Did Pope REALLY Approve Same Gender Marriage?

[righteousdude2]

Following the Pope's comments yesterday - http://time.com/131/pope-francis-willing-to-evaluate-civil-unions-but-no-embrace-of-gay-marriage/ - the internet broke out in a myriad of headlines and suppositions as to what the Pope did, or did not mean with his comments in the link above!

REMEMBER: This is the same Pope who reminded the world that his papacy seeks to welcome gays, not to judge.

So, with all the fallout still settling down around the world. I ask you to read his statements and be the judge as to whether or not the Catholic Church is one step closer to accepting gays inthe fellowship, and what this would mean tothe millions of faithful Catholics around the world?

 

[salzer mtn]

The Catholic church is the same as all political parties that will take on any group of people that will increase their numbers. I believe it was for a reason that the last Pope stepped down or maybe was forced to step down, who knows. The retired Pope was to old main line conservative. I heard a non practicing Catholic man on the news say in a interview, the new Pope gave him hope and he would be attending mass more often. I think the Catholic church will go with the flow.

 

[Yeshua1]

Following the Pope's comments yesterday - http://time.com/131/pope-francis-willing-to-evaluate-civil-unions-but-no-embrace-of-gay-marriage/ - the internet broke out in a myriad of headlines and suppositions as to what the Pope did, or did not mean with his comments in the link above!

REMEMBER: This is the same Pope who reminded the world that his papacy seeks to welcome gays, not to judge.

So, with all the fallout still settling down around the world. I ask you to read his statements and be the judge as to whether or not the Catholic Church is one step closer to accepting gays inthe fellowship, and what this would mean tothe millions of faithful Catholics around the world?

ANY real difference between aproving civil unions, but notmarruage, isn;t that real 'sematics?"

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

This is utterly ridiculous. No, the Catholic Church is not about to approve gay marriage. Speculating that it is is just plain ignorant.

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS​

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united.

Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.

Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).

I'm getting sick and tired of the attitudes around this board. It's enough to make me puke. If some aren't denigrating gays and denouncing them as "unredeemable" then someone else is demonizing the pope and the Catholic Church. Yeah, the church has it's problems, and it's ancient doctrine is unbiblical in several places. But consecrate gay marriage? You're outta your ever-lovin' mind! The article you linked clearly indicates that is not what Francis said.

He did not affirm gay marriage. He did not announce Holy See support for civil unions. He reiterated, yet again, the traditional and non-changing Catholic teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman.

He referred to states -- whether political subdivisions of nations, or the nations themselves, as considering recognition of civil unions for insurance and benefits purposes, NOT that the Catholic Church is about to affirm them.

I'm outta here. I feel like I need a bath.

And PS: Change your stupid poll. It doesn't have the only correct response there is: "The Catholic Church is not going to affirm civil unions or gay marriage."

 

[Yeshua1]

This is utterly ridiculous. No, the Catholic Church is not about to approve gay marriage. Speculating that it is is just plain ignorant.

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS​

I'm getting sick and tired of the attitudes around this board. It's enough to make me puke. If some aren't denigrating gays and denouncing them as "unredeemable" then someone else is demonizing the pope and the Catholic Church. Yeah, the church has it's problems, and it's ancient doctrine is unbiblical in several places. But consecrate gay marriage? You're outta your ever-lovin' mind! The article you linked clearly indicates that is not what Francis said.He referred to states -- whether political subdivisions of nations, or the nations themselves, as considering recognition of civil unions for insurance and benefits purposes, NOT that the Catholic Church is about to affirm them.

I'm outta here. I feel like I need a bath.

And PS: Change your stupid poll. It doesn't have the only correct response there is: "The Catholic Church is not going to affirm civil unions or gay marriage."

why even recognise even civil unions then, as it seems the catholic is about to do, as there cannot be any "union" acceptable for recognition, correct?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

why even recognise even civil unions then, as it seems the catholic is about to do ...

:BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:

Buy 'em books and buy 'em books, and all they do is eat the pages.

Or, to put it another way: "A born-again turkey is still a turkey."

 

[righteousdude2]

Okay, here's to you.

I'm getting sick and tired of the attitudes around this board. It's enough to make me puke.

​

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Who cares what Rome says? I'd say more but it would just be throwing gasoline on the fire.

 

[go2church]

I guess it was too much read what the Pope actually said?

 

[Bro. James]

Celibacy has made for strange bedfellows. Remember: homosexuality is no longer abomination but rather an alternate lifestyle--not a spiritual sickness but a genetic aberration. Our friends in Rome have been offering strange sacrifices for more than 17 centuries. Why do we give them a possibility of credibility?

We are re-enacting Sodom and Gomorrah. The volcanoes are growing restless(fire and brimstone). Remember Lot's wife.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Dr. Bob]

This is NEWS so allowing it . . but if it veers into discussion on human sexuality, it will be shut down.

Com'on people. Rule states "Please note that according to the Baptist Board User Agreement and/or BB Posting Rules no threads dealing with human sexuality will be allowed in an open public forum. If you feel the need to discuss any subject matter dealing with human sexuality the proper and only permissible place to do so is in either the BB Private Men's Forum or the BB Private Women's Forum depending on the gender of the person starting the thread."

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Who cares what Rome says? I'd say more but it would just be throwing gasoline on the fire.

:applause::applause::applause:

 

[Walter]

Who cares what Romes says? Over a billion Catholic Christians!

Civil unions are on the state not the church (I'm from the USA where separation of church and state is a thing).

If we bar all those who don't get to a pastor for a wedding from filing taxes together and owning common property, then common law marriage and heterosexual marriage in front of a magistrate must also be stopped.

More correctly, in my political opinion, all pastors and priests should be stripped of their office of performing legally binding marriages. By doing this, the state cannot force a pastor to marry anyone, homosexual or otherwise.

If you want to file taxes with someone and change your name, see a judge. If you want a sacramental union, see a priest. If you want both, then see both.

Taxable status is something that should be equal for all adults. Sacramental status is between the believers and their churches/faith groups. Never the twain should meet.

 

[Revmitchell]

More correctly, in my political opinion, all pastors and priests should be stripped of their office of performing legally binding marriages. By doing this, the state cannot force a pastor to marry anyone, homosexual or otherwise.

Now there is an answer! :BangHead:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Who cares what Romes says? Over a billion Catholic Christians!



Civil unions are on the state not the church (I'm from the USA where separation of church and state is a thing).



If we bar all those who don't get to a pastor for a wedding from filing taxes together and owning common property, then common law marriage and heterosexual marriage in front of a magistrate must also be stopped.



More correctly, in my political opinion, all pastors and priests should be stripped of their office of performing legally binding marriages. By doing this, the state cannot force a pastor to marry anyone, homosexual or otherwise.



If you want to file taxes with someone and change your name, see a judge. If you want a sacramental union, see a priest. If you want both, then see both.



Taxable status is something that should be equal for all adults. Sacramental status is between the believers and their churches/faith groups. Never the twain should meet.

Don't know why more people can't see the logic of this.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Don't know why more people can't see the logic of this.

There is no logic to a post that supports something the pope didn't actually say.

In Post #4, I proved that the pope did not even come close to "affirming" anything about civil unions or gay marriages, and isn't about to do so, and yet everyone continues blithely on as though they actually know what they're talking about.

Feel free to be as wrong as y'all want. I need a break.