Pope Francis: Church could support civil unions

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

CNN

[Franzl]

Although I disagree with the notion that state recognition of unions (whatever you want to call them) should be termed differently based on whether it's a heterosexual or homosexual union, it's hard to really ask for more from the Pope.

Of course I'd also welcome church recognition of same-sex unions, but it's more important to not stand in the way of equality before the law, as a first step.

Francis continues to impress at any rate.

[RI]

Of course I'd also welcome church recognition of same-sex unions, but it's more important to not stand in the way of equality before the law, as a first step.

There's very little chance of that happening in the foreseeable future.

[Franzl]

Of course I'd also welcome church recognition of same-sex unions, but it's more important to not stand in the way of equality before the law, as a first step.

There's very little chance of that happening in the foreseeable future.

Of course.

[windjammer]

Although I disagree with the notion that state recognition of unions (whatever you want to call them) should be termed differently based on whether it's a heterosexual or homosexual union, it's hard to really ask for more from the Pope.

Of course I'd also welcome church recognition of same-sex unions, but it's more important to not stand in the way of equality before the law, as a first step.

Francis continues to impress at any rate.

Yes, Francis is extremely good as Pope. I hope some former catholic, who are now atheist, will rejoin the Church. I definitely being a catholic with this pope!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Although I disagree with the notion that state recognition of unions (whatever you want to call them) should be termed differently based on whether it's a heterosexual or homosexual union, it's hard to really ask for more from the Pope.

Of course I'd also welcome church recognition of same-sex unions, but it's more important to not stand in the way of equality before the law, as a first step.

Francis continues to impress at any rate.

Yes, Francis is extremely good as Pope. I hope some former catholic, who are now atheist, will rejoin the Church. I definitely being a catholic with this pope!

Why would an atheist become Catholic again? Having a more tolerable Pope won't cause someone to start believing in God.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Although I disagree with the notion that state recognition of unions (whatever you want to call them) should be termed differently based on whether it's a heterosexual or homosexual union, it's hard to really ask for more from the Pope.

Of course I'd also welcome church recognition of same-sex unions, but it's more important to not stand in the way of equality before the law, as a first step.

Francis continues to impress at any rate.

Yes, Francis is extremely good as Pope. I hope some former catholic, who are now atheist, will rejoin the Church. I definitely being a catholic with this pope!

Why would an atheist become Catholic again? Having a more tolerable Pope won't cause someone to start believing in God.

Yeah, I was about to say this.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Although I disagree with the notion that state recognition of unions (whatever you want to call them) should be termed differently based on whether it's a heterosexual or homosexual union, it's hard to really ask for more from the Pope.

Of course I'd also welcome church recognition of same-sex unions, but it's more important to not stand in the way of equality before the law, as a first step.

Francis continues to impress at any rate.

Yes, Francis is extremely good as Pope. I hope some former catholic, who are now atheist, will rejoin the Church. I definitely being a catholic with this pope!

Why would an atheist become Catholic again? Having a more tolerable Pope won't cause someone to start believing in God.

At the very least, it will slow down the bleeding of membership from the Catholic Church that's been occurring for so long.  If God and His word were imagined differently and preached more lovingly than they are today, chances are most churches wouldn't be experiencing the drop in attendance that they are now.  If a church fails to maintain relevance, or tries to outright exert itself on people, then modern society will become far less interested and the church will collapse under its own weight.  There is no personal incentive to worshiping something that's cruel, vengeful, and intolerant.  Since that is how God is portrayed 90% of the time, clergy are practically telling people they don't want them in their churches.  Many religious leaders are coming to realize this now, but Pope Francis is the one with the most influence who's doing something about it.  Sadly, I feel it may be too little, too late.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wow. I'm a fairly optimistic guy, and Francis keeps exceeding my expectations. Truly amazing.

[afleitch]

Although I disagree with the notion that state recognition of unions (whatever you want to call them) should be termed differently based on whether it's a heterosexual or homosexual union, it's hard to really ask for more from the Pope.

Of course I'd also welcome church recognition of same-sex unions, but it's more important to not stand in the way of equality before the law, as a first step.

Francis continues to impress at any rate.

Yes, Francis is extremely good as Pope. I hope some former catholic, who are now atheist, will rejoin the Church. I definitely being a catholic with this pope!

Why would an atheist become Catholic again? Having a more tolerable Pope won't cause someone to start believing in God.

At the very least, it will slow down the bleeding of membership from the Catholic Church that's been occurring for so long.  If God and His word were imagined differently and preached more lovingly than they are today, chances are most churches wouldn't be experiencing the drop in attendance that they are now.  If a church fails to maintain relevance, or tries to outright exert itself on people, then modern society will become far less interested and the church will collapse under its own weight.  There is no personal incentive to worshiping something that's cruel, vengeful, and intolerant.  Since that is how God is portrayed 90% of the time, clergy are practically telling people they don't want them in their churches.  Many religious leaders are coming to realize this now, but Pope Francis is the one with the most influence who's doing something about it.  Sadly, I feel it may be too little, too late.

That's only a small part of the issue. The Pope could make a public apology, sell the Vatican, personally start marrying gay couples and handing out free condoms, but it's not going to draw people back who either don't believe in god or in Christianity. The Christian story, with all it's bells and whistles is just too implausible for an increasing number of people. It's only taken seriously as an academic or spiritual influence because it has a significant number of followers.

The Greeks wrote whole philosophies, debates, prose and poetry on their gods. They provided eloquent arguments about the existence of the gods, their influence in human affairs and so on. No one believes in them anymore so 99% of the population aren't going to take seriously the idea that the Greeks might have been on to something.

If Christianity never left Europe, then it would be in danger of effectively disappearing as a force within the next generation or so. Globalisation is a friend to any idea however and it certainly has a lot of life in it in Africa and in China (to the extent the government allows it)

[windjammer]

Although I disagree with the notion that state recognition of unions (whatever you want to call them) should be termed differently based on whether it's a heterosexual or homosexual union, it's hard to really ask for more from the Pope.

Of course I'd also welcome church recognition of same-sex unions, but it's more important to not stand in the way of equality before the law, as a first step.

Francis continues to impress at any rate.

Yes, Francis is extremely good as Pope. I hope some former catholic, who are now atheist, will rejoin the Church. I definitely being a catholic with this pope!

Why would an atheist become Catholic again? Having a more tolerable Pope won't cause someone to start believing in God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Maurras

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Greeks wrote whole philosophies, debates, prose and poetry on their gods. They provided eloquent arguments about the existence of the gods, their influence in human affairs and so on. No one believes in them anymore so 99% of the population aren't going to take seriously the idea that the Greeks might have been on to something.

Depends on what one means by religion.  I agree that there are probably few Neopagans who take the ancient mythoi as literal truth but that most who follow that path do so to use mythological archetypes to gain insight into their own spirituality.  However, unlike the purely mythical religions, the semi-historical ones such as Christianity and Buddhism do have real people whose historical existence is pretty much undeniable except by a few rabid atheists who refuse to allow that any religion might have any degree of historical reality.  I find it doubtful that Christianity will be fading away anytime soon, tho doctrines that are unrelated or marginally related to the Great Commandment may well fade away fairly quickly.  Or they might not.  People have been predicting the future for as long there have been people, yet few have truly had Cassandra's insight and those who have, have generally shared Cassandra's fate as well.

[afleitch]

The Greeks wrote whole philosophies, debates, prose and poetry on their gods. They provided eloquent arguments about the existence of the gods, their influence in human affairs and so on. No one believes in them anymore so 99% of the population aren't going to take seriously the idea that the Greeks might have been on to something.

Depends on what one means by religion.  I agree that there are probably few Neopagans who take the ancient mythoi as literal truth but that most who follow that path do so to use mythological archetypes to gain insight into their own spirituality.  However, unlike the purely mythical religions, the semi-historical ones such as Christianity and Buddhism do have real people whose historical existence is pretty much undeniable except by a few rabid atheists who refuse to allow that any religion might have any degree of historical reality.  I find it doubtful that Christianity will be fading away anytime soon, tho doctrines that are unrelated or marginally related to the Great Commandment may well fade away fairly quickly.  Or they might not.  People have been predicting the future for as long there have been people, yet few have truly had Cassandra's insight and those who have, have generally shared Cassandra's fate as well.

With regards to Greek deities (and others) it’s worth pointing out that there may have been a basis in historical persons, even with fantastical attributes. Any evidence for that is of course long gone but it’s important not to dismiss it. Maybe Apollo was present at the siege of Troy?

Now would having an ‘historical’ figure at the core of a faith make it, by that definition alone, more plausible? Again, I can’t agree to that. We know that L Ron Hubbard was a real person but does that mean that it adds credibility to what he said? No. We can get away with saying that (for now) about a figure like Hubbard because Scientology has three flaws; it does not have a particularly large following, it does not wield particular power (though is of course taking advantage of ‘freedom of religion’ legal traditions to gain legitimacy) and it’s beliefs are to put it mildly, openly mocked. What I was saying earlier was that if we were able to treat Christianity in isolation; let’s say only a handful of people believed in it, then it’s claims (which are fantastical) would be casually dismissed without much need for engagement with them. It is however afforded a status by its popularity for the same reason all mainstream religions are.

I’m currently wading through census results in Scotland to try and give you a Western European example. The whole country is asked what religion they were brought up in and what they are now. The ‘No Religion’ group have highest retention rate; only 2.8% now subscribe to a faith. It has only been within the past two generations that it has been possible to publicly subscribe to no faith; there was no social pressure to at least pay lip service to one of the established or fringe churches. In many parts of even the western world that still happens to be the case. So being brought up as ‘no faith’, in any great number is a relatively new phenomenon. According to the 2011 Census, 52.9 of 0-4 year olds (whose parents of course fill the form) are being brought up with no religion compared to just 32.8 Christian. Amongst my age group it’s only 49.7/40.2 (with growth over the last 10 years in the ‘Nones’ being 27.5%)

Does it mean that these people aren’t spiritual? Does it mean they don’t believe in God? No. But of course as I’ve always argued deism as concept is a plausible (though I don’t subscribe to it) but is ultimately unknown. People I think are increasingly suspicious of theological interpretations of what for them is ultimately unknowable. Christianity is growing in other parts of the world however. As it grows it changes. Does that worry me? It does, simply because I fear both the cultural loss that comes through evangelism and the fact that the form of evangelism that is spreading in parts of the world, is being spread by some most ‘imbecilic’ forms of the faith.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Maybe Apollo was present at the siege of Troy?

Given how both of the Cynthogenian gods (Apollo and his (usually) older sister Artemis) ended up being syncretized with so many other gods in the classical era, there might well have been multiple Apollos at Troy.

Now would having an ‘historical’ figure at the core of a faith make it, by that definition alone, more plausible? Again, I can’t agree to that. We know that L Ron Hubbard was a real person but does that mean that it adds credibility to what he said? No.

I wasn't trying to say that having a historical figure at its core make a religion more credible or more truthy.  What it does do is give a religion a firm core from which it cannot depart too far from.  I mentioned above how Apollo has been syncretized with other gods so much that we can't ascribe to him a singular origin.  Christ too has been syncretized a lot but Christianity's core historical documents have always led to a return to its roots based on the ministry of the singular Jesus.  Similarly, if Scientology does survive, it may well take different forms, but will inevitably return to Hubbard's writings.

[Mr. Illini]

Proud to be a Catholic once again.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Religion, of course, will always be looked at with the lens of its era.  The word "faith," for example, appears to have evolved in meaning simply because the way we attain and define knowledge has changed over the last hundred years.  People today are more skeptical of theological interpretations of Christianity because they are more inclined to challenge longstanding tradition and theories (not saying that's a bad thing), but ultimately the source of that information is going to matter, especially if one side of the story dominates the conversation, and therefore lays the foundation for what segregates religious opinion.

To back up on one point afleitch made, a recent survey found that while the number of non-religious Americans has gone up, nearly 70% of those people report belief in a God or higher power.  This suggests to me that while the mechanics of mainstream religion are being brought into question, the essence of theistic religions, 'God,' is still commonly accepted and embraced.  People are not ready to completely abandon the notion of a greater being even though the messaging has been corrupted throughout the history of mankind.

My point is, we should not understate the importance of messaging.  Putting biases aside, it's plainly obvious that organized religion has become unappealing to people and is slowly becoming a taboo subject.  If more Christian leaders abandoned the knee-jerk response against transforming the church to be more in line with the changing times without compromising on core values, it might not reverse the trend, but it would slow down the growing abandonment of religion.

[windjammer]

Proud to be a Catholic once again.

So am I

[afleitch]

Proud to be a Catholic once again.

So am I

Why this? Nothing is actually changing and his remarks, as all his remarks seem to be, have been 'clarified'. LGBT people are still in the eyes of the church guilty of a 'moral evil'.

[Mr. Illini]

Proud to be a Catholic once again.

So am I

Why this? Nothing is actually changing and his remarks, as all his remarks seem to be, have been 'clarified'. LGBT people are still in the eyes of the church guilty of a 'moral evil'.

He is clarifying the Church's stance on the issue. I understand that he is not advocating for same-sex marriage, but I wouldn't expect that. What I am happy about is how he is asking the Church to take a step back from its rigid reaction to expanding marriage equality around the world and remind people 1) not to judge others, no matter what you believe on the topic, 2) there are issues other than same-sex marriage that are even more important, like helping the suffering, and 3) it is possible for the Church to support civil unions.

[windjammer]

Proud to be a Catholic once again.

So am I

Why this? Nothing is actually changing and his remarks, as all his remarks seem to be, have been 'clarified'. LGBT people are still in the eyes of the church guilty of a 'moral evil'.

You're extremely boring Afleicht. If you don't recognize that the Catholic Church is becoming more gay-friendly, that's your problem.

[afleitch]

Proud to be a Catholic once again.

So am I

Why this? Nothing is actually changing and his remarks, as all his remarks seem to be, have been 'clarified'. LGBT people are still in the eyes of the church guilty of a 'moral evil'.

You're extremely boring Afleicht. If you don't recognize that the Catholic Church is becoming more gay-friendly, that's your problem.

If you don't recognise that a change of 'word choice' aside (which was never Benedicts strong point anyway), that it hasn't then you're slightly over ecstatic about Francis' statements. The official position of the Catholic Church as outlined in it's 'On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons' is as follows;

"although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

Furthermore;

"But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned,[/i]or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behaviour to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase."

There has been no doctrinal change in the Church's position.

[windjammer]

Proud to be a Catholic once again.

So am I

Why this? Nothing is actually changing and his remarks, as all his remarks seem to be, have been 'clarified'. LGBT people are still in the eyes of the church guilty of a 'moral evil'.

You're extremely boring Afleicht. If you don't recognize that the Catholic Church is becoming more gay-friendly, that's your problem.

If you don't recognise that a change of 'word choice' aside (which was never Benedicts strong point anyway), that it hasn't then you're slightly over ecstatic about Francis' statements. The official position of the Catholic Church as outlined in it's 'On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons' is as follows;

"although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

Furthermore;

"But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned,[/i]or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behaviour to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase."

There has been no doctrinal change in the Church's position.

And one day there will be. Me, what I see, it's a pope who is much less conservative on this issue than the last, it's a big improvement and the Catholic Church is going much more "opened" towards homosexuals. That's why I'm happy to be Catholic! I

[afleitch]

And one day there will be. Me, what I see, it's a pope who is much less conservative on this issue than the last, it's a big improvement and the Catholic Church is going much more "opened" towards homosexuals. That's why I'm happy to be Catholic! I

And if it actually happens, given how helpful that would be to LGBT people in the developing world I will fly to Rome and kiss his ring But it hasn't happened yet and it doesn't help getting carried away.

[windjammer]

And one day there will be. Me, what I see, it's a pope who is much less conservative on this issue than the last, it's a big improvement and the Catholic Church is going much more "opened" towards homosexuals. That's why I'm happy to be Catholic! I

And if it actually happens, given how helpful that would be to LGBT people in the developing world I will fly to Rome and kiss his ring But it hasn't happened yet and it doesn't help getting carried away.

Be careful Afleicht, I will remember your post

[7,052,770]

I feel pretty confident that 20 years from now the Catholic Church will have same-sex blessings (probably not called "marriage") like the Episcopal Church has.

The church is much more gay-friendly today in 2014 than the Episcopal Church was in 1989, and this is an issue with a lot of momentum. By 2034 gay marriage will be legal in every country that has a sizable Catholic population, aside from maybe some African backwaters.