Read on Twitter
The pope hasn't said different than he said as archbp in argentina. What he wants is for them to have tax responsibilities etc. I think this is a really, really bad idea, but itd be wrong to think he intends legitimisation of SSA relations considering his many other statements.
Amoris Laetitia:
AL cites in footnote 278 the document from the CDF titled 'CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS.' What this document says contains the reasons why I disagree with the pope on his statements. There is a slippery slope.
Further reasons to disagree with the Pope's opinion on this legal issue.
This being said, the Pope has, again on numerous occasions opposed the legitimisation of homosexual relations other than the aforementioned apostolic exhortation and I will provide these resources for the later use of myself and others.
http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2018/august/documents/papa-francesco_20180826_irlanda-voloritorno.html
http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2018/august/documents/papa-francesco_20180826_irlanda-voloritorno.html
I'd like to also draw attention to his statements on this matter from 2 interviews, (img 1) one march 5 2014 with Cronache and (imgs 2+3) one May 2019 (the one the frankenstein clip in the Afkineesvky doc was made from ITSELF - but the uncut version supplied to him by the DfC):
In sum:
There are 7 sets of remarks by pope francis on the issue of homosexual relations that MUST be taken into context for the statement from the frankenstein clip released in the afkineevsky doc this year. These are:
There are 7 sets of remarks by pope francis on the issue of homosexual relations that MUST be taken into context for the statement from the frankenstein clip released in the afkineevsky doc this year. These are:
All of this is accessible (though some of it only in the original spanish and italian) online - On Heaven and Earth is available in PDF format around the internet. All the other sources I have provided already aside from the Manila interview which is in the next tweet.
I want to reiterate. I disagree with the Pope that we can stall gay marriage laws using civil unions as a lesser evil to prevent a greater one. I do believe that incentivising the less evil arrangement so that less gay marriages (sacrilege) happens is ideal.
The latter understanding isn't even against the 2003 CDF document (cf p.6); it is in line with prevention of the greater evil of sodomy-+-sacrilege through permission of the comparatively lesser evil; sodomy-+-cohabitation. This is in line with Tradition: https://twitter.com/Hasan22821492/status/1319297068922331139
I would like to stress again: Afkineesvky took several clips from the uncut footage he received from the DfC of the original May 2019 Televisa interview + cut them together to imply that 'right to family' is 'right to civil union' rather than 'right to the family of their birth.'
https://twitter.com/Hasan22821492/status/1319804971756507137
If you're still here by the end of this big thread, you're probably willing to do some more digging, and I'd suggest you listen to the podcast by CNA linked in this tweet by the title, 'What's up (with the) doc'.
If you're still here by the end of this big thread, you're probably willing to do some more digging, and I'd suggest you listen to the podcast by CNA linked in this tweet by the title, 'What's up (with the) doc'.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/context-of-popes-civil-union-documentary-comment-reported-14270?__twitter_impression=true
Useful new info from CNA again.
I doubt that AmMag is giving the full context for the clip. Call me a sceptic. But this bit here is interesting. this isn't the first time that they've stated it but it's nice to see they're going to consistently do so:
Useful new info from CNA again.
I doubt that AmMag is giving the full context for the clip. Call me a sceptic. But this bit here is interesting. this isn't the first time that they've stated it but it's nice to see they're going to consistently do so:
Now an 8th piece of evidence from Pope Francis' views on same-sex relations - this one from 22nd June 2010.
'Same-sex Marriage: The Letter from Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, S.J. to the Carmelite Nuns of Buenos Aires.'
See below:
https://www.catholichawaii.org/media/224245/bergoglio_to_carmelite_sisters.pdf
'Same-sex Marriage: The Letter from Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, S.J. to the Carmelite Nuns of Buenos Aires.'
See below:
https://www.catholichawaii.org/media/224245/bergoglio_to_carmelite_sisters.pdf
Let's recap on the actual issue so far, now that all the historical context is in place, and we have the teaching of JPII via the CDF from 2003, along with the teaching of Leo XIII on permission of lesser evil from Libertas.
The institutionalisation of homosexual relations in law is a perversion of the very concept and purpose of law, and is intrinsically evil. It would not be licit to do this in order to prevent worse evils since it would itself lead to those worse evils.
Arrangements for cohabitants in general - even if predominantly misused by homosexuals, and even with this in mind - are not a perversion of law, and not intrinsically evil. In fact, they are good regulations, and would still be good in a society that legally prohibits sodomy.
Incidence of sodomy is extrinsic to such a legal arrangement, even if predominant in cases of their utilisation. A civil union law of THIS KIND, grounded in economic concerns (rather than institutionalisation of disordered relationships) is licit. Remember Cronache interview.
An individual circumstance where 2 people live together and do indeed sodomise one another within this arrangement would be an immoral lifestyle for both persons. This would be an objectively lesser evil than sodomy + additional blasphemy against the institution of marriage.
Such a legal arrangement would be within the bounds of the 2003 CDF document as it would not consist of a legal institutionalisation of homosexual relations, but rather regulate economic responsibilities between cohabitants generally. See paragraph 6 of the document.
We unfortunately as societies permit sodomy.
Because of that, and the lack of power in our hands, the 2 options we have for active homosexuals are (a) sacrilege + sodomy, vs (b) sodomy alone.
(c) legal penalty isn't on the table. We dont have the power.
Because of that, and the lack of power in our hands, the 2 options we have for active homosexuals are (a) sacrilege + sodomy, vs (b) sodomy alone.
(c) legal penalty isn't on the table. We dont have the power.
This is a situation where allowing the lesser evil maybe even *should* be done in order to reduce incidences of the greater evil, see Leo XIII libertas, below.
Great article by @FrMatthewLC summing up most of what I've said here wrt such civil union laws being about economic regulation for cohabitants and not institutionalisation of a homosexual relationship: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throughcatholiclenses/2020/10/full-text-proves-francis-meant-civil-unions-instead-of-gay-marriage/
