Pope Francis advocates for civil union laws

[bsjkki]

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-calls-for-civil-union-law-for-same-sex-couples-in-shift-from-vatican-stance-12462

"In a documentary that premiered Wednesday in Rome, Pope Francis called for the passage of civil union laws for same-sex couples, departing from the position of the Vatican’s doctrinal office and the pope’s predecessors on the issue.The remarks came amid a portion of the documentary that reflected on pastoral care for those who identify as LGBT. “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it,” Pope Francis said in the film, of his approach to pastoral care.After those remarks, and in comments likely to spark controversy among Catholics, Pope Francis weighed in directly on the issue of civil unions for same-sex couples.“What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered,” the pope said. “I stood up for that.”The remarks come in “Francesco,” a documentary on the life and ministry of Pope Francis which premiered Oct. 21 as part of the Rome Film Festival, and is set to make its North American premiere on Sunday.

Edited October 21, 2020 by bsjkki

[poptart]

Will be interesting to see how the more conservative elements here react to this, they've already been a huge thorn in the popes side.  Seems like the Catholic Church is slowly becoming more divided, like everyone else.

[Daniel2]

Great article.... another part that stood out to me:

[quote]

The film addresses the pastoral outreach of Pope Francis to those who identify as LGBT, including a story of the pontiff encouraging two Italian men in a same-sex relationship to raise their children in their parish church, which, one of the men said, was greatly beneficial to his children.

“He didn’t mention what was his opinion on my family. Probably he’s following the doctrine on this point,” the man said, while praising the pope for a disposition and attitude of welcome and encouragement.

[/quote]

[bluebell]

I was just thinking of this this morning, how we need to find a solid place for LGTBQ people in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.   I don't think we have to deny our doctrine to achieve that.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I was just thinking of this this morning, how we need to find a solid place for LGTBQ people in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.   I don't think we have to deny our doctrine to achieve that.

What do you have in mind?  What do you think the Church could do to create "a solid place for LGTBQ people" that it is not now doing?

Not really looking to argue.  More to understand and learn.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What do you have in mind?  What do you think the Church could do to create "a solid place for LGTBQ people" that it is not now doing?

Not really looking to argue.  More to understand and learn.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not sure exactly.  I think we would need revelation on it, because it is so closely tied to doctrine and our cultural biases as Latter-day Saints.  

But I think the outcome would be where LGTBQ people don't feel like they have to leave the church to live authentically.  A place where they and their spouses are accepted and supported and are welcome to hold callings, etc., where their children could be raised.

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Quote

I was just thinking of this this morning, how we need to find a solid place for LGTBQ people in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.   I don't think we have to deny our doctrine to achieve that.

What do you have in mind?  What do you think the Church could do to create "a solid place for LGTBQ people" that it is not now doing?

Not really looking to argue.  More to understand and learn.

I'm not sure exactly.  I think we would need revelation on it, because it is so closely tied to doctrine and our cultural biases as Latter-day Saints.  

I think the Church has done quite a bit at addressing "cultural biases."  As for this issue being "closely tied to doctrine," such that "we would need revelation on it," I tend to agree with you.

I wonder if the Church has essentially gone as far as it can go vis-à-vis addressing and accommodating SSA/SSM without "deny{ing} our doctrine."  My sense is that, in the end, the Church is being expected to "deny our doctrine," to capitulate on this issue, to allow same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage in the Church (see, e.g. here). 

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But I think the outcome would be where LGTBQ people don't feel like they have to leave the church to live authentically.  A place where they and their spouses are accepted and supported and are welcome to hold callings, etc., where their children could be raised.

"Live authentically" seems to mean "engage in homosexual activity" and "enter into a same-sex marriage."  Would you agree with that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church has done quite a bit at addressing "cultural biases."  As for this issue being "closely tied to doctrine," such that "we would need revelation on it," I tend to agree with you.

I wonder if the Church has essentially gone as far as it can go vis-à-vis addressing and accommodating SSA/SSM without "deny{ing} our doctrine."  My sense is that, in the end, the Church is being expected to "deny our doctrine," to capitulate on this issue, to allow same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage in the Church (see, e.g. here). 

I don't really care about what is expected of the church.  There are those that expect the church to condemn all gay people to hell and those who want capitulation, and all levels in between.  There is no way to meet everyone's expectations or keep everyone happy.  A move in any direction brings accusations of apostasy/wrongdoing from someone.  

All of those people, whatever side of the isle they are on, can take their contentious "fighting for the cause" and shove it where the sun don't shine, to use a common phrase.

I just want there to be a way for gay people with spouses and children to feel welcome in the church--to have a place at the table.  I don't know what that looks like, but I believe the Lord does and that in His time we will get there.

Quote

 

"Live authentically" seems to mean "engage in homosexual activity" and "enter into a same-sex marriage."  Would you agree with that?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Yes, I agree with that.  

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Live authentically" seems to mean "engage in homosexual activity" and "enter into a same-sex marriage."  Would you agree with that?

But what does it mean for someone to live authentically, given they believe in making and keeping sacred covenants as proffered by those they uphold as having authority from Jesus Christ to share them?

The root for authentic is (Greek authentikos > Latin authenticus) coning from "auto" or "self" combined with "hentes" or "doer, being,". While we are autonomous "selves", we submit to a higher "Self" in a line of authority to become like Him.

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I just want there to be a way for gay people with spouses and children to feel welcome in the church--to have a place at the table.  I don't know what that looks like, but I believe the Lord does and that in His time we will get there.

What would a place at the table look like, where the same highest and fullest blessing is presented as the ideal? What would the Lord authorize as the common ideal for practitioners of any sexual orientation, so that all have the same opportunity for that place at the table (or a place in the mansions of the Father) on the same terms?

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What would a place at the table look like, where the same highest and fullest blessing is presented as the ideal? What would the Lord authorize as the common ideal for practitioners of any sexual orientation, so that all have the same opportunity for that place at the table (or a place in the mansions of the Father) on the same terms?

I think a place at the table would look like it a place at an actual table in an LDS home for a gay child would look like.   A full fledged part of the family, loved and cared for.

[Boanerges]

It does seem that when revelation is needed revelation comes. I'm thinking of examples like the end of polygamy (very divisive at the time) and Blacks and the priesthood. Yes, I am being partly sarcastic here but I do expect the time will come (probably not in my lifetime) when such a revelation comes forth regarding LGBTQ+ members and their status - just like it has with other "doctrine" some people thought could not change (e.g. polygamy and the priesthood ban).

Edited October 21, 2020 by Boanerges
Fixed typos

[strappinglad]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

His time we will get there.

If only the Lord was as progressive as WE are. Give Him time and pressure and He will come around. He gave in when Martin wanted the 116 pages and that worked out well. He offered compromises when Abraham wanted to spare Sodom. He wanted to establish Zion in Missouri but the saints went their own way. Make no mistake, we the people will get what we want eventually. 

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

If only the Lord was as progressive as WE are. Give Him time and pressure and He will come around. He gave in when Martin wanted the 116 pages and that worked out well. He offered compromises when Abraham wanted to spare Sodom. He wanted to establish Zion in Missouri but the saints went their own way. Make no mistake, we the people will get what we want eventually. 

I don't see God as being as ineffectual as that I guess.  (and most of your examples don't really work for what you were going for anyway).

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

It does seem that when revelation is needed revelation comes. I'm thinking of examples like the end of polygamy (very divisive at the time) and Blacks and the priesthood. Yes, I am being partly sarcastic here but I do expect the time will come (probably not in my lifetime) when such a revelation comes forth regarding LGBTQ+ members and their status - just like it has with other "doctrine" some people thought could not change (e.g. polygamy and the priesthood ban).

To be clear, I'm not speaking about gays and lesbians being sealed in temples or anything like that.  I know that some would find peace with nothing less but I don't see it from that perspective.

[mfbukowski]

I am sure that conservative Catholics will see this as apostasy, if they don't already.

That's an interesting switcheroo.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't really care about what is expected of the church.  

I think we need to examine such expectations, both individually and collectively.  A lot of people who agitate against the Church are doing so based on their expectations about what the Church should (or should not) do.  A lot of people are leaving the Church over such expectations.

And sometimes such introspection can be helpful.

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There are those that expect the church to condemn all gay people to hell and those who want capitulation, and all levels in between.  There is no way to meet everyone's expectations or keep everyone happy.  A move in any direction brings accusations of apostasy/wrongdoing from someone.

Well, true.  In the end, we must follow the will of God.  But there are times when policies and procedures and such can be adjusted and modified.  There are times when an unmet expectation of the Church is reasonable, and hence should be brought to the attention of the Church (in the proper time, place and manner).

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

All of those people, whatever side of the isle they are on, can take their contentious "fighting for the cause" and shove it where the sun don't shine, to use a common phrase.

Or we can seek to address such issues, but do so in a non- or less-contentious way.

That is not to say we capitulate, such as what Dan Reynolds wants us to do.  But if we can change and accommodate reasoned requests, without compromising our beliefs and doctrines, without turning from our fealty to God, then let's have a discussion about such things.

Unfortunately, however, I think we may be at loggerheads on this issue.  I don't think we can accommodate "expectations" such as those harbored by Dan Reynolds, namely, that we legitimize / accept / endorse / embrace homosexual violations of the Law of Chastity, and endorse/embrace same-sex marriage.  The Church wants to be as "big tent" as possible, but not if it means turning from the laws and commandments of God.

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I just want there to be a way for gay people with spouses and children to feel welcome in the church--to have a place at the table.  I don't know what that looks like, but I believe the Lord does and that in His time we will get there.

Quote

Quote

But I think the outcome would be where LGTBQ people don't feel like they have to leave the church to live authentically.  A place where they and their spouses are accepted and supported and are welcome to hold callings, etc., where their children could be raised.

"Live authentically" seems to mean "engage in homosexual activity" and "enter into a same-sex marriage."  Would you agree with that?

Yes, I agree with that.  

Then I don't see how we can get to the wished-for "outcome," which involves "LGBTQ people" remaining in full fellowship in the Church while simultaneously living "authentically" ("engaging in homosexual activity" and "entering into a same-sex marriage").  

Thanks,

-Smac

[JamesBYoung]

Revelation would be needed on (1) civil unions and marriages of LGBTQ+ and (2) if sex within those constructs was sinful.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Quote

"Live authentically" seems to mean "engage in homosexual activity" and "enter into a same-sex marriage."  Would you agree with that?

But what does it mean for someone to live authentically, given they believe in making and keeping sacred covenants as proffered by those they uphold as having authority from Jesus Christ to share them?

I think the "given" is not there.  There are people in the Church who believe that engaging in homosexual behavior is compatible with the Law of Chastity.  This is a diversionary error that has a tendency to drive a wedge between the individual and his covenants, including the sustaining of the leaders of the Church.  It's not unlike the error recorded in John 6 pertaining to some (many, actually) taking offense to the Savior's "Bread of Life" sermon.  It's also akin to the schism that occurred in relation to polygamy.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

It does seem that when revelation is needed revelation comes. I'm thinking of examples like the end of polygamy (very divisive at the time) and Blacks and the priesthood. Yes, I am being partly sarcastic here but I do expect the time will come (probably not in my lifetime) when such a revelation comes forth regarding LGBTQ+ members and their status - just like it has with other "doctrine" some people thought could not change (e.g. polygamy and the priesthood ban).

What do you think that revelation will entail?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

 

I think we have been taught church wide how to include those who don’t live for whatever reason other covenants in the gospel family, such as those not living the Word of Wisdom and even those who refuse to make the covenants in the first place, but attend because of their family (nonmember spouses).  We may not always be good at welcoming such, but there is a framework in place I think most of us are aware of and besides some awkwardness, know we can adapt to.

But I don’t see that as existing yet in this particular area of understanding and accepting of covenants.  The choice to marry in a same-sex relationship is a unique situation as there is a legal relationship in place that is against doctrine. I can’t think of another similar situation as those living together unmarried in whatever orientation are not legally defined as a family unit.  There is no workable way to currently resolve the ambiguity of the relationship in regards to the gospel with the relationship remaining intact at the end like there is for heterosexual relationships where we can support marriage as a goal, a strengthening of family bonds. 
 

I think some practical direction could be beneficial, such as what callings, if there is any an individual could hold or what should be the end result we as a group should be supported of...such as where legal church leaders are to be supportive of a polygamous family encouraging the parents to fulfill their previous commitments while not allowing for baptism rather than encouraging divorce which would likely leave spouses and children in very difficult situations.  I don’t know how that works at ground level, would be very interested to see if such a family would feel like they were accepted as is or if they feel they are never accepted as the ‘real thing’.  Hopefully the former. 
 

Divorce is traumatic for children. (It is for adults as well, pretty much the worse stressor outside death of a spouse last I looked, but adults usually used their agency to put themselves in situations that are viewed as inappropriate by the Gospel.)  While if there are only adults involved, the perceived solution is relatively simple if heartbreaking at times (the family relationship dissolves as in most societies where same sex marriage is legal there is not a social stigma or risk of poverty, etc with divorce that could attach to an ex wife from a polygamous relationship), when children are involved in a divorce we are talking about destroying at least some of the bonds and many of the supportive interactions (such as being there every night to care for them) between parent and child where the child did not choose against a gospel teaching to be someone’s child and therefore has a right to full protection of that relationship and support to help that relationship be as strong and as healthy as it can be.  
 

We teach in the Church a child is benefited by seeing a loving, stable relationship between their parents.  This does not seem to be different in the case of SSM parents from what I have seen. 
 

It seems reasonable to assume that there is a gospel appropriate way to support a same sex family if only for the sake of the children and since we can’t really support someone not of our community in the way I am thinking of, this means defining in some practical way how to include these families in our faith community. Getting direction from church leadership to allow for greater consistency of treatment over time and location rather than having every ward need to go through a trial and error period which may alter with each new bishop seems wise to me. 

Edited October 21, 2020 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

If only the Lord was as progressive as WE are. Give Him time and pressure and He will come around. He gave in when Martin wanted the 116 pages and that worked out well. He offered compromises when Abraham wanted to spare Sodom. He wanted to establish Zion in Missouri but the saints went their own way. Make no mistake, we the people will get what we want eventually. 

On the other side of this, thus it has been forever.  It's the old question all over again- did we create God or did He create us?

In our church alone I think we can see ourselves as an eventually-to-be-exalted community of godlings growing up to be just like Mom and Dad.

We ARE a human community where "human nature" includes all the bad stuff AND the potential for great goodness as well.   Jesus is GOD and clearly human, and He is the Word by which all things were made - John 1

So did God create us or did we (Humans) create God?   The answer to that question is "YES!" 

This is the entire basis on which I joined the church- after God gave me a spiritual experience and insights that showed me that was true

We are evolving to the Ubermensch- on a level that Nietzsche could never have even imagined.

We have no need to postulate that Christ had 2 natures- God and Man- for us, God IS man, raised to the highest conception we can have of Him and of course beyond that.  We now, even the earthly worms that we are- have a spark of divinity which can change us caterpillars into butterflies.

What is the nature of a caterpillar?  It includes the nature of a butterfly as we include godliness in our human nature.

And what was the origin of the first Human God?

It's Humans interacting with Humans all the way down. 

And we are great bargainers with our Parents. 

We are all changing together.   Progression never stops- that means the only thing certain is change.   Heraclitus speaks of a river of experience which is constantly the same while constantly changing

Thus will it be so forever and ever, per omnia saecula seculorum  (literally "through all the worlds of the worlds")   This is a Latin phrase used over and again in a Latin mass- usually translated merely by "forever", but the literal meaning is quite different!  Sometimes it might be translated "through all the ages" because no one could imagine it could possibly mean anything about "worlds"- multiple worlds???  Never!   But literally that is what it says.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unto_the_ages_of_ages

Edited October 21, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure exactly.  I think we would need revelation on it, because it is so closely tied to doctrine and our cultural biases as Latter-day Saints.  

But I think the outcome would be where LGTBQ people don't feel like they have to leave the church to live authentically.  A place where they and their spouses are accepted and supported and are welcome to hold callings, etc., where their children could be raised.

on occasion you hear negative stuff about gay people at church. I wouldn't mind someone saying hey, maybe we shouldn't put gay people on islands and burning them or whatever. We had a Bishop here a few years ago (he wasn't the Bishop then) and his Mom was visiting and her brother is gay. Well, this  man gave a talk and launched into this thing about how gay people ruined his mexican vacation by just walking around (which i'm quite sure wasn't his assigned topic). Anyways, this Bishop was so embarrased! I think there was a letter about not talking about politics and sexuality over the pulpit, for good reason hahaha! I wouldn't mind that letter being read once in a while

[CV75]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think a place at the table would look like it a place at an actual table in an LDS home for a gay child would look like.   A full fledged part of the family, loved and cared for.

I agree; loving and caring for others is a good way to follow the Lord in families and by extension, interpersonal fellowship. But these have their limitations in authorizing the Lord's fullest blessings.

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I was just thinking of this this morning, how we need to find a solid place for LGTBQ people in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.   I don't think we have to deny our doctrine to achieve that.

Gay people are not special or exempt from the laws of God.  They have to follow the same rules as everyone else.  When one follows the gospel, they have a firm foundation.  Worthiness in the church is not what you are but what you do.  We don't need to find a solid place for them.  Gay people who live the gospel are already on a solid place.

Edited October 21, 2020 by carbon dioxide