FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Media twisting Holy Father's words again!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Before someone reads the lyin' ass media. Let me unbiasly give you the quote.

Quote:Many countries have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?

Holy Father: Marriage is between one man and one woman. The secular States want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of coexistence, spurred by the need to regulate economic aspects between persons as, for instance, to ensure healthcare. Each case must be looked at and evaluated in its diversity.

This is read by this in the propagandastic-moronic mediaites as...



CBS - Did Pope Francis open the door to same-sex civil unions?
CNN - Pope Francis: Church could support civil unions
USA Today - Pope Francis leaves door open for same-sex unions
(Glenn Feck's) Da Blaze - Pope Francis Reportedly Hints That Catholic Church Could Tolerate Some Gay Civil Unions


and sadly from our own Catholic News Service part of the Judas tribe themselves...the USCCB

Pope, in interview, suggests church could tolerate some civil unions


[Image: sx52b59781.jpg]
(03-05-2014, 08:34 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Before someone reads the lyin' ass media. Let me unbiasly give you the quote.

Quote:Many countries have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?

Holy Father: Marriage is between one man and one woman. The secular States want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of coexistence, spurred by the need to regulate economic aspects between persons as, for instance, to ensure healthcare. Each case must be looked at and evaluated in its diversity.

This is read by this in the propagandastic-moronic mediaites as...



CBS - Did Pope Francis open the door to same-sex civil unions?
CNN - Pope Francis: Church could support civil unions
USA Today - Pope Francis leaves door open for same-sex unions
(Glenn Feck's) Da Blaze - Pope Francis Reportedly Hints That Catholic Church Could Tolerate Some Gay Civil Unions


and sadly from our own Catholic News Service part of the Judas tribe themselves...the USCCB

Pope, in interview, suggests church could tolerate some civil unions


[Image: sx52b59781.jpg]

Did you just completely miss the part on your own post??

"coexistence, spurred by the need to regulate economic aspects between persons as, for instance, to ensure healthcare. EACH CASE MUST BR LOOKED AT AND EVALUATED IN ITS DIVERSITY.

I guess until this train-wreck of a Pontificate is over we are going to live our lives pretending the big bad media wolves are twisting poor, naive Pope's words around. He feeds it to them willingly. Do not pretend he is the victim of some plot.
Speculation about the Pope's actions was inappropriate, and potentially an act of Gossip, Detraction, Slander, and/or Calumny or my part. I retract my speculation.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son,
and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,
world without end. Amen.
(03-05-2014, 08:46 PM)spikepaga Wrote: [ -> ]Did you just completely miss the part on your own post??

"coexistence, spurred by the need to regulate economic aspects between persons as, for instance, to ensure healthcare. EACH CASE MUST BR LOOKED AT AND EVALUATED IN ITS DIVERSITY.

I guess until this train-wreck of a Pontificate is over we are going to live our lives pretending the big bad media wolves are twisting poor, naive Pope's words around. He feeds it to them willingly. Do not pretend he is the victim of some plot.

No I did not, hence why I made the post.

Your little comment border-lining on calumny is leaving out the most important first part.

"Marriage is between one man and one woman. The secular States want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of coexistence..."

Notice the question posed was "Is that a path the Church can understand" The question was not  "Is that a path the Church endorses" that context makes a huge difference.


Papa Francesco was pretty clear....Marriage is between one man and one woman" I can't see how you would assume otherwise.

And yeah His Holiness is a victim, just as Papa-Emerito Benedetto XVI was a victim of being the "old, mean, Nazi Pope", I'm not going to defend everything the Holy Father has said (and you can look at my past posts, I've been slandered because I even was critical of the Pope at times) but as I tell everyone...I call it like I see it.


(03-05-2014, 08:47 PM)Drover Wrote: [ -> ]But why do civil unions need to be evaluated at all? They are Marriages in this context. The only thing His Holiness should have said is "No."

At some point he has to decide to limit his comments. If this is legitimate media malpractice he has to change his approach.

I think because civil unions is something not just for same-sex couples now. Hence why there would be an evaluation. For example, in certain places, civil unions legally offer more benefits than marriage...hence why some (especially older citizens) would want a civil union over a civil marriage.
(03-05-2014, 08:46 PM)spikepaga Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-05-2014, 08:34 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Before someone reads the lyin' ass media. Let me unbiasly give you the quote.

Quote:Many countries have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?

Holy Father: Marriage is between one man and one woman. The secular States want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of coexistence, spurred by the need to regulate economic aspects between persons as, for instance, to ensure healthcare. Each case must be looked at and evaluated in its diversity.

This is read by this in the propagandastic-moronic mediaites as...



CBS - Did Pope Francis open the door to same-sex civil unions?
CNN - Pope Francis: Church could support civil unions
USA Today - Pope Francis leaves door open for same-sex unions
(Glenn Feck's) Da Blaze - Pope Francis Reportedly Hints That Catholic Church Could Tolerate Some Gay Civil Unions


and sadly from our own Catholic News Service part of the Judas tribe themselves...the USCCB

Pope, in interview, suggests church could tolerate some civil unions


[Image: sx52b59781.jpg]

Did you just completely miss the part on your own post??

"coexistence, spurred by the need to regulate economic aspects between persons as, for instance, to ensure healthcare. EACH CASE MUST BR LOOKED AT AND EVALUATED IN ITS DIVERSITY.

I guess until this train-wreck of a Pontificate is over we are going to live our lives pretending the big bad media wolves are twisting poor, naive Pope's words around. He feeds it to them willingly. Do not pretend he is the victim of some plot.

Nail meets head! You hit that one out of the park, Spikepaga!! I'm so sick of the spin doctors pretending the Holy Father is an innocent victim. He is responsible for what comes out of his month. He did say marriage is between a guy and a gal but then goes on to say "Each case must be looked at and evaluated in its diversity." What else could that possibly mean? He is double  speaking. Trying to make everyone love him and it's causing confusion. He needs to stop pandering to the libs. Of course the media is going to run wild with these gems he's throwing them.  I'm sick of it!!!
I'm sick and tired of this pontificate already.  >sad
Thankfully Francis wasn't 58 when he was elected, so hopefully he will retire quickly. That would be a true display of humility!

I honestly don't care about what goes on in Rome anymore. The liberals are the liberals and the conservatives are the conservatives, sicut erat in principio. It will go on and on in circles until the End. Christ will separate goats from sheep when He comes. All we can do is watch, pray, love, and serve our enemies and strangers as best we can.

As St. Isaac Jogues said:

"My hope is in God, who needs not me to accomplish his designs. We must endeavour to be faithful to Him."
(03-06-2014, 09:52 AM)quo warranto Wrote: [ -> ]Nail meets head! You hit that one out of the park, Spikepaga!! I'm so sick of the spin doctors pretending the Holy Father is an innocent victim. He is responsible for what comes out of his month. He did say marriage is between a guy and a gal but then goes on to say "Each case must be looked at and evaluated in its diversity." What else could that possibly mean? He is double  speaking. Trying to make everyone love him and it's causing confusion. He needs to stop pandering to the libs. Of course the media is going to run wild with these gems he's throwing them.  I'm sick of it!!!

What he's referring to when talking about cases that "must be looked at and evaluated" is civil unions, not marriage. So the idea that there is some contradiction between his having said that and his also having said that a marriage is between one man and one woman is false.

The real question is what, if anything, is wrong with chaste civil unions that allow two people to, for ex., get insurance, be listed as "family" for things like making medical decisions for someone who can't make those decisions for himself, be listed as family so they can visit in hospitals, maybe affect inheritance for those who die intestate, etc.?

Personally, I don't have any big issue with the idea of some sort of civil contract that would allow two people to make for themselves some sort of home life, even if that home life must be marked by sexual continence.  Old spinster women, for ex., used to live together pretty frequently. What would have been the big deal with their having been able to form contracts to that the one could make medical decisions for the other if the sick one couldn't do that for herself? What moral issue is threatened if Spinster A is employed and Spinster B isn't, and Spinster A would like to have Spinster B covered under her insurance plan? What would be wrong if those two old women who live together as a "family" of sorts and have done so for, say, 20 years, being assured by contract that they'd be treated as "family" if one needed to visit the other in a hospital (and think of the gravity of that sort of situation if each other is all they have as far as family/friends go).

Obviously the Pope cannot condone two people who are sexually attracted to each other and have a hard time with chastity -- i.e., two people for whom each other's presence is a near occasion of sin -- being in a situation in which they'd be putting themselves in occasions of sin, hence the bit about evaluating things on a case-by-case basis. But if chastity is the goal, and proximity is, in fact, not a near occasion of sin for either, then where do the problems lie when it comes to the types of contract being called "civil unions"?  What do you guys think?  How would you break all this down to morally analyze it? What moral principle is at stake here?
The unfortunate fact here is that Francis knows darn well who he is talking to and that it will be understood as referring to sodomites.  Point being, why not just take the hard Catholic stance on this at a time when the media is pushing the homosexual agenda more than it ever has?
(03-05-2014, 08:46 PM)spikepaga Wrote: [ -> ]Did you just completely miss the part on your own post??

"coexistence, spurred by the need to regulate economic aspects between persons as, for instance, to ensure healthcare. EACH CASE MUST BR LOOKED AT AND EVALUATED IN ITS DIVERSITY.

I guess until this train-wreck of a Pontificate is over we are going to live our lives pretending the big bad media wolves are twisting poor, naive Pope's words around. He feeds it to them willingly. Do not pretend he is the victim of some plot.

I can't agree more.  The more outrageous the statements of Francis, the more Catholics deny that he is destroying the coherence of Catholic moral theology on the nature of the human person, the indissolubility of traditional marriage, the incontrovertible evil of homosexual behavior and unions of any kind and for any reason, and the primacy of life as an absolute.

The capitalized section above is distilled relativism, which orthodox Catholic theology rejects utterly.  He is not just a liberal; he is an out-and-out radical -- to the left of some of the most  heterodox clergy in Europe and America. Train wreck, indeed.  Wake up, people.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5