Pope Francis Condoned Same-Sex Acts?
Ugh!  I just read this in the comments at Life Site News:

Quote:When I picked up the book, "On Heaven and Earth", shortly after the election of Jorge Bergoglio, and it opened to page 117, which has a statement from Jorge Bergoglio, which denies the Sanctity of the marital act, by condoning same-sex sexual acts, as long as they are "private", do not include children, and are not called marriage, I knew we were in serious trouble.

Has anyone read this book?  Can anyone confirm this?
I have not read the book, but here is the relevant excerpt, from pp. 116-17 of the 2013 translation by Bermudez and Goodman:

Quote:Bergoglio: I have the same exact opinion; in order to define it I would use the expression “anthropologic regression,” a weakening of the institution that is thousands of years old and that was forged according to nature and anthropology. Fifty years ago, concubinage, or co-habitation, was not very socially common like it is now.  It was even a clearly derogatory word. Later, the whole thing changed. Today, living together before getting married, even though it is not right from a religious point of view, does not have  the same negative connotation in society that it had fifty years ago. It is a sociological fact that co-habitation certainly does not have  the fullness, or the greatness of marriage, which has thousands of years of value that deserves to be defended. It is because of this that we  warn about its possible devaluation and, before modifying the law, one must reflect a lot about all that it will put in play.

For us, what you just pointed out is also important, the foundation of Natural Law that appears in the Bible that speaks about the union between man and woman. There have  always been homosexuals. The island of Lesbos was known because homosexual women lived there, but it never occurred historically that they would seek to give them the same status of marriage. They were tolerated or they were not, they were admired or they were not, but they were never put on the same level. We  know that in times of momentous change the homosexual phenomenon grew, but in this period, it is the first time that the legal problem of assimilating it to marriage has arisen, and this I consider an anti- value and an anthropological regression. I say this because it transcends the religious issue, it is anthropological. If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party nor is society affected. Now, if the union  is given the category of marriage and they are given adoption rights, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help them shape their identity.

I do not get the impression that he is condoning private sexual acts, since he clearly says that even heterosexual activity outside of marriage is not right from a Christian perspective. He is making the point that giving homosexual unions the status of marriage and forcing society to become a party to the union is socially corrosive and harms the institution of marriage by detaching it from its foundation in Natural Law. He says that this is regressive, not progressive, even from a broad anthropological perspective, which suggests that modern societies have become in some ways cruder and more primitive than the cultures of some of the world's most remote and undeveloped places.
Whew!  Thanks for sharing that.  I was wondering why it hadn't been brought up long ago.

This is what is so unfortunate.  Facts get misconstrued on both sides of issues or perceptions.

" If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party nor is society affected. "

This is a blatant heresy.
(01-10-2017, 11:02 AM)KurutzeMaitea Wrote: " If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party nor is society affected. "

This is a blatant heresy.

Yes.  Good point!

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)