Pope Francis signals openness towards gay priests

[LeCharivari]

Bottom line there is no rational reason to believe Pope Frank or ANY pope EVER will be a advocate for legal gay civil unions except as a defense tactic to block legal gay marriages.

I don't know of any "Pope Frank" so I can't comment on what he may or may not do, but the Catholic church doesn't need to be an "advocate" for civil unions to support them effectively - just to not have any objections to them as happened in Argentina and France.

[Jingthing]

Back to Argentina, which is relevant to Pope Frank (many Americans are calling the current Pope that name similarly to how Spaniards are calling him Francisco) the to later be Pope Frank advocated civil unions as a tactic to try to block gay marriages. It is clear he would have NEVER come up with that blocking proposal unless the marriage laws were set to pass. That tells people all they need to know about Pope Frank and civil unions. Basically he was obnoxiously trying to INTERFERE with the normal secular government functions of Argentina with his second rate civil unions push. Again, churches PLEASE keep the politics WITHIN your religions. If Catholics don't like gay marriages, or gay civil unions, or gay sex, just don't do those things. Don't push such medieval beliefs system on modern secular governments.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Back to Argentina, which is relevant to Pope Frank (many Americans are calling the current Pope that name similarly to how Spaniards are calling him Francisco) the to later be Pope Frank advocated civil unions as a tactic to try to block gay marriages. It is clear he would have NEVER come up with that blocking proposal unless the marriage laws were set to pass. That tells people all they need to know about Pope Frank and civil unions. Basically he was obnoxiously trying to INTERFERE with the normal secular government functions of Argentina with his second rate civil unions push. Again, churches PLEASE keep the politics WITHIN your religions. If Catholics don't like gay marriages, or gay civil unions, or gay sex, just don't do those things. Don't push such medieval beliefs system on modern secular governments.

"That tells people all they need to know about Pope Frank and civil unions"

Indeed it does - that he's a pragmatist, open to change as necessary.

[Jingthing]

"That tells people all they need to know about Pope Frank and civil unions"

Indeed it does - that he's a pragmatist, open to change as necessary.

That's a very charitable way of spinning it.

Again, the Catholic church has a nerve interfering with secular governments.

[LeCharivari]

Back to Argentina, which is relevant to Pope Frank (many Americans are calling the current Pope that name similarly to how Spaniards are calling him Francisco) the to later be Pope Frank advocated civil unions as a tactic to try to block gay marriages. It is clear he would have NEVER come up with that blocking proposal unless the marriage laws were set to pass. That tells people all they need to know about Pope Frank and civil unions. Basically he was obnoxiously trying to INTERFERE with the normal secular government functions of Argentina with his second rate civil unions push. Again, churches PLEASE keep the politics WITHIN your religions. If Catholics don't like gay marriages, or gay civil unions, or gay sex, just don't do those things. Don't push such medieval beliefs system on modern secular governments.

"If Catholics don't like gay marriages, or gay civil unions, or gay sex, just don't do those things. Don't push such medieval beliefs system on modern secular governments."

You are misinformed. While I have little faith in polls, according to Quinniac Polling "Catholic voters are leading American voters toward support for same-sex marriage," as American Catholic voters support same-sex marriage by a 54 to 38 percent margin - more than the supposed/polled national margin (note that the poll was conducted in March, so views on the Pope's leadership, etc, refer to Pope Benedict not Pope Francis).

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/connecticut/release-detail?ReleaseID=1863#__utma=149406063.963344224.1375459653.1375459653.1375459653.1&__utmb=149406063.2.10.1375459653&__utmc=149406063&__utmx=-&__utmz=149406063.1375459653.1.1.utmcsr=google|utmccn=%28organic%29|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=%28not%20provided%29&__utmv=-&__utmk=204316176

Modern secular governments are open to pressure, influence and lobby groups of all kinds: ethnic, racial, social, business, financial, etc, and it is those groups' leaders (elected, appointed or self-appointed) who authorise the lobbying. As long as all the groups are lobbying from a level playing field, which they are (or at least should be) in secular countries, there is no rational reason to exclude any particular group from voicing its opinions publicly and to do so would be to limit freedom of speech; those singling out religions for exclusion in secular countries seem to be picking and choosing basic human rights to suit themselves and their own agendas.

[LeCharivari]

"That tells people all they need to know about Pope Frank and civil unions"

Indeed it does - that he's a pragmatist, open to change as necessary.

That's a very charitable way of spinning it.

Again, the Catholic church has a nerve interfering with secular governments.

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "interfering".

"You use the word interference. That is a LOADED word.

Focusing international attention is not the same as interference."

Edited August 2, 2013 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

In the case of pre-Pope Frank's political pressure play in Argentina, I was referring OF COURSE to church leadership. Not referring to the voters. You presume to "correct" me about USA Catholic voters on a point I never made and never believed.

Again I was not talking about Catholic voters in Argentina, the USA, or anywhere. I was talking about their leadership, yes at the Pope level down.

Now I realize many countries are heavily Catholic and if those are democracies and the majority of the voters in such nations agree with Catholic church dogmatic leadership, that is a different matter.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Sorry, I get confused every time I read "OF COURSE"....

I am still confused as to exactly WHY you see Pope Francis' lobbying in Argentina as "obnoxiously trying to INTERFERE with the normal secular government functions of Argentina" while apparently identical actions by those groups who just happen to take an opposing view are not only acceptable as "lobbying" or "activism" but praiseworthy - and to avoid any confusion I am talking about such lobbying/activism/interference anywhere, with the Pope as an ideal example.

[Jingthing]

Oh, that's easy.

I oppose theocracy and any attempts by any religion to influence secular government policies.
Typical liberal American values -- separation of church and state.

[LeCharivari]

Sorry, JT, but I didn't ask WHAT you opposed but WHYyou opposed it.

WHY single out religious groups rather than groups based on ethnicity, race, business and financial interest, social interest, social status, gender, sexual preference, etc.?

WHY are religious groups so different that what they do is obnoxious interference when with others its just activism or lobbying?

(and I am talking about within secular states where religion has no direct input, not theocracies)

[Scott]

Stick to the topic of the thread. The thread isn't about why some posters believe what they believe.

Such discussions are nothing more than baiting. If you wish to have a private discussion, then use the PM function.

[isanbirder]

Obviously the Pope's actions in Argentina were pragmatic.... but he wouldn't have gone that far if he hadn't believed it was the right thing to do (RIGHT, not EXPEDIENT).

Somebody once said that trying to change the Church's mind was like to turn a supertanker round. Progress will be gradual, and to expect anything else is unrealistic. But this comment by the Pope shows that the supertanker is beginning to move.

[Jingthing]

I will actually believe that Pope Frank actually believes same sex civil unions (as opposed to NOTHING) are the right thing to do when he announces that clearly and publicly that he supports that for gay people in every country in the world, including the majority of countries in the world (like Thailand) that offer NO legalization option for gay couples. Until then, I think assuming he is actually thinks that is the right thing to do over NOTHING are indulging in projection and wishful thinking. Again, he took that position only as a compromise when pushed to the wall. That is no proof whatsoever that he thinks that is the right thing to do. It was only a SITUATIONAL political response. He wasn't choosing in Argentina between civil unions and nothing. He was choosing between legal same sex MARRIAGE and same sex civil unions. Nothing by that time was totally off the table. That's a huge difference politically speaking. He had already lost the fight for NOTHING and I believe that is the real intended policy of his church for same sex relationship legalization: NOTHING.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

Here is a transcript of the Pope's in-flight press conference. The main parts relating to gay issues are at the end, but I wasn't sure exactly which to quote, so I've given the link to the whole interview. I couldn't find a reference to gay priests.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-transcript-of-popes-in-flight-press-remarks-released/

[Jingthing]

Yeah I think he said gay PEOPLE, not gay PRIESTS.

But it was historic for a Papa to publicly say the word GAY.

Papa, not Papi.

[sustento]

Here is a transcript of the Pope's in-flight press conference. The main parts relating to gay issues are at the end, but I wasn't sure exactly which to quote, so I've given the link to the whole interview. I couldn't find a reference to gay priests.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-transcript-of-popes-in-flight-press-remarks-released/

I particularly liked this bit. It's a pity some of his believers don't follow their Lord's example

"But, if a person, lay or priest or sister, has committed a sin and then has repented, the Lord forgives. And when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very important for our lives. "

[sustento]

Or as Anwar's Dad said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zda8Mt0GIs