure you’ll hear all about the illuminati and the “Masonic New World Order” before the salad plates are clear. This isn’t good for them; and more importantly it’s not good for the church, Holy Father.

frank on March 5, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Yes.. The Catholic Church could tolerate civil unions. There is a difference between the Sacrament of matrimony as defined by the Church and civil marriage as defined by the state. The Church doesn’t allow Catholics to remarry and bans those that do from the Sacraments. (The current “hot” debate in the Catholic Church is whether to allow a 75-year-old granny who divorced and remarried in the 1960s and has been a daily Mass goer since then to receive Communion.) There are also these weird rules for what constitutes a valid sacramental marriage like the idea of form; two Protestants can get married on the beach in Cancun and their marriage is valid while a wedding in the same location by two Catholics doesn’t constitute a marriage. In fact, because of the Catholic rules on marriage, it is easier for them to accept civil marriages or unions. Not every marriage between a man and a woman meets the Catholic definition of matrimony.

As a sidenote, the more beffudling thing about the interview should be the whiny and defensive tone that Pope Francis took toward the abuse scandal. I’m way more concerned about that than whether or not Pope Francis is totally okay with Joe and Steve, two Unitarians, contracting a civil marriage.

Illinidiva on March 5, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Are you really questioning the “will” of God?

mazer9 on March 5, 2014 at 4:13 PM

God didn’t insist on perfect Kings in Israel either.

Maybe Pope Francis is a test of Faith?

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Are you really questioning the “will” of God?

mazer9 on March 5, 2014 at 4:13 PM

It sounds like she’s questioning the “free will” choices of some of God’s children.

Kensington on March 5, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Coming soon: Ghey Mafia sues Church that refuses to perform gay “weddings”.

You know it will happen. Christians can already be compelled to bake cakes or photograph these “events” against our will, next we’ll be forced to allow them to use our Houses of Worship.

ConstantineXI on March 5, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Remember the Catholic Church really likes Obamacare except for the mandates that affect them. They don’t mind the mandates on us, but they want to be exempt from the parts they don’t like. Gay marriage will probably be the same for them. They will support a secular version that gives them a religious exemption from lawsuits, but the baker and candlestick maker won’t get those protections.

Wigglesworth on March 5, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Even if you’re not religious, the speed at which our society is changing at its most basic foundations should be terrifying to most people. But curiously, it’s not. Who knows what impact this will have on (not so distant) future generations? I weep.

ncinca on March 5, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Only 22 percent of gay-marriage opponents know that most Americans now support the practice? That makes me wonder if, as some SSM supporters (like me) expected, the rash of high-profile court decisions has convinced opponents that legalization is a purely top-down phenomenon imposed by cultural elites rather than something that’s gained wide popular acceptance.

Maybe they don’t trust the polls, because they know how easy it is to manipulate the polling results by phrasing the questions just right?

SSM in particular is highly sensitive to how the question is asked. The result can easily swing from a majority in favor to a majority opposed, just by phrasing the question differently.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 5, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Are you really questioning the “will” of God?

mazer9 on March 5, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

1 John 4:1-6

Unlike gay-sex marriage supporters, Christians are not believers in blind obedience.

northdallasthirty on March 5, 2014 at 4:20 PM

A Christian friend who supports gay marriage has always insisted to me that there’s no real contradiction between her faith and her views on SSM. Religion has its sphere and civil society has its sphere; so long as the Church gets to set the rules in its own house, i.e. by not having to recognize or perform same-sex marriages, it can be agnostic about which sorts of relationships the government chooses to legally recognize.

She’s deceived herself, of course. You can’t believe that homosexuality is wrong while simultaneously pushing for the normalization of it through marriage.

At any rate, there are always those who self-identify as Christians while clinging to the opposite of what the Christian faith teaches. Rationalization on their part is no substitute for a clear understanding of Christian doctrine.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 5, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Unlike gay-sex marriage supporters, Christians are not believers in blind obedience.

northdallasthirty on March 5, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Lol. Talk about irony.

mazer9 on March 5, 2014 at 4:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4