'Pope Francis: Church could support civil unions'

[shenmue]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/05/pope-francis-church-could-support-civil-unions/?hpt=hp_t2

In a Wednesday interview with Italian news outlet Correia della Sera, Pope Francis repeated his opposition to gay marriage. However, he said, "We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety." His interview opened up the possibility of support for civil unions.

[Bluenorthwest]

1. Of course he said no such thing at all. The dishonesty is a form of disrespect.

He said much about his opposition to equality and "We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety."
He did not say the Church could support civil unions. To claim that he did is to bear false witness on a wildly important subject. Very Christian of the Francis folks.

[shenmue]

2. Did you read what he said?

Did you read the whole article?

You don't seem to know what you're talking about. Being knee-jerk anti-Pope Francis really is no better.

"Very Christian of the Francis folks." I guess I know what I'm dealing with here. Get the chip off your shoulder. There are some people for whom nothing is ever good enough. If you just don't like Catholics, say so.

[MNBrewer]

3. What particular quote from the Pope makes you think that the "church could support civil unions"?

Because I don't see it in any of the material in the article.

[NYC Liberal]

5. There isn't one.

He simply states a fact -- that states "justify" civil unions by saying they are for health and tax benefits. He never says he supports them or might support them; he just says that's what's happening.

[1awake]

6. I see it.

Though I do not know how he meant it or where he stands on Unions... I can definitely see where someone could draw that conclusion, even if incorrect.

"We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety."

Yes, I can see it being construed that way.

[MNBrewer]

9. To construe it that way seems merely wishful thinking

[1awake]

11. Possibly.. not arguing that. Just saying I can see how someone could. nt

[MNBrewer]

12. I see how someone could take it that way too, but I think if he had meant it, he would have said it.

[1awake]

14. I agree. I think he is also walking the church through mine fields.

But I have no idea... Im not even Catholic. He show's promise.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Do you think it is fair to claim he said 'The Church could support civil unions' instead

of quoting what he actually did say and perhaps making a case for construing it favorably? Because I'd love it if he did say what the OP claims he said. But he did not say that. I don't think it is honest or respectful to claim he said that which he did not in fact say.

[1awake]

15. I believe it is an innacurate headline used for possible wishful thinking,

and I mean no offense to anyone by saying that. I would not be surprised if the Pope did, but what he said is not enough right now.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. He did not say what you claim. He said ""marriage is between a man and a woman."

"marriage is between a man and a woman." and "We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety."

He did not say the Church might support civil unions. Not even close. I dislike those who bear false witness because they are uncomfortable admitting that the Church and Francis are fully opposed to equality for LGBT people. Those who claim my community should not have equal rights are bigots, Francis is a bigot. In this case, the bigoted man said bigoted things 'one man, one woman' and he did not say what you claim he said.
He did not say what you claim he said. Attacking people who stand up for their own rights is wrong, always, always, always.
He did not say what you claim he said. Jesus said 'Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no, anything more comes from evil'. I stand by that. He did not say what you claim he said. At all.

[theHandpuppet]

16. Okay, I've now perused several articles on the subject...

... including this one: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1400916.htm

My take on this is, having first underscored his belief about marriage exiting solely between a man and a woman, he then goes on to talk about other kinds of nonmarital civil unions. I took that as some acceptance of heterosexual couples in nonmarital unions. I did not interpret LGBTs as part of that consideration but if that's what he intended he needs to be very clear about it, because that would be in direct contradiction to his own bishops, who are actively lobbying for anti-LGBT rights across the country. Not just against marriage equality, but actual discrimination legislation like that in Arizona and Kansas. What I suspect is that within a day or two you'll find some press release from the Vatican stating that Pope Francis was not referring to gays when he was talking about some provisional acceptance of civil unions. I sincerely I hope I'm wrong but I've seen this happen before. You'll have to pardon my skepticism but some obtuse statement from Francis doesn't hold much sway for me when the USCCB is fiercely lobbying against any LGBT rights even as we speak.

[theHandpuppet]

23. And just as I had predicted...

Happens every time.

http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=9512
(EWTN News/CNA)
Priest clarifies misconceptions on Pope's civil union remarks
By Elise Harris
Vatican City, Mar 7, 2014

(excerpt)
A priest connected with the Vatican press office addressed Pope Francis' recent words on civil unions in an interview, noting that his comments were general and did not imply a change in Church doctrine.

<snipping>

Fr. Rosica, C.S.B., who serves as the English language assistant to Holy See Press Office, observed that “Some journalists have interpreted the Pope's words...to reflect an openness on the part of the Church to civil unions. Others have interpreted his words to be addressing the question of same-sex marriage.”

Giving the original Italian version of the pontiff's words on civil unions, Fr. Rosica provided his own personal translation, highlighting the importance of understanding that “'civil unions'” in Italy refer to people who are married by the state, outside of a religious context.”

Addressing questions from some journalists who have asked whether or not the comments were made in reference to gay civil unions, the priest emphasized that “The Pope did not choose to enter into debates about the delicate matter of gay civil unions.” ....MORE

[leftyohiolib]

17. youre wasting your time talking to that hater

[Bluenorthwest]

19. What a nasty streak you have.

Priest clarifies misconceptions on Pope's civil union remarks
By Elise Harris
Vatican City, Mar 7, 2014

(excerpt)
A priest connected with the Vatican press office addressed Pope Francis' recent words on civil unions in an interview, noting that his comments were general and did not imply a change in Church doctrine.

<snipping>

Fr. Rosica, C.S.B., who serves as the English language assistant to Holy See Press Office, observed that “Some journalists have interpreted the Pope's words...to reflect an openness on the part of the Church to civil unions. Others have interpreted his words to be addressing the question of same-sex marriage.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113736385#post1

Dishonesty confirmed, hyperbolic disrespect for LGBT people confirmed yet again. You have a lovely day calling people names!!!!!

[theHandpuppet]

4. However, he did speak quite clearly about this subject

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26448075
BBC News
5 March 2014
Pope hits out at criticism of Church over sexual abuse

Pope Francis has strongly defended the Roman Catholic Church's record on tackling sexual abuse by priests...

...He said the Church had acted with transparency and responsibility, yet it was the only institution to have been attacked...

..."The Pope may make this statement, but then the Vatican doesn't reply to the UN or impose the obligation that bishops should denounce accused priests in the courts and not deal with the cases internally."...

"It is astonishing, at this late date, that Pope Francis would recycle such tired and defensive rhetoric," he said.... MORE

In the past few days Francis has also spoken out quite forcefully about the persecution of Christians but nary a word on the persecution, imprisonment and genocide being committed against LGBT persons, nor the actions of his own bishops in lobbying for legislation here in the U.S. to outright discriminate against LGBTs.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

7. The Pope hates Baby Jesus (nt)

[Bluenorthwest]

10. And still he remains silent about Uganda's anti gay laws. Leader of the largest religious

group in Uganda, and he says nothing. Just lets his local subordinates support the law while he sit about saying 'one man one woman, we must evaluate them'.
I had hoped the American Church would pressure him to do the right thing and speak out about Uganda, instead they just keep up the PR efforts and hyped up bullshit he never said.

[liberal_at_heart]

18. more positive baby steps forward. Obama didn't change overnight. Neither will the Catholic Church.

[pa28]

20. Admirable. K&R

[theHandpuppet]

22. Yep, except that's not what he said.

Otherwise, it would be.

[pa28]

27. That's how I inferred the statement.

Isn't this a good step?

[theHandpuppet]

30. Please see post #23 for an explanation

Came down exactly as I said it would.

[SomethingFishy]

21. As an atheist I really don't understand the hatred of this pope..

He's light years ahead of his predecessors and if we can forgive Obama for being anti-gay marriage then why does the pope not get the same accords?

[PeaceNikki]

24. It's not "hatred of this pope", it's disgust with the head of an organization that works to oppress

many of us.

I don't understand why that's so hard to get.

[SomethingFishy]

29. Yeah I'm a big opponent of the Catholic Church

however this guy is a step in the right direction. I seem to remember being told that "the perfect should no be the enemy of the good" by lots of DU'ers who stood up for Obama when he was anti-gay marriage too. The same DU'ers who now excoriate the Pope over his anti-gay views.
You will never find a post from me supporting anything any church does. I think organized religion is dangerous and deadly.

Were you not one of the people who supported Obama in spite of his stance against gay marriage?

Is Obama not the head of an organization seeking to oppress many of us? Where is universal health care? Where is a living wage? Where is income equality? Why are we still bombing brown people?

How do you know the pope isn't being held back by the church the way Obama is being held back by Republicans?

Sorry, can't muster up hate for the pope the same way I can't muster up hate for Obama...

[PeaceNikki]

31. That is such BS. Obama was always an advocate for gay rights, even when not a full supporter of

gay marriage.

The pope is just more of the same with an extra nicety or two. He and the church still fight very hard to restrict our rights.

[SomethingFishy]

33. Well I can't debate a lie or rewritten history so have a nice day.

Obama was an advocate for gay rights when he was forced to be.

Or was bringing Rick Warren in for the inauguration supposed to be an olive branch?

[PeaceNikki]

34. yuck it up.

Even when he was 'against gay marriage', Obama supported LGBT rights.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/06/22/250931/timeline-barack-obama-marriage-equality/#

A fuck of a lot more than your hero the pope ever will.


Ever.

[SomethingFishy]

35. My hero the pope.. Like I said lies and re-written history...

Have a nice day.

[PeaceNikki]

36. Obviously you mean the headline of this OP.

Natch.

[SomethingFishy]

40. Yes Ma'am

You have a nice day..

[theHandpuppet]

32. Which step is that?

What step in the right direction for women and LGBTs, whose basic human rights are not just some side issue. Women and LGBTs who are fighting tooth and nail even as we speak against church-backed legislation to further oppress women and gays?

[shenmue]

25. I know

It takes time for some to move forward.

[PeaceNikki]

28. Most notably, the church!

Also, the headline is either a deliberate lie or a huge fucking stretch.

[Vashta Nerada]

39. What's so hard to realize the pope says a lot and does nothing?

His organization and him have been oppressing LGBT people and covering up child sexual abuse.

[SomethingFishy]

42. Yes they have. However he is way better than the previous pope.

And that is all I was saying, but you guys go ahead, put words in my mouth, rewrite history, do whatever you want.

I already said I am an Atheist and anti organized religion.

My father was abused by a priest as a child, so yeah I know all about the church and it's dealings. However my statement remains factual. The current pope is a step forward for the church.

[Vashta Nerada]

55. No. He's not.

He's a different man with the same beliefs and convictions as every other Pope before him.

He just has a better PR team.

[woo me with science]

41. The pro-corporate mouthpieces here attack because of the economic message.

Of course many, many people are reasonably angry at and skeptical of the church for its history on social issues. However, a good fraction of the most vicious and deliberately incendiary attacks are coming from posters who have rarely showed such passion or outrage on religious issues before. Rather, they are reliable and scathing critics, smearers, and hecklers of anyone who threatens the narrative of corporate/neoliberal/neocon policies and politicians.

These few will attack *any* prominent figure who uses a bully pulpit to criticize government corruption causing economic inequality, and they will use the most convenient reasons available to justify their attacks.

Most DUers are able to perceive that, although the messenger is far from perfect, this amplified focus on inequality and political corruption from perhaps one of the most influential bully pulpits in the world is overwhelmingly a positive development. For those tasked with defending the corporate state, however, I believe the Catholic Church's history of bigotry and abuse is primarily a convenient tool with which to trash a messenger who is publicizing what they consider a very threatening message.

[SomethingFishy]

44. Thanks woo...

Funny how I apparently went from saying that this pope is better than the last one to this pope is my "hero". No matter how much anti-church stuff I include in my posts, if I say this guy was better than the last one then I am apparently a child molester loving, anti-gay, hero worshipping loony.

[woo me with science]

50. They are familiar tactics, and certainly a cue to help determine

when you are dealing with smear propaganda versus sincere criticism.

There are also posting histories to go by, of course.

[PeaceNikki]

45. Or... some of us would just like the church to stop fighting against our rights.

His message on economic issues is nothing new from the RCC. Ratz said much of the same.

Francis still fiercely opposes reproductive freedom which is in huge conflict with his economic message.

But, buy all means, continue with your ridiculous projections.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Occupy has a message of economic justice without the anti gay, anti contraception,

anti abortion stances and without the demonology laced diatribes against marriage equality.
I wonder how many here using poverty issues as cover for anti gay and anti choice politics supported Occupy, spent time in an encampment, took part in a General Assembly? I wonder how many of them openly opposed Occupy?

[PeaceNikki]

47. Good points.

It's beyond laughable that anyone would think that my or your disgust with the pope and RCC have anything to do with opposition to economic justice.


I'd be offended if my skin hadn't grown so think by now.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. Some might call it laughable to credit Francis with Jesus's message of social

justice and caring for the poor and most vulnerable as well. Others might call it blasphemous.

[theHandpuppet]

49. By all means, feel free to name names...

... since you have now cast a blanket of suspicion over anyone who dares to speak out.

[woo me with science]

51. I haven't cast anything over anybody.

The posting histories are available to anyone here.

[theHandpuppet]

53. Interesting tactic

Lob a grenade into the DU foxhole and let everyone else sort it out.

You made the charge. You back it up.

[woo me with science]

54. How is that a "grenade," to comment on behavior we see here daily?

We are well beyond having to "prove" that there are posters here pushing a corporate line and attacking anyone with this particular message.

The patterns of behavior speak for themselves.

[theHandpuppet]

56. Let's stick to the topic at hand, shall we

Which is THIS thread, not just anyone who posts to any thread on DU. Frankly, I'm not familiar with the posts of everyone at DU so I don't know who the blazes you are talking about. If you wish to address those posters with whom you have particular issues, then do so. We're not all mind readers, you know. Otherwise you come off as someone who is using this thread to further your particular agenda, which is exactly what you accuse others of doing. When I have issues with someone here, at least I have the courtesy to address them and not make scatter-shot attacks that will hit your mark as well as everyone else in the room.

[woo me with science]

57. No, the topic is the question to which I responded in my post,

and familiarity with the community and posting habits here is utterly relevant to an honest response.

DU is a community. If *you* aren't familiar with the influx of pro-corporate posting here and the now undeviating pattern of attacks levied at any prominent critic of the corporate state, then perhaps you should hang around for a while and watch. However, it's absurd to suggest that others who *are* familiar with the patterns must wipe them from memory and pretend as though they do not exist when trying to explain to confused targets of the attacks why they are seeing what they are seeing. Noticing and describing clear patterns of political behavior is not meanness or personal attack. It is an effort to provide necessary context in a political atmosphere that is increasingly poisoned by manipulation.

DU doesn't have a memory hole. Insisting that we stick to *this* thread and not notice broader patterns in posting is as silly as insisting that we not notice patterns in policy from our party over time. The very same group here that reliably attacks every critic of the corporate state also reliably insists that we treat each new corporate betrayal by our party as an aberration, perhaps multidimensional chess on our behalf. We are exhorted to drift from betrayal to betrayal in hypnotic belief that our corporate Democrats really still do share the same heartfelt principles and policy goals we do...even though their actions relentlessly pursue the opposite and even though the flood of corporate money they receive explains why.

Fixing this problem requires being honest about its existence.

Of course there is a pro-corporate posting contingent here. Naming names serves no purpose, because the administration has not shown any inclination to regulate it in any way. But to insist that it does not exist is to deny what is plainly evident here each and every day.

[theHandpuppet]

60. You can exhibit the honesty of which you speak...

... by addressing those particular posters with which you have an issue. It is, imho, dishonest to launch blanket attacks upon groups of posters in any thread you choose because there may be one or more names in there you contend are "pro-corporate" hacks.
Now if *you* aren't familiar with the bombardment of anti-gay and anti-woman legislation being promoted and supported and funded on a global scale, if *you* aren't aware of the GLBT youth forced into homelessness, the women being forced to seek back alley abortions, the GLBTs being beaten and tortured and murdered, the millions who will die of HIV and AIDS because they fear that seeking treatment will identify them as gay, the millions of women (and their families) who are forced into poverty because they are denied even their basic rights, even the autonomy over their own bodies, then perhaps you should hang around and watch. However, it's absurd to suggest that others who *are* familiar with these issues must wipe them from memory and pretend as though they do not exist. (Yes, two can play that game.) Some of us actually manage to care passionately about those issues as well as poverty and income inequality because we view these issues as fronts of the same battle.
In the meanwhile and despite the attempt to derail this thread, I'm returning to the actual subject of the OP. I'm sorry to say that I was right about another misleading headline with regard to how Francis feels about GLBT rights. The fact is, nothing has changed, nor will it. Wanting a thing does not make it so. He will continue to support discrimination against LGBTs and to oppose contraception, abortion and equal rights for women. His bishops are and will be at the very forefront here in backing discriminatory legislation and file endless lawsuits in this cause. Abroad, they will join forces with evangelical protestants to support anti-gay legislation so extreme that people fear for their very lives, while from Rome they will hear nothing but silence.
To me the latest press release confirming that the Pope's words were misconstrued is not a surprise because it has happened before. It's become a pattern. But to our many Catholic allies in the cause for the rights of women and GLBTs, it probably comes as disappointment. I have not declared war on this church, its leadership has declared war on me and untold millions of women and GLBTs. I will not celebrate the leader of this church (or any other involved in this war) as a DU folk hero when the rhetoric does not match the action. I am much more invested in the very real persecution of women and LGBTs than the Pope's public image.

[Bluenorthwest]

64. Calling Francis a critic of the corporate state is selective. He is also the world's leading

advocate against birth control, the use of condoms for disease prevention, equality for LGBT people, and he is also the leading Anti Choice activist on planet Earth.
Those who claim to care for the poor, except the women and the LGBT poor, who think you can address inequality while advocating gross inequality, who think you can fight poverty while keeping women from accessing birth control are wrapping bigotry and ignorance up in affected rhetoric about economic justice in order to make bigotry and anti science stances seem better than the superstitious ignorance that they are.
If you need to promote an anti gay, anti choice, anti condom religious nut in order to find inspiration to go out and help others, I don't know what to tell you.
Straight parents listen to hateful clerics, they throw their gay kids out on the street, thousands a year, they become homeless, are often abused, and the parental rejection creates what is often a lifelong cycle of poverty and fear. Not that you actually give a flying fuck about any of that. You are here to advocate for a rich, powerful guy who says those kids are just a tool of Satan in his attack on God.

[Vashta Nerada]

58. Benedict spoke out against capitalism many times.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/01-4

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-benedict-cautions-against-increasing-social-inequality/

And a book was written about his anti-capitalistic views:http://www.amazon.com/The-Crisis-Global-Capitalism-Encyclical/dp/160899368X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394324269&sr=8-1&keywords=pope+benedict+capitalism

Yet people here just looooooooooove francis.

[woo me with science]

59. I don't think Benedict's comments got nearly the press this Pope has received.

The concrete gestures of this Pope....eschewing the gold trappings of the job and driving a plain car and going into the streets at night to serve the poor and firing the Cardinals running the Vatican bank...All these things have helped to create a narrative in the media that amplifies his bully pulpit when he does speak critically of capitalism, rampant poverty, and looting governments. The media coverage of Benedict's occasional words never reached the level we are seeing now.

Now, whether you believe the words and actions are sincere or merely for show is not the point. The point is that he becomes a prominent voice on these extremely important issues and a threat to the corporate narrative.

[SidDithers]

26. Pope Photo-Op said no such thing...nt

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Truth means nothing in some strange quarters.

nt

[Vashta Nerada]

37. Grossly misleading headline.

The Pope said no such thing.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Priest clarifies misconceptions on Pope's civil union remarks

Giving the original Italian version of the pontiff's words on civil unions, Fr. Rosica provided his own personal translation, highlighting the importance of understanding that “'civil unions'” in Italy refer to people who are married by the state, outside of a religious context.”

Addressing questions from some journalists who have asked whether or not the comments were made in reference to gay civil unions, the priest emphasized that “The Pope did not choose to enter into debates about the delicate matter of gay civil unions.”

“In his response to the interviewer, he emphasized the natural characteristic of marriage between one man and one woman, and on the other hand, he also spoke about the obligation of the state to fulfill its responsibilities towards its citizens.”
http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=9512


For those who care about clarity, honesty and equality.

[Bluenorthwest]

48. Jesus Christ: 'Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no, for anything more comes

from evil'.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

61. except that he did not and that his press office clearly states

not to read into it.

""The Pope did not choose to enter into debates about the delicate matter of gay civil unions," said the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a consultant to the Vatican press office.

"In his response to the interviewer, he emphasized the natural characteristic of marriage between one man and one woman, and on the other hand, he also spoke about the obligation of the state to fulfill its responsibilities towards its citizens."

"We should not try to read more into the Pope’s words than what has been stated in very general terms," Rosica added."

[Bluenorthwest]

62. The disregard for truth is a function of the basic disrespect for LGBT people

It is sad.

[Ohio Joe]

63. 'We might not continue to try and prevent you getting married outside of the church... or we might'

Gee... Thanks shit bag.

The worst part of all this, is that there are people here cheering this bullshit. Fuck this asshole.