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 think that’s right, actually. Biblical Christians clearly see an America which makes Sodom and Gomorrah sound like a sane and responsible society, and wish to have almost nothing to do with our sickening culture. Christians, by and large, take no credit nor blame for the lawless, immoral pagan/Democrats who run the government and all of its institutions.

And I think many of us couldn’t care less what the pagans do. Acknowledge sin; repent of it sincerely, or languish in it until your eternal damnation. But no, we won’t call it “marriage”.

Jaibones on March 5, 2014 at 6:07 PM

I agree with kingjester: that’s “spot on”.

Lourdes on March 5, 2014 at 6:36 PM

I love the way your buddy handles dissenting opinion. A model for us all, he is. Anyhoo…the best way to deal with trolls is to not feed them. You’ll notice I very rarely call anyone a troll…I can’t even remember the last commenter I even labelled as such.

Anyway…moving on…

JetBoy on March 5, 2014 at 6:07 PM

Yeah I know. I also know that he has gone after you pretty hard, so I understand your point. As for him being caustic, I can’t complain about that, since I have no problem speaking my mind. I apparently have been “degenerating into borderline hate speech.” Bwaaaahhhaaa.

melle1228 on March 5, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Lourdes on March 5, 2014 at 6:24 PM

Somehow I do not recall you being so reasonable.
Interesting. Might start reading your posts again.

astonerii on March 5, 2014 at 6:35 PM

My views haven’t changed, my faith hasn’t, either. Perhaps you misjudged me on previous occasions, my views and all.

Lourdes on March 5, 2014 at 6:39 PM

alchemist19 on March 5, 2014 at 5:38 PM

I thought you got banned recently?

Lanceman on March 5, 2014 at 6:41 PM

alchemist19 on March 5, 2014 at 5:38 PM

I thought you got banned recently?

Lanceman on March 5, 2014 at 6:41 PM

My mistake, that was fannyBandit13.

The numbers threw me.

Lanceman on March 5, 2014 at 6:43 PM

ND30 continually says that all gays march to the same drummer, which is totally false. Thirty percent of gays and lesbians consistently vote Republican. ND30 is gay and lives in San Francisco and I can only believe that his comments are tainted by what he sees in San Francisco. That said, the Gay Rights Movement is sadly dominated by the left. Those who are gay and on the right, should stand up and defend the rights of Christians everywhere.

SC.Charlie on March 5, 2014 at 6:43 PM

going to be a losing fight for the Catholic Church.

Illinidiva on March 5, 2014 at 4:29 PM

Pope Francis, despite his socially-gregarious personality, has again affirmed what the Church’s views on marriage are, not to mention other socially-popular but not Christian-sponsored/inspired activities.

The Church isn’t going to change. Unless there’s some “new Bible” written to replace the original one and until Christ returns among us, there’s nothing in Christianity that supports “changing” because something’s socially popular but is contrary to Biblical instructions.

Lourdes on March 5, 2014 at 6:43 PM

Or he could really just be really fed up with idiots saying they represent him.
melle1228 on March 5, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Yep.

Alchemist19, thuja, and JetBoy all insist that any gay person who doesn’t agree with them is mentally ill, an Uncle Tom, self-loathing, etc. — and then, when confronted with examples of what the gay and lesbian community endorses and supports, start going on about how not all gays and lesbians agree and so forth.

So they try to use individual thought as an excuse when they’ve claimed that individual thought among gays makes you a race traitor.

It’s really nothing but agenda. They’re antireligious bigots who want to use the state to punish religious believers. They’re motivated by the same “concern” as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

northdallasthirty on March 5, 2014 at 6:45 PM

The Church either must change or it will die. Literally. Older conservative Catholics are dying off, and younger people want a more welcoming, less judgmental Church.

Do you not know the meaning of the word “catholic?” How obnoxious–and shortsighted–that the the Christian rightwingers here are dumping all over Pope Francis, mainly because he’s trying to deal with the realities of a changing world.

If there is anything one learns from HA, is that the majority of its far-right conservatives either have no desire or no ability to accept reality.

But it’s nice to know that, in addition to knowing better than everyone in DC, you now know better than the Pope.

Meredith on March 5, 2014 at 4:36 PM

The church may decline. It will not die. God has always reserved a remnant for Himself.

A “more welcoming, less judgmental church”. Sounds nice. Except that’s not what sinners want. They want the church to accept, promote, and even celebrate sinful behavior like homosexuality, because sinners are in open rebellion to God and hate His law. The church cannot condone the behavior and preach God’s word at the same time.

The church should always welcome sinners. They need the Gospel preached to them, and they need to be told what sin is. This means confronting them with uncomfortable truths, in this case that homosexuality is an abominable sin in God’s eyes, but forgiveness is offered through the work of Jesus Christ.

You’re right, the reality is that many homosexuals wish to redefine what God has established. Perhaps fighting this politically is a losing battle. But the moment we condone the behavior we cease fulfilling our Great Commission.

Christians aren’t fighting SSM because of a desire to deny people the ability to marry, despite the fact that it isn’t actually marriage. They’re fighting back because the homosexual lobby will not be satisfied with “live and let live”, they have proven that they will not rest until conservative Christians are forced to accept their lifestyle and punished for calling it what is is…sin.

TheMightyMonarch on March 5, 2014 at 6:45 PM

jaxisaneurophysicist on March 5, 2014 at 6:05 PM

BTW, if you are going to accuse someone of “hate speech;” then you had better come with examples other than someone calling you a dumbazz, precious..

melle1228 on March 5, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Sigh…I will wait till Sunday for Ed’s post for some good vibes and thoughtful comments on the subject of religion. Just sigh as far as this thread is concerned.

HonestLib on March 5, 2014 at 6:35 PM

Ed commented in the greenroom:

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2014/03/05/vatican-pope-francis-wasnt-talking-about-same-sex-relationships/

gwelf on March 5, 2014 at 6:49 PM

Yeah I know. I also know that he has gone after you pretty hard, so I understand your point. As for him being caustic, I can’t complain about that, since I have no problem speaking my mind. I apparently have been “degenerating into borderline hate speech.” Bwaaaahhhaaa.

melle1228 on March 5, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Going after me pretty hard (giggety?) I can take. Outright lies about me are another story. Which is why I honestly wouldn’t believe one word of his. But again, enough of the troll.

I’m right there with you on speaking your mind…I do the same. I’d rather be straight forward (pardon the pun) than beat around the bush (eww!)

Oh, brother…I need to stop :P It’s Lent.

JetBoy on March 5, 2014 at 6:50 PM

Oh, brother…I need to stop :P It’s Lent.

JetBoy on March 5, 2014 at 6:50 PM

Good luck with what you are giving up. :)

melle1228 on March 5, 2014 at 6:53 PM

This issue always drives me crazy. The world seems to be ignoring the significant differences between “marriage” and “civil unions.” Every person reading this that is married, also has a civil union. We know them more formally as a “marriage license.” We all have to get those before we can get married, right?

Meanwhile, the many gay friends and relatives I’ve talked to have helped me understand and support my following assertion: Gay marriage, on the surface, has nothing to do about equality of love. It has everything to do about equal legal representation. Access to property after the death of a partner, the ability to visit a loved on in the hospital, the ability to get insurance coverage, the ability to sue for alimony, the ability to adopt. None of that has to do with a “war on love”, but this is a much more emotional and ratings generating theme, so they run with that.

Churches provide marriages. The gay community doesn’t want/need that. It wants legal equality, and this can be accomplished via civil unions. Then, we can fight to defend the religious term of “marriage” while letting people have access to the legal and financial resources that traditional couples have. Let boutique, niche gay-friendly churches provide fun ceremonies for whomever wants them. But at the end of the day, it comes down to money and property.

TheLoudTalker on March 5, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Gonna have me arrested for hate crime? HeyDumbazz (hateful enough for you) if you followed my posts as well as your lunatic rant says you do then you would know that the state should be OUT OF MARRIAGE all together.

right.

you claim to support no state regulation of marriage when it suits your immediate argument, but until that time, it’s far more appropriate for those bigoted gays — while FOADing with their whiny bi+ch selves! — to keep their unicorn experiments away from the poor children whose lives it is destroying.

your choice of argument-du-jour is nearly as volatile as your mood.

in any event, i appreciate the fine demonstration of your love for dissenting opinions.

a second grader would handle objection with more poise and class.

jaxisaneurophysicist on March 5, 2014 at 7:03 PM

The state can’t force the Catholic Church to recognize a secular, legal divorce…any more than secular, legal gay marriage or civil union can be forced upon it.
JetBoy on March 5, 2014 at 5:26 PM

I love it when gay-sex marriage supporters insist that the law protects you when they so clearly violate it left and right.

A House committee investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of right-leaning groups has identified the IRS agent who leaked the confidential donor list of the National Organization for Marriage, a conservative organization that opposes gay marriage. NOM’s donor list, contained in a Form 990 Schedule B, which it is required by law to file with the IRS, was obtained in March 2012 by its chief political opponent, the Human Rights Campaign, and subsequently became the subject of several national news stories that centered on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s donation to the group.

And in the ultimate irony:

The Supreme Court ruled in the landmark 1958 case National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama that organizations like NOM have the right to keep their membership and donor lists private. Alabama, after seeking to banish the NAACP from the state, demanded a list of the group’s members, including their names and addresses. The Court ruled that forcing private groups to disclose that information interfered with their ability to “pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate feely with others” and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. “It may induce members to withdraw from the Association and dissuade others from joining it because of fear of exposure of their beliefs shown through their associations and of the consequences of this exposure,” wrote Justice John Marshall Harlan.

So the gay-sex marriage bigots are claiming that they won’t violate our First Amendment rights when they’re already blatantly violating them in the name of pushing gay-sex marriage.

northdallasthirty on March 5, 2014 at 7:03 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.

She may be “religious”, but she is obviously not a Christian, AP (unless words have no meaning) It would be like saying “My friend is a black who supports segregation, but insists there’s no real contradiction between his faith and his views on cross burning”.

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

Get to the back of the bus, Christians? You can have a viewpoint, but you’re not allowed to participate in building and maintaining the country you established and live in? Pass on that, thank you very much.

whatcat on March 5, 2014 at 7:04 PM

right.

you claim to support no state regulation of marriage when it suits your immediate argument, but until that time, it’s far more appropriate for those bigoted gays — while FOADing with their whiny bi+ch selves! — to keep their unicorn experiments away from the poor children whose lives it is destroying.

your choice of argument-du-jour is nearly as volatile as your mood.

in any event, i appreciate the fine demonstration of your love for dissenting opinions.

a second grader would handle objection with more poise and class.

jaxisaneurophysicist on March 5, 2014 at 7:03 PM

What the hell are you ranting about? I don’t think you know, sweet pea.

melle1228 on March 5, 2014 at 7:05 PM

jaxisaneurophysicist on March 5, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Btw, you can call me a bi+ch without writing a book…

melle1228 on March 5, 2014 at 7:05 PM

I don’t know how protestants cannot see the incoherence of their position. It is so obvious.

How do you know what books are inspired? Have you read all books ever written? Is the canon closed? Why? Why not? Is the book of Mormon inspired? Why not? How can you tell a Mormon that it isn’t? How is his authentication worse than yours?

Sola scriptura is simply incoherent.

GoDucks on March 5, 2014 at 5:06 PM

Circular reasoning.

If The Bible is God’s word, what trumps The Bible?

If extra-Biblical revelation contradicts the Bible, which is true?

We must hold to the rock of Scripture, to do otherwise is to make Scripture meaningless.

TheMightyMonarch on March 5, 2014 at 7:09 PM

He’s not saying that Dan Savage represents every gay person but your side won’t even acknowledge he exists and has a lot of influence and that the most vocal and powerful elements of the gay lobby – culturally and legally – are driven by hatred, revenge, bigotry etc.

gwelf on March 5, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Dan Savage exists. There, I did something you said I wouldn’t do.

I don’t claim to know how much influence a single individual a single columnist has. I don’t claim to know if vocal and powerful elements of any lobby are motivated by revenge or anything else. It’s tempting to assign motives or extend the statements of a few to be reflective of the attitudes of the larger group and I admit I’m probably guilty of this myself from time to time but that doesn’t mean it’s right.

alchemist19 on March 5, 2014 at 7:11 PM

I thought you got banned recently?

Lanceman on March 5, 2014 at 6:41 PM

That would be news to me. :)

Clearly I’m not afraid to mix it up or stand up for a principle even if it goes against the grain, but I don’t curse and on the occasions where discussion degenerates a bit I tend to get far worse than I give. The fact Hot Gas tolerates dissenting voices is one of its strengths; you don’t learn much talking to people you already agree with, and it’s when you can be challenged to think about and defend your positions on issues that you grow intellectually. That’s why this place is ten times nicer than Red State ever thought about being.

alchemist19 on March 5, 2014 at 7:16 PM

That would be news to me. :)

Clearly I’m not afraid to mix it up or stand up for a principle even if it goes against the grain, but I don’t curse and on the occasions where discussion degenerates a bit I tend to get far worse than I give. The fact Hot Gas tolerates dissenting voices is one of its strengths; you don’t learn much talking to people you already agree with, and it’s when you can be challenged to think about and defend your positions on issues that you grow intellectually. That’s why this place is ten times nicer than Red State ever thought about being.

alchemist19 on March 5, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Then you definitely need to be banned. :)

melle1228 on March 5, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Lanceman on March 5, 2014 at 6:43 PM

Ah. I don’t remember seeing that one so I can’t say that I’ll miss them.

alchemist19 on March 5, 2014 at 7:18 PM

Dan Savage exists. There, I did something you said I wouldn’t do.

I don’t claim to know how much influence a single individual a single columnist has. I don’t claim to know if vocal and powerful elements of any lobby are motivated by revenge or anything else. It’s tempting to assign motives or extend the statements of a few to be reflective of the attitudes of the larger group and I admit I’m probably guilty of this myself from time to time but that doesn’t mean it’s right.

alchemist19 on March 5, 2014 at 7:11 PM

You don’t remember the H8 directed at pro traditional marriage supporters during the prop 8 fiasco in CA? There was grafiti, blacklisting of people from their professions, boycotting of businesses, etc.

And the gay lobby regularly and obviously deals in hatred towards it’s targets. This is undeniable.

gwelf on March 5, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Dan Savage exists. There, I did something you said I wouldn’t do.

I don’t claim to know how much influence a single individual a single columnist has. I don’t claim to know if vocal and powerful elements of any lobby are motivated by revenge or anything else. It’s tempting to assign motives or extend the statements of a few to be reflective of the attitudes of the larger group and I admit I’m probably guilty of this myself from time to time but that doesn’t mean it’s right.

alchemist19 on March 5, 2014 at 7:11 PM

You don’t remember the H8 directed at pro traditional marriage supporters during the prop 8 fiasco in CA? There was grafiti, blacklisting of people from their professions, boycotting of businesses, etc.

And the gay lobby regularly and obviously deals in hatred towards it’s targets. This is undeniable.

gwelf on March 5, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Take, for example, the most recent kerfuffle in AZ.
The media went nuts, the gay lobby went nuts.
Jim Crow for gays!1!!!!1!!!
Homophobes running rampant in AZ1!!!1!!!

No opportunity to willfully mischaracterize and defame and demonize is passed up. Certainly, gays have been oppressed in certain ways by our culture but unfortunately it looks like a large majority of the gay community – and certainly the liberal elites – have become the thing they hated. Now they are consumed by hatred and animus and will use any means necessary to marginalize others, shut them up and drive them out of the public square.

gwelf on March 5, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Certainly, gays have been oppressed in certain ways by our culture but unfortunately it looks like a large majority of the gay community – and certainly the liberal elites – have become the thing they hated. Now they are consumed by hatred and animus and will use any means necessary to marginalize others, shut them up and drive them out of the public square.

gwelf on March 5, 2014 at 7:28 PM

There are good reasons they were peer pressured into the closet in the past. Those reasons have never gone away. Just now they are back out in plain sight and it is not very pretty, is it?

astonerii on March 5, 2014 at 7:33 PM

I don’t claim to know how much influence a single individual a single columnist has. I don’t claim to know if vocal and powerful elements of any lobby are motivated by revenge or anything else.
alchemist19 on March 5, 2014 at 7:11 PM

Eh, more that you would prefer not to acknowledge it.

And given that these gay-sex marriage supporters wish death on Christians and conservatives, it’s pretty obvious that they’re motivated by hate and bigotry.

northdallasthirty on March 5, 2014 at 7:34 PM

All of those questions were answered before the first pope ever came along. The foundation of the church were the apostles and prophets. The New Testament was complete before all the apostles were dead. John, in fact, wrote the last book — Revelations. Peter recognized Paul’s epistles as scripture. Paul wrote to the Galatians that they should not accept any preaching that contradicted the gospel he had preached. Jude wrote to everyone (general epistle) to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 5, 2014 at 5:29 PM

All of these questions were answered before the first Pope ever came along? Umm… think about that one for a second. (Peter was the first Pope.)

I knew somebody would raise that claim, but a) it’s a Catholic claim that I don’t accept — as it would have to be, since nobody else has a pope, and b) regardless of the attempt to claim Peter as the first Pope, the office of pope didn’t really exist until about the 3rd or 4th century AD, and the idea that the bishop of Rome had some authority over the rest of the church was clearly not widely accepted by the time of Constantine. The early church did not have a pope, and did not consider the church at Rome to have a position of leadership over the other churches. If anything, the churches that Paul founded — you do remember that he was the apostle who first went to Rome — were modeled after the churches (plural) in Judea.

Even someone who thoroughly believes that the Catholic church is the church of God should still be able to admit that much of the Catholic doctrine was instituted long after the New Testament was complete. The papacy as it exists today is a good example of that.

You say: the foundation of the church is the Apostles and prophets. That sounds awfully Catholic (i.e. you are appealing to the Church to determine scripture).

Paul identifies the church as being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone, in Eph 2:20. Peter also identified Jesus as the foundation stone.

You say, the NT was complete before the Apostles were dead. You are begging the question because your premise assumes what the NT does and does not contain. Apparently you’ve read all the books written from the death and resurrection of Our Lord until the death of the last apostle, which date you know for certain.

The New Testament that we have was all written before the last apostle died. No need to rely on an organization that came much later.

You can’t say the book of Mormon is not scriptural by appealing to scripture. That again is circular reasoning. What if early christians applied that logic? How were they to know when the canon closed? Is that in the Bible anywhere?

GoDucks on March 5, 2014 at 5:42 PM

Easily done. The book of Mormon contradicts the gospel that was preached by Paul, and by all the apostles. Gal 1:8-9 says clearly that if any man brings a new gospel, it is not of God. (“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed”

Frankly, heresies were rampant in the early church long before the New Testament was finished. Some of the New Testament took aim at some of those heresies, as in the case of the Judaizers that afflicted the Galatians when Paul left. One of the roles of the apostles was to identify what was heretical and reject it, though that was also the job of every Christian.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 5, 2014 at 7:45 PM

All of those questions were answered before the first pope ever came along. The foundation of the church were the apostles and prophets. The New Testament was complete before all the apostles were dead.

…wow, it’s not every day you see a christian’s ignorance extend so incomprehensibly into the domain of his own religion.

clearly, you know nothing absolutely nothing about how your scriptures developed and apparently even less about how the canon ultimately came to be.

jaxisaneurophysicist on March 5, 2014 at 5:33 PM

Accusations of ignorance with no substance behind them….

Atheist, perchance?

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 5, 2014 at 7:45 PM

You don’t remember the H8 directed at pro traditional marriage supporters during the prop 8 fiasco in CA?

Both sides gave about as good as they got, to my recollection.

There was grafiti,

Which is not excusable. Was it widespread or are we talking about a few isolated incidents in a state of about 35,000,000 people.

blacklisting of people from their professions,

Can you elaborate?

boycotting of businesses, etc.

I think the boycott is a legitimate tactic. I personally boycotted anything French when they pulled the stunts they did in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, and I haven’t touched a drop of Absolut vodka since they ran that ad in Mexico that showed them reconquering the entire southwestern United States. Do you think it was not okay for me to do that?

And the gay lobby regularly and obviously deals in hatred towards it’s targets. This is undeniable.

gwelf on March 5, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Let’s assume for a moment that this is true. Do you think the gay lobby, whatever it is, would say the opposition deals in hatred toward them?

alchemist19 on March 5, 2014 at 7:49 PM

The Church either must change or it will die. Literally. Older conservative Catholics are dying off, and younger people want a more welcoming, less judgmental Church.

Meredith on March 5, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Ha. Right. If you look at religious orders (nuns, monks, etc), it’s the conservative groups that are thriving while the liberal leaning orders are dying off – same with the next generation of priests and seminarians… definitely much more conservative. I know an order of sisters the grew from 4 to over 100 members in less than 10 yrs where the average age of the sisters is 26 – and an order of cloistered nuns who have had to start 4 new foundations in the last 20 years because they keep growing and running out of room in their monasteries…with most new sisters joining the order in their 20s – or even straight out of high school. I can give you many MANY more example if you’d like because your statement simply doesn’t fit reality.

As per making it a dichotomy between being conservative or being welcoming and ‘less judgemental’, you really don’t get it. Take some time to reflect on the quote ‘Truth without love is brutality, but love without truth is hypocrisy’ and you may understand a bit better.

miConsevative on March 5, 2014 at 7:58 PM

And the gay lobby regularly and obviously deals in hatred towards it’s targets. This is undeniable.

gwelf on March 5, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Let’s assume for a moment that this is true
alchemist19 on March 5, 2014

“Assume”? They even target “gays” who don’t agree with their demands -
Life on GLAAD’s Blacklist

whatcat on March 5, 2014 at 8:00 PM

So the gay-sex marriage bigots are claiming that they won’t violate our First Amendment rights when they’re already blatantly violating them in the name of pushing gay-sex marriage.

throwing around the word “bigot” while vacuously referring to “gay-sex marriage” is not a very endearing action.

…neither is conflating the entire community of gay marriage supporters with the actions of a rogue statist whose scandalous misconduct is nothing more than yet another act in a litany of liberals’ predilections for abusing the trappings of their authority.

it looks like a large majority of the gay community – and certainly the liberal elites – have become the thing they hated. Now they are consumed by hatred and animus and will use any means necessary to marginalize others, shut them up and drive them out of the public square.

“have become”? with no disrespect, it seems to me that artefactual animosity has always weighed heavy in the liberal elite’s bag, if you will. from the turn of the previous century, it seems that anger and hatred of differences have always been motivating factors for liberal activism. it’s always been difficult to separate liberal ideology from condescension and hatred…my fear, fairly justified if the commentariat here is any standard of measure, is that conservatives are falling into the same vicious cycles of reactionary enmity.

it’s certain that many members in good standing of the homosexual community are among the least politically tolerant of any cohesive political subculture: you should hear what a homosexual tells another homosexual who votes republican more often than not; i can assure you it’s not pleasant. that being said, surely there has been a “drift rightward” as homosexuality has become increasingly domesticated and right- or libertarian-leaning individuals become more comfortable with being open about their same-sex mates while maintaining their freedom-loving political dispositions.

it’s not fair to associate all the members of a group with a more distasteful subset — not that i think you’re necessarily doing that — and it’s also important, i think, to keep in mind that the more fully the right accepts same-sex relationships, the less likely it is that a young homosexual decide a priori, on the basis of his sexual orientation, to identify with the particular brand of intolerant mass psychosis associated to the left and the democratic party.

Get to the back of the bus, Christians? You can have a viewpoint, but you’re not allowed to participate in building and maintaining the country you established and live in? Pass on that, thank you very much.

christian soi-disant conservatives are always happy to bemoan the creeping statutory influence of others’ weltanschauungen…except when demanding that their governments refuse to recognise the desire of two males to harmlessly — socially beneficially, even — dedicate the rest of their lives to each other.

jaxisaneurophysicist on March 5, 2014 at 8:02 PM

Let’s assume for a moment that this is true. Do you think the gay lobby, whatever it is, would say the opposition deals in hatred toward them?

alchemist19 on March 5, 2014 at 7:49 PM

I’d say a small portion of the current opposition to SSM could reasonably be called hatred. The opposite is true for the larger SSM cause.

As for blacklisting – there was a Mormon in the theater biz in CA who was fired/forced to resign and black listed after it was revealed he donated money to a pro traditional marriage message supporting prop 8. Similar for a restaurant owner who donated money.

The blacklisting was certainly wrong.

And to a lesser degree I think that the boycotting is too. I think people in civil society should be willing to tolerate differences and still associate with each other. These people didn’t hate gay people. But they were treated as if they did. And it shows the central hypocrisy of the gay movement. The gay movement raises the sacred flags of “equality”, “tolerance”, and all the rest of it but don’t actually practice it. If the gay movement were public and open about their real stance of aggression and hatred and revenge and dropped the pose of “tolerance” and “wanting to be left alone” and “gay marriage doesn’t affect you” then that would be different. But they don’t because they’d lose most of their support.

gwelf on March 5, 2014 at 8:05 PM

“Assume”? They even target “gays” who don’t agree with their demands -
Life on GLAAD’s Blacklist

whatcat on March 5, 2014 at 8:00 PM

They also call for said gays to be stripped of their right to vote and to kill themselves.

And gay-sex marriage supporters regularly call non-liberal gays things like “Jewish Nazis” and whatnot.

northdallasthirty on March 5, 2014 at 8:07 PM

Ah, the hilarious hypocrisy of those who defend the gay-sex bigots.

it’s not fair to associate all the members of a group with a more distasteful subset — not that i think you’re necessarily doing that — and it’s also important, i think, to keep in mind that the more fully the right accepts same-sex relationships, the less likely it is that a young homosexual decide a priori, on the basis of his sexual orientation, to identify with the particular brand of intolerant mass psychosis associated to the left and the democratic party.

Followed by:

it’s certain that many members in good standing of the homosexual community are among the least politically tolerant of any cohesive political subculture: you should hear what a homosexual tells another homosexual who votes republican more often than not; i can assure you it’s not pleasant.

So the right should cave and become more accepting to attract gays, even though gays are psychotics who will brutalize and destroy any gay person who dares vote Republican.

One wonders why it’s Christians that have to change. Seems “jaxisaneurophysicist” doesn’t want to confront the “mass psychosis” typical among gay-sex marriage supporters, and instead wants to punish Christians.

northdallasthirty on March 5, 2014 at 8:13 PM

One wonders why it’s Christians that have to change. Seems “jaxisaneurophysicist” doesn’t want to confront the “mass psychosis” typical among gay-sex marriage supporters, and instead wants to punish Christians.

northdallasthirty on March 5, 2014 at 8:13 PM

Shhh, you’ll hurt his feeling and then he/she will spend five paragraphs accusing you of hate speech, and calling you a hypocritical azz.

melle1228 on March 5, 2014 at 8:15 PM

So the right should cave and become more accepting to attract gays, even though gays are psychotics who will brutalize and destroy any gay person who dares vote Republican.

One wonders why it’s Christians that have to change. Seems “jaxisaneurophysicist” doesn’t want to confront the “mass psychosis” typical among gay-sex marriage supporters, and instead wants to punish Christians.

northdallasthirty on March 5, 2014 at 8:13 PM

I’m reminded of the story I heard recently about a gay conservative in Hollywood who went to two parties in one weekend.

The first party on a Friday night was with his conservative friends. He came out as gay to them. They told him they already knew. The party went on.

The second party the following night was with his liberal friends. He came out as conservative to them. They ostracized him.

gwelf on March 5, 2014 at 8:16 PM

throwing around the word “bigot” while vacuously referring to “gay-sex marriage” is not a very endearing action.

I’m not here to be endearing. You and your fellow bigots have demonstrated you don’t respond to rational thought or argument, so you’re getting exactly what you dish.

…neither is conflating the entire community of gay marriage supporters with the actions of a rogue statist whose scandalous misconduct is nothing more than yet another act in a litany of liberals’ predilections for abusing the trappings of their authority.

Oh? Show me where the gay-sex marriage supporters have risen up and demanded that the “Human Rights Campaign” and the “rogue statist” be identified and prosecuted.

You have demonstrated that you will not enforce or follow the law when gay-sex marriage is involved. Therefore, your platitudes mean nothing. You lied to Christians and you are lying now.

northdallasthirty on March 5, 2014 at 8:19 PM

I’d say a small portion of the current opposition to SSM could reasonably be called hatred. The opposite is true for the larger SSM cause.

The polls consistently indicate over half of the American people are in support of SSM. If you get into the internals of this poll you see that support of SSM has majority support among Catholics and non-evangelical Protestants. Is hatred motivating them? Hatred of what and who, exactly?

As for blacklisting – there was a Mormon in the theater biz in CA who was fired/forced to resign and black listed after it was revealed he donated money to a pro traditional marriage message supporting prop 8. Similar for a restaurant owner who donated money.

The blacklisting was certainly wrong.

This is actually news to me and I’m curious to know more about it. How were these people blacklisted? By whom were they blacklisted and what were they blacklisted from? What consequences did this restaurant owner or theater person suffer?

And to a lesser degree I think that the boycotting is too. I think people in civil society should be willing to tolerate differences and still associate with each other. These people didn’t hate gay people. But they were treated as if they did. And it shows the central hypocrisy of the gay movement. The gay movement raises the sacred flags of “equality”, “tolerance”, and all the rest of it but don’t actually practice it. If the gay movement were public and open about their real stance of aggression and hatred and revenge and dropped the pose of “tolerance” and “wanting to be left alone” and “gay marriage doesn’t affect you” then that would be different. But they don’t because they’d lose most of their support.

gwelf on March 5, 2014 at 8:05 PM

So are boycotts generally unacceptable and should I start drinking Absolut vodka despite their cheering for a Mexican conquest of California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Texas or was it just this particular boycott that was unacceptable?

alchemist19 on March 5, 2014 at 8:30 PM

This is actually news to me and I’m curious to know more about it. How were these people blacklisted? By whom were they blacklisted and what were they blacklisted from? What consequences did this restaurant owner or theater person suffer?
alchemist19 on March 5, 2014 at 8:30 PM

My, aren’t you uninformed about the bigotry and hate you support.

northdallasthirty on March 5, 2014 at 8:34 PM

But that’s not unusual. Gay-sex bigots like alchemist19 support and endorse vandalism and threats of violence from gay-sex marriage supporters.

Quick question: if gay-sex marriage is so popular, why do gay-sex marriage bigots have to vandalize and make violent and chilling threats against anyone who dares speak out against it?

northdallasthirty on March 5, 2014 at 8:41 PM

Personally, I think only those that ascribe by “Scripture” can claim it…that means only virgins before marriage before God, no abortions, no divorces. Period.

Since I am divorced, I don’t claim providence on “marriage”.

ladyingray on March 5, 2014 at 8:46 PM

And it keeps going. Looks like gay-sex marriage supporters are still out to destroy and vandalize businesses whose owners don’t contribute to what they think is “correct”.

You really don’t get it, do you, alchemist19? You and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters are bigoted and hateful filth.

northdallasthirty on March 5, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Note: I haven’t had time, nor do I now to have read the thread. But this kind of thing seems to pull at my heart, so here goes.

“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.”

To the first quote of the Pope…I call baloney–”driven by the need to regulate economic aspects among persons, as for instance to assure medical care.” — because WHO made THAT determination?

To the second quote…”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.” — are there no children whose ‘mother’s boyfriends don’t like them” — of course there are–and, if so, why would that be different to the Pope?

To the third quote…what a rididulous and ambiguous statement; “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.

Perhaps Pope Francis considers ambiguity as some kind of kumbaya to His Word. I do not.

I’ve been a sinner for decades. In the last one or so, I’ve come to know what it means to be in His Spirit, I also don’t judge those who are not. I am simply shocked to hear the words of Pope Francis..

I believe words have value. Therefore, I take people at their word. Lastly, when I hear Pope Francis’ words, I’m more than confused.

I’d much rather take scripture at its word.

May He bless all of us, and especially you, Pope Francis, to carry His word to the masses. Amen.

jersey taxpayer on March 5, 2014 at 8:46 PM

new pope is soooooooo coooooool

brushingmyhair on March 5, 2014 at 8:48 PM

This gives new meaning to the joke “Is the Pope Catholic?”

Answer: I just don’t know anymore.

Philly on March 5, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Well, g’night folks.

I’ve zero interests in politico posts this evening; I just can’t stomach any of ‘em.

I’ve said my peace on this thread tonight, that’s more important to me.

I hope you all enjoy a splendid (and here, lively) evening!

jersey taxpayer on March 5, 2014 at 9:18 PM

Wanna have some fun with one of these liberal democrat Obamtwits?
Let them tell you why they believe Homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals in terms of marital bliss.
Then tell them your a hopeless BI-sexual person who is in love with both a man and a woman……..
.
Ask them if your pursuit of happiness is equal to to the homosexuals, and if you should be allowed to marry both of your partners. See if they are jiggly with that……
.
Cats and dogs Lenny…..

FlaMurph on March 5, 2014 at 9:29 PM

Pope Francis, despite his socially-gregarious personality, has again affirmed what the Church’s views on marriage are, not to mention other socially-popular but not Christian-sponsored/inspired activities.

The Church isn’t going to change. Unless there’s some “new Bible” written to replace the original one and until Christ returns among us, there’s nothing in Christianity that supports “changing” because something’s socially popular but is contrary to Biblical instructions.

Lourdes on March 5, 2014 at 6:43 PM

Civil unions aren’t marriages. The Catholic Church’s definition of what marriage is isn’t going to change. But allowing Bob and Steve, two Unitarians, to enter into a permanent civil union isn’t going to harm the Catholic idea of marriage anymore than allowing people to divorce or purchase contraceptives would.

Moreover, gay people can actually enter into civil unions without sinning. One of the more interesting movements in Catholic theology is the “new homophile movement,” which puts positive spin on being gay and following Church teaching. The movement advocates “spiritual friendships” or essentially romantic bonds without sex. If two gay people want to enter into such a relationship and gain benefits associated with taxes and power of attorney, then there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, according to the Catechism, they aren’t sinning.

Illinidiva on March 5, 2014 at 9:32 PM

judging by the speed with which you’ve degenerated into obscenity-laden insults and borderline hate speech in the past — when confronted with those dissenting opinions you enjoy so much — you’re clearly fully invested in the government’s adherence to the old xenophobic marriage paradigm, and whether you yourself are agnostic or not, it’s a paradigm which is rooted in the inflexible observance of millennia-old religious mores whose practical essence has long since expired.

jaxisaneurophysicist on March 5, 2014 at 6:05 PM

You are utterly wrong. melle is the only person who regularly posts here in opposition to gay marriage who genuinely seems to be a nice person. I would be delighted to have lunch with melle if the opportunity every came up.

You shouldn’t let politics blind you to the person.

thuja on March 5, 2014 at 9:33 PM

Through 12 years of Catholic education through the 60′s, the Sisters used to tell us that it’s very hard to keep the tenets of our faith when social mores change and peer pressure is so difficult.
Disappointed that the peer pressure got too hard for our Pope.

AppraisHer on March 5, 2014 at 9:37 PM

If two gay people want to enter into such a relationship and gain benefits associated with taxes and power of attorney, then there is nothing wrong with that.

Illinidiva on March 5, 2014 at 9:32 PM

,
The Canard.
.
So heterosexual couples who DO NOT wish get “married” or require a ceremony or certificate to prove their commitment will continue to be Treated UNequal as far as benefits, taxes and POAs are concerned. How is that still fair in 2014 ? Put another way the LGBT community – (why they have their own community even smacks of privilege, let alone the parades….) are so hell bent on equality that they demand a religious based ceremony to prove this equality – RATHER THAN change the laws that allow them tax benefits.
Nope- LGBT peeps are using the Marriage Canard to force a normalcy of their sexual deviation on the mainstream public. Their desire to be treated as normal rather than freakish, establishes their motivations more so than any ” fairness” b.s.
The logical “next step” would have been to challenge and change those rules….. Not to force a change in thousands year old cultures of man/ woman marriage that does undermine the fidelity of the family structure.
Agendas.
Gotta go….Time for this weeks DVR’d Modern Family…… I just love that show…./

FlaMurph on March 5, 2014 at 10:03 PM

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?

At least you aren’t in total denial. The hammer will drop sooner or later from the Vatican. Catholics will have to either love to learn the Progressive tenets of the New Church, or leave I suppose.

I believe the same creeping Progressivism has been going on in major Protestant churches as well.

And they’ll shame many into accepting Leftist ideology as being along the lines of WWJD?…oh, and they’ll still want your money…to help the poor…LMAO

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 5, 2014 at 10:06 PM

You are utterly wrong. melle is the only person who regularly posts here in opposition to gay marriage who genuinely seems to be a nice person. I would be delighted to have lunch with melle if the opportunity every came up.

You shouldn’t let politics blind you to the person.

thuja on March 5, 2014 at 9:33 PM

Agreed, though my list of decent people goes beyond melle. It would be a lunch spent yelling at each other if the wrong topic came up but melle is most definitely good people.

alchemist19 on March 5, 2014 at 10:13 PM

You are utterly wrong. melle is the only person who regularly posts here in opposition to gay marriage who genuinely seems to be a nice person. I would be delighted to have lunch with melle if the opportunity every came up.

You shouldn’t let politics blind you to the person.

thuja on March 5, 2014 at 9:33 PM

Agreed, though my list of decent people goes beyond melle. It would be a lunch spent yelling at each other if the wrong topic came up but melle is most definitely good people.

alchemist19 on March 5, 2014 at 10:13 PM

Aww thanks guys. And alchy, I am not a tyrant. I swear like a truck driver, but I don’t yell. :)

melle1228 on March 5, 2014 at 10:24 PM

Aww thanks guys. And alchy, I am not a tyrant. I swear like a truck driver, but I don’t yell. :)

melle1228 on March 5, 2014 at 10:24 PM

Never mistook you for a tyrant, melle. I’ve got an old, bad habit of misusing the term “yell” to describe any passionate or semi-passionate discussion. But I would be interested in seeing us swear at each other in civil, measured tones though. :)

alchemist19 on March 5, 2014 at 10:52 PM

FlaMurph on March 5, 2014 at 10:03 PM

If a heterosexual couple wants the tax benefits, etc., they can go down to the courthouse and get married.

Nope- LGBT peeps are using the Marriage Canard to force a normalcy of their sexual deviation on the mainstream public. Their desire to be treated as normal rather than freakish, establishes their motivations more so than any ” fairness” b.s.

Again, the group of people who I was discussing is a real strain of thought with in Catholic theology. They even have a website. http://spiritualfriendship.org/ Most gay couples are obviously having sex, but you actually don’t know what a couple’s intimate relationship is like unless you are peering in their house.

Illinidiva on March 5, 2014 at 11:02 PM

Circular reasoning.

If The Bible is God’s word, what trumps The Bible?

If extra-Biblical revelation contradicts the Bible, which is true?

We must hold to the rock of Scripture, to do otherwise is to make Scripture meaningless.

TheMightyMonarch on March 5, 2014 at 7:09 PM

With all charity, you are missing the point. The issue is what books should are the “rock of Scripture.” You are assuming you know and if you are a Protestant, you don’t believe in Tradition, which gives us the canon of scripture. Your reasoning is circular, not mine.

As Protestant writer R.C. Sproul has honestly said of the Protestant position, the Bible is “a fallible collection of infallible books.”

There Goes the Neighborhood

The fact that the NT, as we have it, was all written before the death of the last Apostle does not solve the issue. Other books were written at that time. Why not include them? Have you read them all? There was widespread disagreement as to the canon in the early church. Some thought certain books were inspired, others disagreed. Some of those made it into the NT, others weren’t included when the canon was developed by Church Councils.

Have you read all the writings written within the geography of the early church before the death of the last apostle?

Nor does the early authorship of the NT, as you were given it, substantiate a closed canon.

GoDucks on March 5, 2014 at 11:02 PM

With all charity, you are missing the point. The issue is what books should are the “rock of Scripture.” You are assuming you know and if you are a Protestant, you don’t believe in Tradition, which gives us the canon of scripture. Your reasoning is circular, not mine.

As Protestant writer R.C. Sproul has honestly said of the Protestant position, the Bible is “a fallible collection of infallible books.”

There Goes the Neighborhood

The fact that the NT, as we have it, was all written before the death of the last Apostle does not solve the issue. Other books were written at that time. Why not include them? Have you read them all? There was widespread disagreement as to the canon in the early church. Some thought certain books were inspired, others disagreed. Some of those made it into the NT, others weren’t included when the canon was developed by Church Councils.

Have you read all the writings written within the geography of the early church before the death of the last apostle?

Nor does the early authorship of the NT, as you were given it, substantiate a closed canon.

GoDucks on March 5, 2014 at 11:02 PM

We’re not dependent on the Catholic church or tradition to define the canon of Scripture, so a failure to believe in the Catholic church makes no difference.

With nothing more than Scripture references, I can demonstrate that there was already recognized New Testament scripture during the time of the apostles. Since the entire New Testament was written during the time of the apostles, and since the apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church, with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone, there is no “missing foundation” that had to be filled.

Were there books written in this time that were not inspired? Of course. But the same was true in the Old Testament. In fact, you’ll find two references to the book of Jasher in the Old Testament (Josh 10:13 and 2 Sam 1:18.) But Jasher was never considered Scripture, even though it was written during the time the Old Testament was compiled.

The Jewish people knew which books of the Old Testament were inspired before the Catholic church ever existed.

And, in fact, the Catholic church added several books to the Old Testament that were never accepted by the early church, and are still not accepted by Protestant churches. If Protestant churches are dependent on the Catholic church to define what is and is not scripture, then it seems strange that the Catholic church has a different list of canonical books.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 6, 2014 at 12:29 AM

1) This act is getting tiresome. He means it.

2) Of course “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.” But that won’t happen, because despite the polls legalization has not gained wide popular acceptance. It is a purely top-down phenomenon imposed by cultural elites.

tenore on March 6, 2014 at 12:57 AM

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 6, 2014 at 12:29 AM

Don’t you understand that saying that you can demonstrate recognized New Testament scripture by using scripture references is circular?

For example, using Peter to prove Paul assumes Peter is canonical!

You say the early church rejected the Deuterocanonical Books (DB). Fine, tell me where we can find a Bible, before Luther, that did not include the DB. It simply doesn’t exist.

Furthermore, your other facts are wrong. There was no set Jewish canon. The Pharisees, Saduccees and Essenes had different canons. In fact, the Martin Luther through out the DB, NOT because of the early Christians, but because the Jewish council at Jamnia did so. The problem is that the Council of Jamnia was 60 years after Christ’s death and resurrection! Furthermore, Ethiopian Jews, not present at Jamnia INCLUDE the DB to this day.

Also, contrary to what you state, Josephus reports that Jews considered Baruch inspired.

The fact is that you try to paint a pretty and bright line picture about the development of the canon. The facts just don’t support that. Early Christians disagreed with what was inspired and what wasn’t. They struggled with the problems that you think are easy to solve.

GoDucks on March 6, 2014 at 1:00 AM

GoDucks on March 5, 2014 at 11:02 PM

I believe R.C. Sproul is merely admitting that some writings may have been lost. I have a hard time believing that he would not consider Scripture to be sufficient. The NT quotes the Assumption of Moses and Enoch, but we no longer have reliable copies, therefore we do not include them in the canon. There may have been other writings, but they have either been lost or we do not possess reliable copies.

What we have with the canon are internally consistent documents that are authoritative. The Old Testament was clearly recognized as Scripture by the apostles and Christ Himself, while in the NT we have apostolic authorship. The office of apostle died with John, therefore anything written afterwards does not carry the authority Christ bestowed upon them. We may find writings like 1 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, or the Epistle of Barnabas useful, but not necessarily inspired and always must answer to Scripture.

Roman tradition, papal pronouncements…heck, let’s include the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, the Gnostic Gospels, or even the Koran. All extra-biblical “revelations”.They are frequently at odds with the Bible…how would you have those treated in light of established Scripture? Most Protestants (as well as this Lutheran) would call it false teaching and therefore something to be rebuked.

TheMightyMonarch on March 6, 2014 at 1:10 AM

I’d also mention that the main driver of heresy and apostasy in the church has been a failure to respect the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. When we start deriving authority outside the Bible, what do we get? The various abuses of Rome. Gnosticism. Mormonism. Charismaticism/Pentecostalism. Even the Jesus of the Koran was derived from non-biblical accounts of the man, possibly from the Gnostic writings.

Not to say evangelicals are immune. Especially in America, bad theology seems to frequently appear when pastors read things into Scripture that aren’t there, or take passages completely out of context to fuel their faulty presuppositions, losing the Gospel in the process. We can thank this phenomenon for the development of the Word of Faith heresy or the self-help, seeker-driven, PC version of Christianity of the post-modern Emergent Movement.

TheMightyMonarch on March 6, 2014 at 1:35 AM

TheMightyMonarch on March 6, 2014 at 1:35 AM

God bless you brother!

Murphy9 on March 6, 2014 at 1:37 AM

Since R.C. Sproul has been mentioned—and I’m sure he’d be appalled that he was quoted for the purpose of casting doubt on the New Testament—I thought I would link to a few things from his Ligonier Ministries.

The Canon of the Bible

Authority and Canon

INC on March 6, 2014 at 4:01 AM

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 6, 2014 at 12:29 AM

Don’t you understand that saying that you can demonstrate recognized New Testament scripture by using scripture references is circular?

For example, using Peter to prove Paul assumes Peter is canonical!

If Peter, the apostle, describes Paul’s writings as scriptural, are you really, really going to argue that we should ignore the word of Peter?

Does it not clearly establish that Peter accepted Paul’s writings as Scripture?

This attempt to find circular reasoning where there is none is getting tiresome. If you believe that the Catholic church decided which books are canonical and which are not, fine. That does not mean it’s not possible to recognize the inspired books of the Bible without Catholicism.

You say the early church rejected the Deuterocanonical Books (DB). Fine, tell me where we can find a Bible, before Luther, that did not include the DB. It simply doesn’t exist.

The Old Testament now is the same as the Masoretic Text accepted by the Jews. And yes, that was before Luther.

Furthermore, your other facts are wrong. There was no set Jewish canon. The Pharisees, Saduccees and Essenes had different canons. In fact, the Martin Luther through out the DB, NOT because of the early Christians, but because the Jewish council at Jamnia did so. The problem is that the Council of Jamnia was 60 years after Christ’s death and resurrection! Furthermore, Ethiopian Jews, not present at Jamnia INCLUDE the DB to this day.

Also, contrary to what you state, Josephus reports that Jews considered Baruch inspired.

The fact is that you try to paint a pretty and bright line picture about the development of the canon. The facts just don’t support that. Early Christians disagreed with what was inspired and what wasn’t. They struggled with the problems that you think are easy to solve.

GoDucks on March 6, 2014 at 1:00 AM

As I said before, there were heresies even in the early church, and some of the heretics — as is so often the case with heretics — rejected the scriptures that the rest of the churches accepted. Particularly noticeable was Marcion the heretic, who only accepted eleven books in his New Testament, and those he cut short and altered to suit himself. It’s much the same as when the Watchtower Society created their own Bible translation, so they could translate the Bible to be consistent with their doctrine.

But the existence of heretics and splinter groups does not change the fact of an overall consensus that was reached very quickly. It’s been said that the early church fathers quoted so much of the New Testament in their writings that nearly the entire New Testament could be constructed just from their writings alone.

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 6, 2014 at 4:14 AM

If the Catholic Church chooses to allow society to dictate its moral stances, it is no longer a religion. People of faith expect God’s word not to change.

Brock Robamney on March 6, 2014 at 5:45 AM

Rug-roh
Now even the pope is on board ? What Catholic disagrees with the pope?

greataunty on March 6, 2014 at 6:06 AM

IN YOUR FACE!!!!!!

All day. everyday on every cable network, websites with global reach, and in media of all forms!

The Sodomization of the West is in full swing.

I’ve NEVER seen anything pushed / promoted / screamed more than this one issue (not even Abortion).

PappyD61 on March 6, 2014 at 7:21 AM

As I said before, there were heresies even in the early church,
There Goes the Neighborhood on March 6, 2014 at 4:14 AM

The issue of heretics and false teachers has been there from the beginning. The issue is dealt with in virtually every NT book and several are devoted almost exclusively to this topic (Galatians, 1 John, Jude). What is easily the harshest invective in the entire NT (2 Peter 2) is directed at false teachers in the church. It is interesting that in this passage Peter advises that the false teachers will use sensuality to corrupt the faithful and they do it for their own greed. Furhter, Jude accuses them of using God’s grace to rationalize licentiousness. Boy, that sure sounds familier; where have we seen those tactics and arguments before?

tommyboy on March 6, 2014 at 7:41 AM

A few days ago he dropped the f bomb. Now I read on Drudge he’s confessed to stealing another priest’s rosary.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_REL_VATICAN_POPES_CROSS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-03-06-07-18-38

Is he on a mission to bring down the papacy or something? Does he really want to make the Pope appear like any other common man? If he succeeds.. he might win a lot of friends on the left but it’s going to spell disaster for the Catholic church.

JellyToast on March 6, 2014 at 8:21 AM

Can we start calling SSM what it really is – pretend marriage? God defined what the necessary components for marriage are. No law, or changing of legal status can change that Truth. SSM is no more of a marriage, than my two year old daughter dressing up the cat and her stuffed Mickey Mouse doll, and pronouncing them Mickey and kitty. They are both a fantasy.

HarryBackside on March 6, 2014 at 9:20 AM

The issue of heretics and false teachers has been there from the beginning. The issue is dealt with in virtually every NT book and several are devoted almost exclusively to this topic (Galatians, 1 John, Jude).

tommyboy on March 6, 2014 at 7:41 AM

Then there’s the example that is probably the most relevant to this story – Paul’s warning of false teachers in Romans.

HarryBackside on March 6, 2014 at 9:27 AM

I hope we hear Ed’s take on this soon.

To me, it doesn’t sound like the Catholic Church is changing its doctrine… the Pope’s just saying that if two people want to enter into a marriage-like civil union under the governance of the state, he’s cool with it. I don’t think it’s the beginning of Armageddon.

TMOverbeck on March 6, 2014 at 9:34 AM

Thuja -I am shocked I don’t get the Melle treatment!!

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 6, 2014 at 12:29 AM

I must say I get annoyed about all this quibbling regarding scripture. Luther took out the DB books because the Jews said they could find no physical record in Hebrew. He also needed to find additional theological arguments to support his fracture away from Rome, and what he rightly felt was a church in strong need of cleansing.

Of course in the last century archealogists have found physical evidence of the DB in Hebrew. So now what?

Luther had to look at the rampant corruption in the Catholic Church of the time and build his best case for a divide because for the layman of the time, the Catholic Church was all they knew, and the Catholic Church was generally more powerful than the civil authorities, whatever they were. What is the difference in the major tenents of each faith? Are they really all that different? Saved through works vs saved by grace? Transubstantiation vs consubstantiation? Heck most of the protestants currently don’t even agree with consubstantiation – not even all of the Lutherans. So was Luther wrong?

The current Pope is trying to put a more acommodating face on the Catholic Faith, I get that. I realize the liberal Catholics want to jump on every statement and read more into it than is there. The liberal Catholic Church is dying – their dioceses have reduced membership and clergy formation. The conservative or traditional Catholic dioceses the reverse. The fact is if you say you don’t have some idea of right and wrong, what is the point of believing anything. The evangelicals understand this thoroughly.

But being a person of hopefully higher morals and and a believer of right and wrong doesn’t give you license to hate. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Jesus added another commandment – love one another.

Some opponents of SSM are more hateful of the sinner than I am comfortable with – and I think Francis would agree with that. but the supporters of SSM are worse – ascribing all sorts of things to their opponents which are blatantly untrue.

Francis won’t be supporting abortion, or SSM. The advocates of a relavistic church should just decide whether they believe in the faith or not, and then act accordingly. Support of any of these things makes your faith somewhat suspect.

Zomcon JEM on March 6, 2014 at 9:56 AM

The polls consistently indicate over half of the American people are in support of SSM. If you get into the internals of this poll you see that support of SSM has majority support among Catholics and non-evangelical Protestants. Is hatred motivating them? Hatred of what and who, exactly?

So are boycotts generally unacceptable and should I start drinking Absolut vodka despite their cheering for a Mexican conquest of California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Texas or was it just this particular boycott that was unacceptable?

alchemist19 on March 5, 2014 at 8:30 PM

I was speaking of the gay movement and the movers and shakers in it. Not necessarily the people on the street who support SSM. Though some of them too. Just look at facebook or again the prop 8 debate or AZ. The amount of anger and hatred coming from the pro gay side. The slurs used. The comparisons to Jim Crow. They don’t want tolerance. They don’t want to talk and work things out. They want to smash their enemies and shut them up and shut them down.

This is part of what I’m talking about. The “person on the street” is fed this narrative by the media and those in the SSM movement that the movement is concerned with “equality” and “tolerance” and all the rest of it but that’s not accurate.

Look at the actual cases of the baker, florist and photographer. In EACH case they actually were happy to serve gay customers and did so for YEARS. What they didn’t want to do was participate in gay WEDDING. And for that they are despised and hated and driven out of their livelihoods and hauled into court and before “human rights commissions”. There is nothing about tolerance to any of this. And it is appalling to anyone who actually values liberty and a functioning civil society.

gwelf on March 6, 2014 at 10:14 AM

You say the early church rejected the Deuterocanonical Books (DB). Fine, tell me where we can find a Bible, before Luther, that did not include the DB. It simply doesn’t exist.

The Old Testament now is the same as the Masoretic Text accepted by the Jews. And yes, that was before Luther.

I said find me a Pre-Luther Bible that looked like your Protestant Bible. I’m not talking about Jewish sources, but Christian ones. It doesn’t exist, which shows that books were removed by protestants not added by Catholics.

Of course Luther wanted to remove James, Revelation etc. as well.

As pointed out above, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the historical rationale given for removing some of the DB (or rather for putting them at the end of the Bible and marking them “dubious”, because they weren’t actually removed until the 19th century) was factually incorrect. That’s a huge problem for Protestants.

Re: Peter’s view of Paul. Unless everything Peter did or wrote was inspired, you haven’t solved the problem, unless you are embracing tradition. Peter as we know, wasn’t perfect or correct in his actions and opinions.

Re: heretics rejecting the books. That explanation doesn’t solve the problem. Non-heretics disagreed as well. Augustine, Origen, Jerome etc. disagreed on the canon. The fact that they agreed on most texts, doesn’t give you your canon.

There isn’t a single church father that agrees with the Protestant canon. The protestant canon didn’t exist until recent history.

Also, once you start to appeal to the early church, you are in the trouble of explaining why that doesn’t support the Eucharist to have the Real Presence, in baptismal regeneration which the early church was believed with overwhelming unanimity.

GoDucks on March 6, 2014 at 10:33 AM

There isn’t a single church father that agrees with the Protestant canon.
GoDucks on March 6, 2014 at 10:33 AM

St. Jerome did. He didn’t want to include the Apocrypha in the Vulgate he produced but the Pope forced it.

tommyboy on March 6, 2014 at 11:11 AM

I said find me a Pre-Luther Bible that looked like your Protestant Bible.

Wycliffe’s translation included the Apocrypha but he said it was not cannonical and “without authority and belief”.

tommyboy on March 6, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Who is he to judge?

David Blue on March 6, 2014 at 11:33 AM

There isn’t a single church father that agrees with the Protestant canon.
GoDucks on March 6, 2014 at 10:33 AM

St. Jerome did. He didn’t want to include the Apocrypha in the Vulgate he produced but the Pope forced it.

Jerome doubted the DB, but he deferred to the

judgment of the churches.

Jerome never published a canon. He was a scholar and translator who personally doubted the DB, but deferred to the authority of the Church. That’s not exactly a good example for a Protestant to use.

Re: Wycliffe, he also included the Epistle of the Laodiceans, so that answer doesn’t suffice, unless your Bible does as well.

GoDucks on March 6, 2014 at 11:44 AM

but deferred to the authority of the Church. That’s not exactly a good example for a Protestant to use.

AS if he had a choice – he followed orders. But in opposition to your statement, he DID agree with the protestant canon.

Re: Wycliffe, he also included the Epistle of the Laodiceans, so that answer doesn’t suffice, unless your Bible does as well.

GoDucks on March 6, 2014 at 11:44 AM

And he also claimed this epistle was not cannonical or authoritative. What he published as canon looks exactly like the “protestant bible”. Same as Athanasius.

tommyboy on March 6, 2014 at 12:01 PM

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

Your Pope and Church aren’t Catholic but you are? That’s an obvious contradiction. You have two options: 1) conform to your Pope and Church which you are required by its doctrine or 2) flee it and become truly catholic.

Okay, you have a third option, I admit: Remain in contradiction.

shick on March 6, 2014 at 12:47 PM

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

You got a home waiting for you in the Lutheran church (well, maybe not those kooks in the ELCA):

Pros:
Married, well-adjusted pastors that faithfully preach God’s Word (and wear dresses).
You can still baptize the little squidlets.
We don’t overthink communion. Jesus’ body and blood is in there somehow. :)
No obnoxious praise bands. We’re absolutely horrendous if we attempt contemporary worship.
Potlucks are awesome, but avoid Mrs. Mueller’s hot dish.

Cons:
The worship can get repetitive, but it is very fulfilling.
When you have a pastor with no discernible voice training, yet insists on singing the liturgy.

TheMightyMonarch on March 6, 2014 at 1:31 PM

The problem, potentially, is relaxing the sanction against premarital sex.

Extramarital sex perhaps?
All sex outside of within the marriage of a man and a woman is considered by the Church to be intrinsically evil.

Don L on March 6, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Nearly six in 10 American Catholics in the poll said they expected the church would definitely or probably lift its prohibition on birth control by the year 2050, while half said the church would allow priests to marry.

So, half of the Catholics interviewed are ignorant twits. Nothing we practicing Catholics didn’t know already….

BTW, you can be a married priest IF you get married as a Protestant preacher then covert to Catholicism.

Nethicus on March 6, 2014 at 2:35 PM

Wow, how did that comment end up here? LOL That was supposed to be on a very different thread, obviously..

Nethicus on March 6, 2014 at 2:36 PM

I don’t know if anyone has put it this way before. It seems that homosexual people want the privilege of marriage because they want to think that God approves of their “lifestyle”/behavior, which He does not. Since God created marriage, He is the one that has the right to say who has that privilege.

wutzupdak on March 6, 2014 at 2:36 PM

It seems that homosexual people want the privilege of marriage because they want to think that God approves of their “lifestyle”/behavior, which He does not.

wutzupdak on March 6, 2014 at 2:36 PM

SSM is a fantasy. It’s no more real than a child pretending to have a wedding ceremony for the household dog and cat. Marriage is when God joins a man and a woman into one flesh. Anything that does meet that definition, therefore, cannot be marriage, regardless of what the law says.

HarryBackside on March 6, 2014 at 3:15 PM

The Pope’s full interview is here and it should be in the main article. Not CNNs version.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/transcript-pope-francis-march-5-interview-with-corriere-della-sera/

Iblis on March 6, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Personally, I think only those that ascribe by “Scripture” can claim it…that means only virgins before marriage before God, no abortions, no divorces. Period.

Since I am divorced, I don’t claim providence on “marriage”.

ladyingray on March 5, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Legalism. We cannot keep the Law…that’s the whole point.

The Law serves three purposes. A curb to discourage evil, a mirror to show us our sin, and a contrast to the Savior who did keep the Law perfectly.

This is beautifully demonstrated in Jesus’ summation of the Law in Luke 10:27, “And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”

Can you honestly say you can love God with everything you have, for even one minute?

This puts our only hope in the cross.

TheMightyMonarch on March 6, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Funny I keep hearing that the “majority” supports gay marriage for years yet during the string of “marriage between one woman one man” amendment campaign won majority approval in state after state up to and including California. On top of that democrats and other democrat proposals won so it was not just a upsurge of repub voters. All the while the ME continued its idea that the majority of the US gen pop supported gay marriage against all the facts on the ground. I look to the string of approved amendments and know it is just not possible to make such a opinion switch in the gen pop within just one decade of time.

Bottom line push polls can be tweaked left ways to sideways to get whatever result you want. I would put good money that if we had a straight vote for a one man one woman marriage only amendment the results would be shocking to all those that watch these idiotic push polls.

C-Low on March 7, 2014 at 12:36 PM

By the way in the advertising world the whole push poll purpose comes to light as what it is.

Its called BAND WAGON ADVERTISING

C-Low on March 7, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Finally

Bmore on March 8, 2014 at 1:01 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4