• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pope endorses civil unions

What does the pope's endorsement really mean in terms of real life for anyone? (Yes I realize that much of the RCC leadership still disagree with him, it was in the same article)

And yes, I am using a mostly US perspective, but gays in many countries now can marry or have legal unions. Doesnt matter what their religion is.

Does what the pope said mean that gays can have civil unions and not be kicked out of the church? Not be excommunicated? (I dont know if those are exactly the same).

The practical effect is unknown. The Pope can say whatever he wants, but no one is bound to live by what he says unless it’s declared ex cathedra. Until then its a matter of prudential judgement. But the fact that he said this publicly implies that his cardinals and bishops and priests are advised to, at minimum, not speak in opposition to such a secular legal arrangement if they want to remain in his good graces. You can be sure it’s being analyzed to death by canon lawyers as we speak.
 
You continue to mis-represent Jesus Christ and everything Christianity is about...Jesus described it all in 2 commandments...if you love God with your whole heart and you neighbor as yourself, you will not break any of His commandments, including the taking of human life, as well as having relations with a person of the same sex...

‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’" Matthew 22:37-39
You are one of the worst examples of Christians I've ever come across and when you cannot provide honest answers, turn to attacks and snark.

You are the last person I would take instruction from on Christianity...you are way too indoctrinated to evaluate any questioning, incapable of change.

And nothing I have written demonstrates that I dont follow Matthew 22:37-39. Feel free to show how my statement that I try to follow God's Word of compassion, brotherly love, forgiveness, and peace goes against that in any way??
 
The practical effect is unknown. The Pope can say whatever he wants, but no one is bound to live by what he says unless it’s declared ex cathedra. It’s a matter of prudential judgement. But the fact that he said this publicly implies that his cardinals and bishops are advised to, at minimum, not speak in opposition to such a secular legal arrangement if they want to remain in his good graces.
Just more politics and vagueness. More conflicting information for Catholics.

Even tho I like his message, it's all just a bunch of crap 'invented' to control people and gain more influence and $$ for the RCC...starting centuries ago and not changed that much.

I do not understand why any gays or most other people would follow the RCC except by family tradition. Any true examination of the religion shows it to be despicable in its attempts to manipulate God's Word.

Why would gays follow a religion that clearly finds them abominations? Why would their parents, families, kids? There are many other Christian denominations that do not do so, yet share God's Word without so many made up rules and manufactured guidelines, invented sins, etc.
 
You are one of the worst examples of Christians I've ever come across and when you cannot provide honest answers, turn to attacks and snark.

You are the last person I would take instruction from on Christianity...you are way too indoctrinated to evaluate any questioning, incapable of change.

And nothing I have written demonstrates that I dont follow Matthew 22:37-39. Feel free to show how my statement that I try to follow God's Word of compassion, brotherly love, forgiveness, and peace goes against that in any way??
with every post you make...I rest my case...
 
The practical effect is unknown. The Pope can say whatever he wants, but no one is bound to live by what he says unless it’s declared ex cathedra. Until then its a matter of prudential judgement. But the fact that he said this publicly implies that his cardinals and bishops and priests are advised to, at minimum, not speak in opposition to such a secular legal arrangement if they want to remain in his good graces. You can be sure it’s being analyzed to death by canon lawyers as we speak.
I did not mean to be so contentious in my previous post...obviously I see the RCC very negatively...altho not all its followers.

There was a case here last year where a Catholic school fired a teacher that got engaged to his male partner. The parents and kids demonstrated and got a petition to try and get them to reverse the decision. IMO, that is wrong. The school is following its 'laws' or beliefs. What else should students/parents expect? Why are they sending their kid to Catholic school if they dont want to follow the religion?*

IMO, if you dont believe in the religion...get out of the religion and the school. Dont be a hypocrite. If more people would do that, maybe the archaic repressive punative religion would fall by the wayside.

*Yes I realize sometimes more $$ and smaller classes, etc mean the kids may get a better education. That has motivated some of my friends to send their kids to Protestant private schools.
 
with every post you make...I rest my case...
LOLOL And once again...you couldnt prove me wrong. You couldnt answer a direct question. How disappointing to Our Lord, that you cannot articulate your views better.

I rest MY case. :)
 
LOLOL And once again...you couldnt prove me wrong. You couldnt answer a direct question. How disappointing to Our Lord, that you cannot articulate your views better.

I rest MY case. :)
Already have, with Jesus' own words...
 
Just more politics and vagueness. More conflicting information for Catholics.

Even tho I like his message, it's all just a bunch of crap 'invented' to control people and gain more influence and $$ for the RCC...starting centuries ago and not changed that much.

I do not understand why any gays or most other people would follow the RCC except by family tradition. Any true examination of the religion shows it to be despicable in its attempts to manipulate God's Word.

Why would gays follow a religion that clearly finds them abominations? Why would their parents, families, kids? There are many other Christian denominations that do not do so, yet share God's Word without so many made up rules and manufactured guidelines, invented sins, etc.

I wouldn’t call it “conflicting information.” Part of the role of the clergy, including the Pope, is to provide moral guidance on matters of prudential judgement based on their understanding of the theology and scripture. With the understanding that statements not made ex cathedra are susceptible to the fallibility of man. In other words, their view may be in error and it’s their responsibility to persuade you that it isn’t.

What would draw someone to Catholic Church vs some other denomination? From an intellectual standpoint, because it recognizes the importance of the human capacity for reason. “Because I say so” isn’t the reason for anything in the Catholic Church. It’s teachings have instead matured through and are supported by nearly 2,000 years of robust intellectual, theological, and philosophical debate and reasoning that is available for all to read and discern. And still, despite all that, it has the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that it doesn’t know the answers to some questions and leaves them for our individual ability to reason. It’s a very cerebral religion and no other sect of Christianity has that except perhaps Eastern Orthodoxy.

If you never have before then I recommend you read the Catechism as a starting place. Not for the purposes of conversion, but for the simple fact that you may find you agree with more than you don’t and you’ll have at least a beginner’s appreciation of the logic behind it.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn’t call it “conflicting information.” Part of the role of the clergy, including the Pope, is to provide moral guidance on matters of prudential judgement based on their understanding of the theology and scripture. With the understanding that statements not made ex cathedra are susceptible to the fallibility of man. In other words, their view may be in error and it’s their responsibility to persuade you that it isn’t.

That's exactly what 'conflicting information' is. ?????

What would draw someone to Catholic Church vs some other denomination? From an intellectual standpoint, because it recognizes the importance of the human capacity for reason. “Because I say so” isn’t the reason for anything in the Catholic Church. It’s teachings have instead matured through and are supported by nearly 2,000 years of robust intellectual, theological, and philosophical debate and reasoning that is available for all to read and discern. And still, despite all that, it has the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that it doesn’t know the answers to some questions and leaves them for our individual ability to reason. It’s a very cerebral religion and no other sect of Christianity has that except perhaps Eastern Orthodoxy.

Wow, completely disagree. They completely try to stomp out ANY questioning or free thought. IMO alot of religions do but the RCC is the queen of that. It's all 'because THE LORD said so' and when 'His Word' didnt say or mean something they wanted, they deliberately misinterpreted the Bible OR invented stuff all on their own.

And when and where is it acknowledging it doesn't have all the answers? What are some examples of things they dont have answers on?

It's totally a religion of convenience with the goal of more influence and $$$$. Every thing they 'invented or misdirected' focused completely on that. The lifestyles of the upper hierarchy and their assets are about as hypocritical as can be. The opposite of what they demand of their regular clergy and nuns...and followers.

If you never have before then I recommend you read the Catechism as a starting place. Not for the purposes of conversion, but for the simple fact that you may find you agree with more than you don’t and you’ll have at least a beginner’s appreciation of the logic behind it.

I believe in God's Word and it doesnt need any of the trappings and dressing up and ritual that the RCC has applied in order to sway and influence more impressionable, simple, less questioning, and/or less educated people. God's Word doesnt need any of that nor do I to appreciate and follow It.

As a kid, when attending Catholic mass with friends, the first thing that stood out to me was the up down up down up down (stand up sing, sit, stand up recite, sit, kneel and pray, sit, etc) constantly. And as I kid, I could clearly understand that that was done so that people couldnt fall asleep during the long services.

Why does God's Word need all that ritual and such trappings?
 
That's exactly what 'conflicting information' is. ?????

Saying that something is a matter of prudential judgement and the Pope saying x is what I think the conclusion on that matter should be and here are my reasons is not conflicting information.
Wow, completely disagree. They completely try to stomp out ANY questioning or free thought. IMO alot of religions do but the RCC is the queen of that. It's all 'because THE LORD said so' and when 'His Word' didnt say or mean something they wanted, they deliberately misinterpreted the Bible OR invented stuff all on their own.

And when and where is it acknowledging it doesn't have all the answers? What are some examples of things they dont have answers on?

It's totally a religion of convenience with the goal of more influence and $$$$. Every thing they 'invented or misdirected' focused completely on that. The lifestyles of the upper hierarchy and their assets are about as hypocritical as can be. The opposite of what they demand of their regular clergy and nuns...and followers.

I don’t agree. The Catholic Church uses deep theological and philosophical analysis of the Bible to derive consistent answers for contemporary problems and questions that aren’t answered directly by it. That’s what things like the Just War Doctrine are. The evolution of that theology and of the Church at large is eerily parallel to the evolution of the God of the Bible. In the Old Testament, God was a nasty, selfish, angry, prejudiced, and violent being. In the new, God had evolved into a loving, compassionate, merciful, and selfless being. We see that same transition reflected by the Catholic Church as it reasoned through those problems and questions.

In terms of matters of prudential judgement - they are legion because relatively few things in life have moral absolutes. It can’t know every possible scenario and it is in those exceptions that the Church encourages prudential judgement. In reference to an earlier discussion, something like rape is not a matter of prudential judgement because there is no scenario in which it is not intrinsically evil. The use of contraceptives however are subject to prudential judgement because there are scenarios in which they can be used for a purpose and with an intent that is not sinful or evil such as preventing the spread of HIV or some other medical purpose.

As it relates to Church assets - yes, it has a lot of them. But having a lot of assets isn’t something it denies the laity. It’s also not something the hierarchy denies any member of the clergy. Only some religious orders require a vow of an austere existence and that is not something dictated by the Vatican. People choose to enter into a religious order on whatever terms are required of them by the person who founded the order and not all of them involve vows of silence or poverty. And let’s not forget that the Catholic Church is also the largest charitable organization in the world.

I believe in God's Word and it doesnt need any of the trappings and dressing up and ritual that the RCC has applied in order to sway and influence more impressionable, simple, less questioning, and/or less educated people. God's Word doesnt need any of that nor do I to appreciate and follow It.

As a kid, when attending Catholic mass with friends, the first thing that stood out to me was the up down up down up down (stand up sing, sit, stand up recite, sit, kneel and pray, sit, etc) constantly. And as I kid, I could clearly understand that that was done so that people couldnt fall asleep during the long services.

Why does God's Word need all that ritual and such trappings?

The God of the Bible, in both Testaments, is one of tremendous ritual and fancy trappings. There are all of the rituals and trappings required at the big fancy Temple in the Old and the massive melodramatic 33 year long plot involving impregnating a virgin and having a son who had to be crucified and visions of big fancy bejeweled gates and mansions in heaven etc in the New. Nothing God does in the Bible is done simply or without fanfare.
But the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that all of the pomp and circumstance and ritual of the ordinary mass are required. It’s just a traditional method of worship and certainly not the only one recognized as valid by the Church. You can go to a Catholic Church on a Sunday morning for a full choir, procession, all manner of symbolic ritual, the fancy things come out etc. You can go on a Wednesday night and what you’ll get is a simple a sermon and communion.
 
Last edited:
In fairness, it’s not something the Catholic Church just made up and for no reason. It is a policy that was crafted to address a significant problem with clerical positions becoming hereditary and Church property and treasure being effectively stolen and rendered inheritable by the heirs of clerics. And it developed theology in support of that policy based on the life of Christ. It has no modern usefulness, but convincing the Catholic Church to abandon centuries of tradition is nigh impossible.

Good point, and my response to that is that the Roman Catholic church has too many "traditions" which are not based anywhere on scripture. Going down that path always leads to trouble as we know.
 
Good point, and my response to that is that the Roman Catholic church has too many "traditions" which are not based anywhere on scripture. Going down that path always leads to trouble as we know.

Weird Dan Brown conspiracies about Mary Magdalene not withstanding - Christ was celibate and never married. But the problem is that once you base a celibacy mandate on such a theological justification its very difficult to back out of it. Still, Pope Francis is perhaps best known for bucking tradition and the trappings of office from the day he was elected. Among many other things, he doesn’t live in the Apostolic Palace and instead resides in what is essentially a modest apartment building in a two room suite. He’s known to sneak out in disguise at night to serve the homeless in Rome. And he makes no qualms about making reformative statements to the press. This Pope doesn’t have a problem with married pastors remaining married if they join the Church as priests so who knows..the wholesale elimination of the celibacy requirement is a change we could someday see during his papacy.
 
Weird Dan Brown conspiracies about Mary Magdalene not withstanding - Christ was celibate and never married. But the problem is that once you base a celibacy mandate on such a theological justification its very difficult to back out of it. Still, Pope Francis is perhaps best known for bucking tradition and the trappings of office from the day he was elected. Among many other things, he doesn’t live in the Apostolic Palace and instead resides in what is essentially a modest apartment building in a two room suite. He’s known to sneak out in disguise at night to serve the homeless in Rome. And he makes no qualms about making reformative statements to the press. This Pope doesn’t have a problem with married pastors remaining married if they join the Church as priests so who knows..the wholesale elimination of the celibacy requirement is a change we could someday see during his papacy.

How do you know that? Where you there watching all the time? It was very traditional to have young Jewish men married off quite young. and usually arranged marriages.
 
How do you know that? Where you there watching all the time? It was very traditional to have young Jewish men married off quite young. and usually arranged marriages.

Because there are lots of indications that he wasn’t. No such person is ever mentioned at any point in the life of Christ or, as it relates to tradition, importantly upon his crucifiction and death. If Christ had a wife then A) why wasn’t she there (or anywhere ever for that matter) and B) why did Christ task John with the care of his mother? That would traditionally be the responsibility of the surviving spouse. Additionally, Paul presents a rather labored argument to the Corinthian church in chapter 9 about the right of an apostle to marry. Why would that have been a topic of dispute if Jesus were married and indeed why wouldn’t Paul have come out and said it if he were in defense of his position?
 
Because there are lots of indications that he wasn’t. No such person is ever mentioned at any point in the life of Christ or, as it relates to tradition, importantly upon his crucifiction and death. If Christ had a wife then A) why wasn’t she there (or anywhere for that matter) and B) why did Christ task John with the care of his mother? That would traditionally be the responsibility of the surviving spouse. Additionally, Paul presents a rather labored argument to the Corinthian church in chapter 9 about the right of an apostle to marry. Why would that have been a topic of dispute if Jesus were married and indeed why wouldn’t Paul have come out and said it if he were in defense of his position?

There are many years of the life of Jesus that are just not mentioned what so ever. Much of the life seems fabricated to echo back to some passages in the Jewish scriptures. (being a refugee to egypt for one) .. but the years from the time he was 13 until his ministry are not mentioned.

So, basically what that argument is the 'argument from ignorance'.
 
Because there are lots of indications that he wasn’t. No such person is ever mentioned at any point in the life of Christ or, as it relates to tradition, importantly upon his crucifiction and death. If Christ had a wife then A) why wasn’t she there (or anywhere ever for that matter) and B) why did Christ task John with the care of his mother? That would traditionally be the responsibility of the surviving spouse. Additionally, Paul presents a rather labored argument to the Corinthian church in chapter 9 about the right of an apostle to marry. Why would that have been a topic of dispute if Jesus were married and indeed why wouldn’t Paul have come out and said it if he were in defense of his position?
I can definitely see why they'd leave out 'complications that didnt fit their agendas.
 
There are many years of the life of Jesus that are just not mentioned what so ever. Much of the life seems fabricated to echo back to some passages in the Jewish scriptures. (being a refugee to egypt for one) .. but the years from the time he was 13 until his ministry are not mentioned.

So, basically what that argument is the 'argument from ignorance'.

No, the argument is that the life of Christ is chronicled often in great detail and no such person is ever mentioned so there’s no reason to believe such a person existed and plenty to believe such a person did not exist. The burden of proof falls squarely on someone who asserts otherwise.
 
No, the argument is that the life of Christ is chronicled often in great detail and no such person is ever mentioned so there’s no reason to believe such a person existed and plenty to believe such a person did not exist. The burden of proof falls squarely on someone who asserts otherwise.
That kind of assumes he did nothing in those years. I find that hard to imagine for anyone.

Thus, it's not unreasonable that they'd leave out things they didnt..."like."
 
Why would it be a “complication” and for what “agenda?”
I think I've been clear about religious agendas, esp. Catholic but also Protestant.

Um...'who' was his life "chronicled' by?
 
That kind of assumes he did nothing in those years. I find that hard to imagine for anyone.

Thus, it's not unreasonable that they'd leave out things they didnt..."like."

There are plenty of things to do in life that don’t involve marriage. We know that he followed in his father’s professional footsteps and became a carpenter. Who exactly is “they” and why would “they” omit a spouse?
 
No, the argument is that the life of Christ is chronicled often in great detail and no such person is ever mentioned so there’s no reason to believe such a person existed and plenty to believe such a person did not exist. The burden of proof falls squarely on someone who asserts otherwise.

Ok. WHat did he do from the time he was 13 till his ministry, except for the vague "Carpenter' How is there any detail there what so ever.
 
Ok. WHat did he do from the time he was 13 till his ministry, except for the vague "Carpenter' How is there any detail there what so ever.

We don’t know exactly, but again there’s no evidence he was ever married and plenty to indicate he wasn’t. If people could be bothered to note that Christ had siblings that we never really hear anything more about other than they existed then don’t you think someone would have mentioned that the Messiah was a married man?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom