Jump to content

Pope Francis advocates for civil union laws


Recommended Posts

On 10/29/2020 at 6:51 PM, 3DOP said:

Storm,

God bless you and love you. Thank you for your prayers and your good will. 

I think Francis needs to be understood in the light of "Latter-day Catholic Revelation". It is neither apostolic, nor infallible. But neither is anybody's. Fatima. Leo XIII. La Salette, etc. The Catholic Church has listened to heaven...not today, no. But the Catholic Church, not so long ago, approved private revelations that foretold horrendous things...about the Catholic Church...in what is now. Will Catholics who have believed in these times be fearful or doubtful? Please God, no!

I wish we were brothers now. Fully. You know what I mean. 

3DOP 

I have a quick question for you that is off topic

I am starting to become a fan of Robert Barron and I think he really has a unique vision of all this.

I really am a total novice in his writings-  BUT it seems he is a Pius X'er, but bridges into views similar to mine in his insistence on the humanity of Christ.

I actually like his version of the "real presence"- at this early stage I think it is a view that any LDS person could espouse.

I don't want to derail this thread- but could you give me a quick summary of how you as a conservative interpret him-  You likey or no likey??  ;)

 

Link to post
13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have a quick question for you that is off topic

I am starting to become a fan of Robert Barron and I think he really has a unique vision of all this.

I really am a total novice in his writings-  BUT it seems he is a Pius X'er, but bridges into views similar to mine in his insistence on the humanity of Christ.

I actually like his version of the "real presence"- at this early stage I think it is a view that any LDS person could espouse.

I don't want to derail this thread- but could you give me a quick summary of how you as a conservative interpret him-  You likey or no likey??  ;)

 

Hello Mark. Hello Storm Rider.

"For the life of me, I cannot understand this pope." ---Storm Rider

I wish I knew how to quote you both together. Anyway, hopefully Rider will see this too. I answered his question about Pope Francis by affirming the need to take notice of Latter-day Catholic Revelation on p. 10 of this thread. But Traditional Catholics are also taught that incorrect thought itself has helped erode civilization, and has finally infiltrated the Catholic Church. If one grasps what has been changing in the way people think since shortly after the times of St. Thomas Aquinas (+1274 AD), it makes it much easier to see that it has been a long and gradual road to the apparent election of Jorge Bergoglio as Pope Francis I. The Second Vatican Council is a fruit, not the root of our crisis, a root which began no later than the 14th Century.

I invite you to visit a proposed series of podcasts that has recently gotten underway by the Society of St. Pius X. It is called "The Crisis in the Church Series". It was conceived by a priest living here in Kansas at the chapel I attend, as a means of outlining for the faithful as well as for any other interested parties, how the Society perceives we should "understand this pope". If I understood him correctly, Fr. Paul Franks, who lives here at our priory in Kansas, conceived of this project as a good thing to do even if few benefit from it at this time. It will always be available as a resource to historians who would like to understand the clash between Traditional Catholics and what is now predominantly, the rest of the world's way of viewing all things, and especially religion.

The first four podcasts are already available. I listened to the 20 minute introduction by Fr. Franks this morning. I skipped the first podcast that asked the question, "Is there a Crisis?" I will go back and listen to that later. I was enthused about the next speaker and his subject in the second talk (after the intro).

I only know Fr. Alexander Wiseman by reputation, but he personally had a marvelous effect in my family's life when he was I believe, only a sophomore at Thomas Aquinas College, in Ventura County, CA. During the Fall semester of 2004, he and his sister (who is now a Society nun), were recruiting fellow students to go with them on a 90 minute ride to Arcadia, CA on Sundays. This is where the SSPX Chapel, Our Lady of the Angels is located, and that is why they went, to attend Sunday Mass with the Society. His parents were astonished when our son revealed to us that he was going to SSPX masses with this Wiseman kid. We didn't panic, but had serious concerns. It became necessary to come up to speed about this group who everybody I knew dismissed as fanatics, schismatics, or worse. Coincidentally, I started posting here around that time, Dec. 2004. My wife and I attended our first Society Mass on Jan. 1, 2005, thanks in some part to the then, youthful Mr. Wiseman. 

So there is a personal reason for an interest in his talk, but Fr. Wiseman also now teaches philosophy at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary. This is the seminary that provides the formation for North American candidates for the priesthood. The subject of Fr. Wiseman's second episode in the series is called "Origins - Nominalism & Luther". Not surprisingly, it brought to mind conversations I have had here with you Mark. Our interactions helped give me the ability to follow the subject matter. I was able to understood Fr. Wiseman with ease. It was more of an explanation of Nominalism as being alien to Catholic thinking, than a critique. He speaks about how this philosophy had influenced Martin Luther's Augustinian monastery, and briefly, how it affected Luther's theological journey. 

I have not followed Bp. Barron. I am glad to have heard he is conservative. I am relatively certain that if he believed that there was a "crisis in the Church", I would have heard about it. In the introduction of the series, Fr. Franks explains that any Catholic who doesn't attend the local parish, under the authority of the local bishop must have a good reason. To be associated with the Society of St. Pius X is to declare that there is an emergency in the church. We cannot, even if the crisis should last for another 100 years, accept the situation we are in as "normal" just because our parents brought us up that way. We need to be always hoping for a Roman conversion back to Tradition (my words). We cannot be at ease until once again, we can attend and participate at all of our local parishes without dangers to the faith. There are now a handful of bishops who are starting to see that something is drastically wrong in Rome. There are also diocesan priests defending participation at Society chapels and approaching the Society about how to say the Old Mass. This is progress! They probably do not realize that the roots go back to at least the 14th Century, but at least these bishops and priests are smelling the foul fruits of Vatican II, and are beginning to speak about it publicly. Tomorrow is the 50th Anniversary of the Society of St. Pius X. From 1970 until now, hardly a prelate or priest could be found who would speak openly in sympathetic terms about the Society's founder, Abp. Marcel LeFebvre, but that is changing. I think Pope Francis is causing some conservatives to despair being able to defend him. One might hope that Bp. Barron is thinking that way.

There is a way for listeners to submit questions. Mark, I am sure they would enjoy being stumped by you more than I have in the past! 

Rory

http://sspxpodcast.com/crisis/

 

Edited by 3DOP
Link to post
3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hello Mark. Hello Storm Rider.

"For the life of me, I cannot understand this pope." ---Storm Rider

I wish I knew how to quote you both together. Anyway, hopefully Rider will see this too. I answered his question about Pope Francis by affirming the need to take notice of Latter-day Catholic Revelation on p. 10 of this thread. But Traditional Catholics are also taught that incorrect thought itself has helped erode civilization, and has finally infiltrated the Catholic Church. If one grasps what has been changing in the way people think since shortly after the times of St. Thomas Aquinas (+1274 AD), it makes it much easier to see that it has been a long and gradual road to the apparent election of Jorge Bergoglio as Pope Francis I. The Second Vatican Council is a fruit, not the root of our crisis, a root which began no later than the 14th Century.

I invite you to visit a proposed series of podcasts that has recently gotten underway by the Society of St. Pius X. It is called "The Crisis in the Church Series". It was conceived by a priest living here in Kansas at the chapel I attend, as a means of outlining for the faithful as well as for any other interested parties, how the Society perceives we should "understand this pope". If I understood him correctly, Fr. Paul Franks, who lives here at our priory in Kansas, conceived of this project as a good thing to do even if few benefit from it at this time. It will always be available as a resource to historians who would like to understand the clash between Traditional Catholics and what is now predominantly, the rest of the world's way of viewing all things, and especially religion.

The first four podcasts are already available. I listened to the 20 minute introduction by Fr. Franks this morning. I skipped the first podcast that asked the question, "Is there a Crisis?" I will go back and listen to that later. I was enthused about the next speaker and his subject in the second talk (after the intro).

I only know Fr. Alexander Wiseman by reputation, but he personally had a marvelous effect in my family's life when he was I believe, only a sophomore at Thomas Aquinas College, in Ventura County, CA. During the Fall semester of 2004, he and his sister (who is now a Society nun), were recruiting fellow students to go with them on a 90 minute ride to Arcadia, CA on Sundays. This is where the SSPX Chapel, Our Lady of the Angels is located, and that is why they went, to attend Sunday Mass with the Society. His parents were astonished when our son revealed to us that he was going to SSPX masses with this Wiseman kid. We didn't panic, but had serious concerns. It became necessary to come up to speed about this group who everybody I knew dismissed as fanatics, schismatics, or worse. Coincidentally, I started posting here around that time, Dec. 2004. My wife and I attended our first Society Mass on Jan. 1, 2005, thanks in some part to the then, youthful Mr. Wiseman. 

So there is a personal reason for an interest in his talk, but Fr. Wiseman also now teaches philosophy at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary. This is the seminary that provides the formation for North American candidates for the priesthood. The subject of Fr. Wiseman's second episode in the series is called "Origins - Nominalism & Luther". Not surprisingly, it brought to mind conversations I have had here with you Mark. Our interactions helped give me the ability to follow the subject matter. I was able to understood Fr. Wiseman with ease. It was more of an explanation of Nominalism as being alien to Catholic thinking, than a critique. He speaks about how this philosophy had influenced Martin Luther's Augustinian monastery, and briefly, how it affected Luther's theological journey. 

I have not followed Bp. Barron. I am glad to have heard he is conservative. I am relatively certain that if he believed that there was a "crisis in the Church", I would have heard about it. In the introduction of the series, Fr. Franks explains that any Catholic who doesn't attend the local parish, under the authority of the local bishop must have a good reason. To be associated with the Society of St. Pius X is to declare that there is an emergency in the church. We cannot, even if the crisis should last for another 100 years, accept the situation we are in as "normal" just because our parents brought us up that way. We need to be always hoping for a Roman conversion back to Tradition (my words). We cannot be at ease until once again, we can attend and participate at all of our local parishes without dangers to the faith. There are now a handful of bishops who are starting to see that something is drastically wrong in Rome. There are also diocesan priests defending participation at Society chapels and approaching the Society about how to say the Old Mass. This is progress! They probably do not realize that the roots go back to at least the 14th Century, but at least these bishops and priests are smelling the foul fruits of Vatican II, and are beginning to speak about it publicly. Tomorrow is the 50th Anniversary of the Society of St. Pius X. From 1970 until now, hardly a prelate or priest could be found who would speak openly in sympathetic terms about the Society's founder, Abp. Marcel LeFebvre, but that is changing. I think Pope Francis is causing some conservatives to despair being able to defend him. One might hope that Bp. Barron is thinking that way.

There is a way for listeners to submit questions. Mark, I am sure they would enjoy being stumped by you more than I have in the past! 

Rory

http://sspxpodcast.com/crisis/

 

Thanks for your reply- !!   Again I don't want to hijack this thread so this will be my only reply here on this topic- we could start another thread if it becomes relevant to do so.

First off, to name someone to get their attention I have found that all one has to do is to type the circled "a" symbol and start typing their name, and then a pop-up will appear with a directory of names close to the one you are typing - and then just hit the enter key and you will end up with this result, in this case, @Storm Rider

So now that I have summoned Mr Rider ;)  he will get a notification to find this post. and then he

will know to look at the above response you made to both of us.

Also I think this works as well- to quote two posts from two different people, you quote the first in the usual way with the "quote" key, and make your response to the first individual.   Then to quote the second person, you go to the quote you want to reply to, and highlight a portion of it and then, sometimes if the weather is right and the software feels like it, you right click the portion you have highlighted and then a pop up will allow you to copy and insert the highlighted portion wherever you left the cursor before going off to find the second quote as I just did as shown below just as an example.

So I have potentially two replies from different posts in this one post to you.  :)

@NemesisI wish we had a "how to" section or even a topic in the social hall or somewhere on how to work the software as it changes.  All it would take is to set up a thread with "How To's" that others here could teach us dummies on how to make this thing "go"  . Would that be possible?

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I have not followed Bp. Barron. I am glad to have heard he is conservative

This is the example of the second quote I made by the above procedure.

Now to the actual reply:

Thanks for all the info-  I may end up in Arcadia one of these days!!

Regarding Bp. Barron- I think I can say it better now- it is NOT that he is "conservative" necessarily- it is just that he knows how to vocalize things in such a manner so that both liberal and conservative Catholics, I think, can see that all that is getting in the way are words.

He did a thing on the "Real Presence" that actually made me understand it- NOT in Aquinas' terms but in contemporary philosophical terms that made sense to me.   So it is not that he is conservative- what he shows is that the old ideas can be made consistent with the new ideas as two different "paradigms".

So probably yes the true conservatives can see it their way and the contemporary paradigm holders can see it theirs.

It's kind of the way I think about LDS beliefs.   If I want to think or talk about Adam and Eve in literal terms, I can see it that way.

There is no way to "prove" that they never existed historically or that for that matter that God did NOT create the world ex nihilo.  When you see these differences as largely semantic- that cuts both ways!

On the other hand some people, myself included, simply LIKE the connection with ancient customs and symbolism and to be able to think that these words as stated today in my presence are ANCIENT words striving to reveal eternal truths.   I feel that way about the BOM - I wish I could read it in ancient terms as well.

But because the philosophers of the time did not have the benefits of 2000 years of advancements in logic in their use of semantics, it is not their fault they way they did their philosophy.   It would be like criticizing them for their use of quill pens instead of computer based word processing and the internet! They were describing the same experiences we do today,but using the language and tools of their time-you cannot fault them for that.

Plus Bp Barron is very much into the fact that Jesus was human and God all at once- and has an amazing view I think of the Incarnation and it almost makes ME want to genuflect at the sentence "The Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us"

To me that is the entire kernel of it all- all of Christianity is concentrated into those 9 words.

So I just thank you for exposing an area of Catholic thought that I did not know existed, even if he is not quite "SSPX material" at this time. 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1
Link to post

@NemesisI wish we had a "how to" section or even a topic in the social hall or somewhere on how to work the software as it changes.  All it would take is to set up a thread with "How To's" that others here could teach us dummies on how to make this thing "go"  . Would that be possible?
 

I can look into it.  I’ll have to see if I can assign managers to the topic or set up a faq system that someone can manage along with a topic set up to support the faq system.  It’s something that I probably wouldn’t want to take on myself to maintain, so it would need to be community driven.  

Link to post
3 hours ago, Nemesis said:

@NemesisI wish we had a "how to" section or even a topic in the social hall or somewhere on how to work the software as it changes.  All it would take is to set up a thread with "How To's" that others here could teach us dummies on how to make this thing "go"  . Would that be possible?
 

I can look into it.  I’ll have to see if I can assign managers to the topic or set up a faq system that someone can manage along with a topic set up to support the faq system.  It’s something that I probably wouldn’t want to take on myself to maintain, so it would need to be community driven.  

Thanks mucho

I think even just a thread would be better than nothing-   step 1 gather questions- "How do I quote a post"?- and answers- "Hit the button at the bottom of the post you want to quote"

Then after a bunch of faq's are gathered - somebody in the community could just link to the previously given answers- "See this post"- with a link.

I don't see how it would take much if any admin but here I am knowing nothing about it!   😜

I know you are busy- thanks for answering and even thinking about it!!

Link to post
On 10/21/2020 at 9:55 AM, 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.

I doubt you will find many wards that have a gay couple that attend.  The gay community pursued legal marriage to have equal rights as all other couples. Too bad they couldn't have made it a civil union law to gain equality and keeping peace with all Christian faiths.

Link to post
1 hour ago, fm19 said:

I doubt you will find many wards that have a gay couple that attend.  The gay community pursued legal marriage to have equal rights as all other couples. Too bad they couldn't have made it a civil union law to gain equality and keeping peace with all Christian faiths.

I would have preferred the government change the name of the marriage laws to civil unions across the board and allow marriage as a cultural and/or religious term to be used by people how they wanted rather than a legal one, but that would have been huge.

  • Like 3
Link to post

The Vatican has clarified this situation by sending a letter to all papal nuncios (think of a nuncio as an ambassador to governments).

From this CNN article:

Quote

"More than a year ago, during an interview, Pope Francis answered two different questions at two different times that, in the aforementioned documentary, were edited and published as a single answer without the proper contextualization, which has led to confusion," the letter says.

It's seem a bit nefarious to edit the Pope in this manner. The filmmaker also lied about interviewing the Pope:

Quote

Following the film's premiere in Rome on October 21, Afineevsky told the Associated Press that he had personally interviewed the Pope for his documentary. 

However, journalists later discovered that the footage of the Pope interview was taken from a 2019 Mexico Televisa interview. The Pope's comments on civil unions were not aired in the initial Televisa interview.

Here's the clarification concerning civil unions:

Quote

Regarding the pope's comments in the film that "what we need is a civil union law," the Vatican's clarification says that the Pope was speaking about his opposition to a same-sex marriage law in Argentina ten years ago when the Pope was Archbishop of Buenos Aires.

In that context, the Vatican's letter claims, the Pope "had spoken about the rights of these people to have certain legal protection," but not about same-sex marriage.

"It is clear that Pope Francis was referring to certain provisions made by states, and certainly not to the doctrine of the Church, which he has reaffirmed numerous times over the years," the letter explains.

They are trying to separate a secular legal union from a sacramental marriage. Is it slippery slope rationalizations?

Here's the clarifications about homosexuals having a right to a family:

Quote

In the film the Pope also says: "Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They're children of God and have a right to a family," which was interpreted by some to mean that the Pope was in favor of same-sex couples forming families.

The letter states that the Pope was speaking about the fact that "a son or daughter with a homosexual orientation should never be discriminated against within the family."

I wish the Vatican had clarified this immediately and publicly after the documentary premiered, instead of waiting until now and only through sending a letter to the apostolic nuncios. It seems a bit like trying to eat your cake and have it, too.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 10/23/2020 at 6:03 PM, mfbukowski said:

I suggest you ask your bishop if this is accurate.  A disfellowshiped  person can be highly restricted in their activity- including the ability to take the sacrament, teach, pray publically or serve in callings.  If you call that "full-fledged membership" I don't know what that phrase means.

But I am sure you will teach me.

Full-fledged member means, to my mind, someone who is fully a member of the Church.  Not all members can do everything some members can do, or know as much as other members, and yet every member is fully a member.

Link to post
10 hours ago, Ahab said:

Full-fledged member means, to my mind, someone who is fully a member of the Church.  Not all members can do everything some members can do, or know as much as other members, and yet every member is fully a member.

That appears to be a circular definition.   If every member is "fully fledged" then of course any member who remains a member remains fully fledged.

It's a distinction without a difference.

Link to post
11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That appears to be a circular definition.   If every member is "fully fledged" then of course any member who remains a member remains fully fledged.

It's a distinction without a difference.

I used the term to try to drive home the fact that a member of the Church is still fully a member of the Church even though he or she may not be authorized to do particular things other members of the Church is authorized to do.

At least your position seems to be consistent to your claim that there is no need to say something is true or that to say something is true is redundant.  I on the other hand prefer to state something is true when I know it is to point out that I know it is true.

Link to post
On 11/2/2020 at 3:41 PM, MiserereNobis said:

The Vatican has clarified this situation by sending a letter to all papal nuncios (think of a nuncio as an ambassador to governments).

From this CNN article:

It's seem a bit nefarious to edit the Pope in this manner. The filmmaker also lied about interviewing the Pope:

Here's the clarification concerning civil unions:

They are trying to separate a secular legal union from a sacramental marriage. Is it slippery slope rationalizations?

Here's the clarifications about homosexuals having a right to a family:

I wish the Vatican had clarified this immediately and publicly after the documentary premiered, instead of waiting until now and only through sending a letter to the apostolic nuncios. It seems a bit like trying to eat your cake and have it, too.

Wow, a religious leader's words being taken out of context by someone.  That's surely the first time that's ever happened <_< 

I agree that it would of been nice for the Vatican to have cleared this up sooner.  It would have even been better if the film maker hadn't attempted to put words in the Pope's mouth which had the potential to change Catholic doctrine.  I don't see any excuse for that.

Edited by ksfisher
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 11/4/2020 at 11:40 AM, Ahab said:

Full-fledged member means, to my mind, someone who is fully a member of the Church.  Not all members can do everything some members can do, or know as much as other members, and yet every member is fully a member.

We are speaking of people who are disfellowshipped.   For those who do not understand, such people, as judged by the bishop, may be barred from certain privileges until they repent of the sins that they know in advance may affect their membership in the church.  Today no one may even know that an individual has been disfellowshipped- such information is not disclosed generally, just to those who need to know, such as priesthood leaders, or as needed.  One restriction these folks may have could be for example not being able to say public prayers in church.   So it might be routine to notify the teacher of his Sunday school class not to call on them to say prayers, so the disfellowshipped person is not embarrassed by refusing to pray in front of the class.

So those who commit sins serious enough to be disfellowshipped may not be judged by the Lord to be "in the gall of bitterness" but the point here is that there ARE restrictions placed on some who have sinned- some of which may or may not be in the "gall of bitterness"- that is to be determined by the Lord him self

Ours is not to reason why- our responsibility is to read the directions and do what the Lord says.

And this is what he says:  Mormon 8:31- this week' s Sunday school lesson.  Bring up your issue in class and ask others if they think fornication is ok and a small sin the Lord does not worry about because the "Lord will uphold such" in the last day because after all, no matter what, we are all "fully fledged members".

Quote

31 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be great apollutions upon the face of the earth; there shall be bmurders, and robbing, and lying, and deceivings, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations; when there shall be many who will say, Do this, or do that, and it cmattereth not, for the Lord will duphold such at the last day. But wo unto such, for they are in the egall of bitterness and in the fbonds of iniquity

 

Link to post
4 hours ago, Ahab said:

I used the term to try to drive home the fact that a member of the Church is still fully a member of the Church even though he or she may not be authorized to do particular things other members of the Church is authorized to do.

At least your position seems to be consistent to your claim that there is no need to say something is true or that to say something is true is redundant.  I on the other hand prefer to state something is true when I know it is to point out that I know it is true.

Please don't put words in my mouth again- you have no idea what I think about truth.  There is no definition for the word "true" that has been capable of being philosophically sound, but like obscenity we "know it when we see it" and not everyone may see it the same way. 

Link to post
10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We are speaking of people who are disfellowshipped.   For those who do not understand, such people, as judged by the bishop, may be barred from certain privileges until they repent of the sins that they know in advance may affect their membership in the church.  Today no one may even know that an individual has been disfellowshipped- such information is not disclosed generally, just to those who need to know, such as priesthood leaders, or as needed.  One restriction these folks may have could be for example not being able to say public prayers in church.   So it might be routine to notify the teacher of his Sunday school class not to call on them to say prayers, so the disfellowshipped person is not embarrassed by refusing to pray in front of the class.

So those who commit sins serious enough to be disfellowshipped may not be judged by the Lord to be "in the gall of bitterness" but the point here is that there ARE restrictions placed on some who have sinned- some of which may or may not be in the "gall of bitterness"- that is to be determined by the Lord him self

Ours is not to reason why- our responsibility is to read the directions and do what the Lord says.

And this is what he says:  Mormon 8:31- this week' s Sunday school lesson.  Bring up your issue in class and ask others if they think fornication is ok and a small sin the Lord does not worry about because the "Lord will uphold such" in the last day because after all, no matter what, we are all "fully fledged members".

 

You're operating on a misunderstanding if you believe I don't know fornication is never ok.  I suggest you backtrack your misunderstanding to see where you misunderstood

 

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Please don't put words in my mouth again- you have no idea what I think about truth.  There is no definition for the word "true" that has been capable of being philosophically sound, but like obscenity we "know it when we see it" and not everyone may see it the same way. 

True is what actually is, and I'm not talking about what is not which some people may believe is.  Truth is self-evident.  It doesn't hide or misrepresent itself as something it is not. 

People are often mistaken about what is true but that has no bearing at all on what the truth is.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...