Pope Francis: Children have right to a mother and father

[theHandpuppet]

Well, I'm guessing that the upcoming World Meeting of Families in Philly will be a wake up call for any progressives who have desperately tried to convince themselves that there has been any shift in the church's positions on matters from contraception to gay marriage.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-children-have-right-to-a-mother-and-father-56123/
Catholic News Agency
Pope Francis: Children have right to a mother and father
By Ann Schneible

Vatican City, Nov 17, 2014 / 04:00 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Children have the right to be raised by a mother and a father, Pope Francis said, emphasizing that “the family is the foundation of co-existence and a remedy against social fragmentation.”

The Pope made these remarks on Nov. 17 at the opening of the three-day international, interfaith colloquium entitled The Complementarity of Man and Woman, currently underway in the Vatican.

Also referred to as the “Humanum” conference, the gathering is being sponsored by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in collaboration with the Pontifical Council for the Family, the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue, and the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity...

...He also warned against being moved by political agendas. “Family is an anthropological fact, he said, which cannot be qualified “based on ideological notions or concepts important only at one time in history.” .... MORE at link provided above.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Is the Church going to start 'assigning' additional parents to children

in single parent homes?

[bvf]

2. Yes, but Frank believes

the theory of evolution is correct, sort of. All is well. Move along, please. Nothing to see here.

This is no surprise. I don't expect to see RCC acceptance of LGBT rights in my lifetime. It would risk alienating too many nutjobs with money to give (take).

[trotsky]

3. Repeating what he said just a few months ago.

At least we know he's still a homophobic bigot.

[lunasun]

4. Family,Family,Family yet none of the leaders of that church both M&F, have a family in the sense

that they constantly declare themselves experts to comment on
Wtf?

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Super-mammal Pope; still a bigot where the rubber meets the road.

Sure made some nice inclusive-y-ness noises leading up to this, though.

Apparently fooled some people with it.
No matter. They will remain True Believers. And, they'll continue to get a pass supporting bigoted institutions like the RCC, here, on DU.

[theHandpuppet]

7. The MSM played right into it, too

I assign a good chunk of responsibility to a lazy, $$$-motivated media for passing along any crappy press release they can find as "news". I couldn't even begin to count how many media outlets circulated that "seismic shift" meme in their headlines, when just the least shred of investigative journalism would have told them, clearly and immediately, that it was nothing but bullshit. You would think the first dozen times they got burned at least some would be wary but since there's no accountability they'll continue to do the same thing over and again, no matter if its a pack of lies. Make no mistake, either, the LGBT media are just as guilty as everyone else.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. The media wins both ways.

The seismic shift headlines sell, and then when it doesn't pan out, the outrage headlines sell too.

Same thing with the war in Iraq. They got to sell the run-up and the embed, and later the controversy over the justification, after the fact, and without a shred of blame for over selling it.

[theHandpuppet]

14. Yep. Good analogy.

They all keep selling it because there's no accountability. As you pointed out, it's always a win-win for them, ethics be damned.

[cbayer]

6. I know he is just repeating the current doctrine, but I hate it when he says shit like this.

It totally undoes anything he has said previously that would lead one to have hope that he is leading the RCC in a new direction.

It will be interesting to see what he says in Philadelphia.

For a less biased analysis, here is a good article about his remarks and his upcoming trip:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pope-says-children-have-a-right-to-grow-up-in-a-family-with-a-father-and-a-mother/2014/11/17/4ecebdc0-6e97-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html

[theHandpuppet]

8. I can pretty well predict what he's going to say in Philadelphia

Truly, I don't understand why some folks think he's suddenly going to change course or announce some profound shift in doctrine. If anything, I think the anti-choice, anti-gay marriage forces in the U.S. will be quite pleased that the Vatican cavalry is just over the hill.

Re: the article from the Post -- the excerpt below tells me just about all I need to know.

Francis’s comment about the importance of a father and mother was widely shared on social media by some of the high-level faith leaders who attended, including Russell Moore, the public face of the Southern Baptist Convention, the country’s largest Protestant denomination.

Others in Rome for the meeting included Rick Warren, the California megapastor; Jonathan Sacks, former chief rabbi of the United Kingdom; and Anglican, Muslim, Pentecostal and Hindu leaders. For the first time, a top Mormon leader — Henry Eyring — was in official attendance at a Vatican conference.

[cbayer]

12. I don't think there is anything wrong with being hopeful.

I'm not sure what he will say in Philly. He tends to change his statements according to his audience. He told this audience what they wanted to hear.

When I see things like this, I am less hopeful. But he is a step forward from the last few popes in many ways, so I'm not going to give up completely.

And while he says things like this that repulse me, he also says things that warm my heart. Can I support his positions on the poor and reject his positions on GLBT issues?

I think I can and should not be attacked for it as some deluded, fake progressive.

[trotsky]

13. "He told this audience what they wanted to hear."

Exactly what so many of us have said here, and been attacked for.

Here's a hint: you're one of his audiences too.

[theHandpuppet]

16. Here's how I see it

Last edited Tue Nov 18, 2014, 05:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Without some recognition that the full equality of women, including reproductive choice, is vital to truly eradicating global poverty, any professions to detest poverty and homelessness come across to me as disingenuous at best. It is no accident that the majority of the world's poor are women and children; that the inability of women to have any say over the size of their families or to make their own health decisions contributes to generational poverty; that the church itself is guilty of gender discrimination and that women are not part of its decision-making hierarchy. No one, not even the Pope, can deny the full rights of half the world and contend that they can solve global poverty or are even doing all they can to combat it. I could quote numerous studies supporting the correlation between the lack of reproductive choice and poverty (which I have done in the past) but for this post I want to make some other points...

Second, almost all if not all Christian denominations do charity work and much of that deals with the poor. Unfortunately, in too many instances that good is tainted by some bitter medicine. Case in point: hatemonger Franklin Graham also runs Samaritan's Purse, a charity which has provided, among other types of relief, major contributions of medicine, equipment, supplies and personnel to fighting ebola in West Africa. Now as much as I am grateful that he raises relief missions, I am always mindful that the man behind these efforts is an avowed bigot whose doctrines and activism have led to the suffering and persecution of millions. I sincerely doubt we could expect any threads of praise for Franklin Graham or his ilk on DU and should they appear I would be the first one to grab a mallet and engage in some whack-a-mole. I can no more turn a blind eye to misogyny and homophobia than I could to an avowed racist.

Third, the RCC does not take a passive or private position on the issues I've mentioned. Its institutional, financial and legal powers are global and its uses that power to lobby and legislate discrimination. Since Francis became Pope, I have neither seen nor heard any evidence of one lawsuit being withdrawn. The millions that have been spent (and continue to be so) to outright persecute women and gays could have been better used for the poor, or at the very least used to support efforts for full human rights that in turn would result in an alleviation of poverty and homelessness.

When Francis continues to use his position and the public pulpit to undermine LGBTs and their families, people who are being actively persecuted by his institution, you'll have to forgive me if I find such investment in his approval as something less than progressive. Francis is not the victim here and neither are you. I may not ken where you're coming from but you're not living with the real persecution many of us face every day thanks to religious institutions such as the RCC and their leaders, such as Francis.

[trotsky]

17. Very well said.

[cbayer]

18. I think your points are mostly valid and we do not disagree.

However, the catholic church is also engaged in activities that address the problems of women and girls in ways that other organizations don't even approach. Anecdotally, I visited places in Africa that were run by the catholic church. One that had the most profound effect for me was a center for women with AIDS. These women and their children had been run out of their communities. At the center they learned to make and dye fabrics, then make various things from them.

FWIW, the RCC's policy on condom use for disease prevention is clear, so we can't blame the spread of AIDS among women in Africa on them.

This is one of many, many programs. If you haven't seen "Half the Sky", watch it.

So I am ambivalent. I vehemently disagree with the RCC on issues concerning reproductive rights, a woman's right to choose, GLBT rights and many other things. OTOH, I see that there is good there as well. They are never going to meet all my expectations, but I will continue to support the things they do right.

They aren't going anywhere, so rejecting them completely because of some of the actions/doctrine makes no sense to me.

I fully agree that some of their positions make big problems bigger. I am not a fan, and I hate being put in the position of defending them. But I am going to continue to praise what is good and condemn what is bad. Francis and the church are by no means progressive, but I will not condemn the whole institution while it is doing some good things that no governmental or secular groups are doing.

That does not make me a false progressive. That just makes me human. I don't expect you to hold my position, but I don't think you should assume that I don't personally or peripherally live with the the consequences of what some religious institutions do. That is really not fair.

[trotsky]

22. FWIW, you're wrong.

The RCC's policy does not say that condoms are fine in order to prevent AIDS.

Please don't spread such irresponsible misinformation.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. SOME of us weren't fooled, and aren't surprised.

Funny how that works.

[trotsky]

11. No, it doesn't "undo" anything because he never DID anything in the first place.

Some of us can see through the PR.

[rug]

15. Is there something wrong with a child having a mother and a father?

The problem comes in when that is the only parental relationship recognized.

[Humanist_Activist]

19. So you admit your church has this problem? n/t

[rug]

20. No, I admit you're in the throes of a non sequitur.

And when is it that you no longer considered it your church?

[Humanist_Activist]

23. How is it a non sequitur?

Here are the relevent sections of the Catechism of your church:

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]I. THE FAMILY IN GOD'S PLAN[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]The nature of the family

2201 The conjugal community is established upon the consent of the spouses. Marriage and the family are ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of children. The love of the spouses and the begetting of children create among members of the same family personal relationships and primordial responsibilities.

2202 A man and a woman united in marriage, together with their children, form a family. This institution is prior to any recognition by public authority, which has an obligation to recognize it. It should be considered the normal reference point by which the different forms of family relationship are to be evaluated.

2203 In creating man and woman, God instituted the human family and endowed it with its fundamental constitution. Its members are persons equal in dignity. For the common good of its members and of society, the family necessarily has manifold responsibilities, rights, and duties.


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]II. THE FAMILY AND SOCIETY[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]2207 The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society in which husband and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life. Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society. The family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom. Family life is an initiation into life in society.

2208 The family should live in such a way that its members learn to care and take responsibility for the young, the old, the sick, the handicapped, and the poor. There are many families who are at times incapable of providing this help. It devolves then on other persons, other families, and, in a subsidiary way, society to provide for their needs: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained from the world."12

2209 The family must be helped and defended by appropriate social measures. Where families cannot fulfill their responsibilities, other social bodies have the duty of helping them and of supporting the institution of the family. Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family's prerogatives or interfere in its life.

2210 The importance of the family for the life and well-being of society13 entails a particular responsibility for society to support and strengthen marriage and the family. Civil authority should consider it a grave duty "to acknowledge the true nature of marriage and the family, to protect and foster them, to safeguard public morality, and promote domestic prosperity."14

2211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially:

- the freedom to establish a family, have children, and bring them up in keeping with the family's own moral and religious convictions;

- the protection of the stability of the marriage bond and the institution of the family;

- the freedom to profess one's faith, to hand it on, and raise one's children in it, with the necessary means and institutions;

- the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate;

- in keeping with the country's institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits;

- the protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, alcoholism, etc.;

- the freedom to form associations with other families and so to have representation before civil authority.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a4.htm

From what I can tell from this document, and if you wish, I can link to supporting documents from various Bishops and Popes over the years, the family core is defined as such: It constitutes as a mother and father, and any children they produce. All other forms are recognized only so much as blood relations or adoptive relations can be determined and relate to this core, grandparents, cousins, etc. But ultimately its a restrictive definition, exclusive. This explains why most Catholic publications have bad habits of putting scare quotes around words like "family" or "marriage" when talking about same sex couples.

As far as when I stopped considering it my church, I was about 20, it was a process from the ages of 18 to 20. My beliefs were in conflict with the people I met around me(mostly a lot of out of the closet gay people, including my future best friend), making me question the church's teachings, first the ethical and moral ones. This lead me to try some more liberal churches, but dammit, my questioning wouldn't stop, even went through a Wiccan phase, until I just lost faith entirely. Took a few years.

[rug]

27. Simple.

So you admit your church has this problem?

does not follow from

Is there something wrong with a child having a mother and a father?
The problem comes in when that is the only parental relationship recognized.

The earth does not revolve around your preformed. opinions.

Now since you have an affinity for the phrase "your church" (next time provide ominous organ music), why are you ducking the question I put to you: when did you cease calling it your church?

[Humanist_Activist]

32. How did I duck the question? Also, I find it amusing that you completely ignored my post...

while accusing me of ducking an easy question.

Do you want a date I stopped calling myself Catholic, I don't know the day, but it would be around 1998 when I stopped going to church.

[rug]

33. Um, you didn't answer it. Now you did. Thank you.

[Humanist_Activist]

35. I did say around 20 years old, which was in 1998. Should have been clearer...

I'm not 40 yet, but far too close to it.

[cbayer]

21. Of course not, but that is the only parental relationship he recognized.

And he did a lot of talking about "complementary" things, which seem pretty clearly about man/woman.

[rug]

25. Given that he's adrressing an interfaith conference on the family, that is not surprising.

Stating the ideal in his view does not exclude other parental relationships.

[cbayer]

28. He does tailor his words to his audience, I have noticed that.

I'm not surprised that he said what he said. When he does make statements that indicate some change in direction, he does not make them at events like this.

[rug]

29. It's a problem when people are quick to seize a headkline to spackle a pre-existing conclusion.

[Lordquinton]

24. at least you acknowledge that there is a problem this time.

[rug]

26. There are problems all over the place.

[nichomachus]

30. Francis is a fraud

Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded. He puts on a good front, but it's just wrapping up all the old shit in glitter paper and tying it up with a pretty bow. It's just a PR stunt.

[Politicalboi]

31. Why are these clowns taken seriously?

It's just a big cult that hides pedophiles in it's ranks. I hope some day they will no longer exists. Go wash your feet Pope, they stink. Pope Francis the talking Mule

[SheilaT]

34. That's a pretty sentiment.

Even in a world where the only recognized relationships were heterosexual ones, lots of kids wind up with only one parent for all sorts of reasons.

So as someone else has already pointed out, unless additional parents (of the appropriate gender, of course!) are going to be assigned to homes where one is lacking, it remains just that, a pretty sentiment.

When my mother moved us five kids some 1500 miles to get away from an abusive, alcoholic father and husband, it was the best thing she ever could have done. It's too bad Dad wasn't different, but staying with him would have been much, much worse than going away. And that's just one story of the many millions out there as to why not all kids have a mother and a father present.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. really it is an ugly sentiment that invalidates families that don't meet

frank's expectations. There is nothing pretty about it at all.

[SheilaT]

38. For someone like the Pope, and all the homophobes out there,

it feels to them like a lovely sentiment. In reality, as you've said, it's ugly. And there are so many families out there that don't have one father and one mother, that to declare those families inadequate in some way is beyond stupid.