Pope Backs Same-Sex Civil Unions

[readselerttoo]

What would be missing in the element of civil unions established by the State is the matter of the estate.  In the theological understanding of natural order regarding marriage, marriage establishes a God-granted arena (hence, the estate) within which this man and this woman enter and they alone inhabit that arena.  No one takes each’s place or are each exchangeable or replaceable.  P. Melanchthon in some of his writing on the law speaks as much to this.  There are hints of this in the Apology although the matter at that time did not merit elucidation or highlight in an extensive way.

The common denominator in all this should be a discussion about the natural orders alone, God-created and preserved, along with discussion about estate. 


Once again there is no such thing as estate of marriage for this man and  this man, or any other combination outside of this man and this woman.


I truly believe the Jesuit Pope understands all the distinctions involved here.  After all he is a Jesuit.

[Weedon]

Or, said another way, what is missing is the institution and blessing of God. Like with the tree in the Garden, one cannot give thanks for what He has not given (so the fall plunged us into lives of thanklessness - Romans 1!); for what one has simply taken without His blessing there is no blessing and thanking of the Giver. And so blessings of such civil unions cannot be brought into the Church, which literally lives in thanksgiving as she continually receives and rejoices in what God GIVES.

[Rev. Edward Engelbrecht]

Does EVERYONE have a right to be in a family? I guess that is what I'm wondering as I read the statements. What does it mean and how is this done?

[readselerttoo]

Or, said another way, what is missing is the institution and blessing of God. Like with the tree in the Garden, one cannot give thanks for what He has not given (so the fall plunged us into lives of thanklessness - Romans 1!); for what one has simply taken without His blessing there is no blessing and thanking of the Giver. And so blessings of such civil unions cannot be brought into the Church, which literally lives in thanksgiving as she continually receives and rejoices in what God GIVES.

Perhaps.  My concern is a renewed recognition  of the God-given estate as discussed under the “rubrics” of natural order or orders of creation.  Lutherans could teach the rest of the church on this matter of the estate...maybe via Melanchthon through Althaus.

[readselerttoo]

Raymond Arroyo over at EWTN must be pulling his hair out tonight.

 . Indeed.  The conservatives in that communion will be up in arms.  Lol

[readselerttoo]

Does EVERYONE have a right to be in a family? I guess that is what I'm wondering as I read the statements. What does it mean and how is this done?

Here is another issue which is raised by this: the family.  Dad, Mom and the kids, if any.  Opens up a whole can of worms as well in how family is defined if it  can be defined beyond Dad, Mom and the kids.  Indeed. 

[Rev. Edward Engelbrecht]

Does EVERYONE have a right to be in a family? I guess that is what I'm wondering as I read the statements. What does it mean and how is this done?

Here is another issue which is raised by this: the family.  Dad, Mom and the kids, if any.  Opens up a whole can of worms as well in how family is defined if it  can be defined beyond Dad, Mom and the kids.  Indeed.

If one loses one's family, does one have a right to a replacement family? How would that be arranged? Would the state fulfill this right or someone else?

I'm not trying to be absurd, just trying on the idea that everyone has a right to be in a family.

[peter_speckhard]

Everyone is in a family. Honor your father and mother. Everyone has one of each. Not everyone replicates that by becoming a husband or wife. But the design is husband and wife, not simply two people who love each other.

If there are benefits attached to being in a civil union, all that will happen is that people will abuse it for the benefits, much like they already abuse liberal divorce laws to use marriage for immigration purposes without any intention of actually forming a marriage. College roommates can have their relationship called a civil union in order get health care benefits or whatever for both once one of them gets a job. Once the idea of the permanent, organic union of male and female is lost, the whole thing devolves into a pointless sham. 

There is nothing comparable to the two becoming one in marriage. It is not just the male and female body parts; it involves the whole lives, time and possessions and everything. They literally form one flesh. They belong to one another. Two men cannot replicate that. Nor can three people. It is a unique aspect of creation. There is no point in codifying imitations. Let gay couples be gay couples, but why license it? They do not and cannot become one flesh.

[Tom Eckstein]

What exactly is the point of civil unions? Why couldn't three people have a civil union? Why couldn't a brother and sister? We don't issue licenses for best friends. Why issue licenses for homosexual lovers?

The idea that the state recognized marriages stemmed from the obvious fact that the state had an interest in making sure children were born into stable environments. Moreover, the traditional family usually created an economic dependent out of the woman, who needed the larger society to hold her husband accountable to provide for her and the children lest he choose to ditch them. None of those things apply to gay couples. Why should the state take an interest in who lives with whom?

If the state simply stopped recognizing marriage at all, the only people who would suffer would be traditional families. They are the people around whom the whole concept of legally recognized marriage was developed, and the only ones who actually need it.

Some who argue for same-sex "civil unions" say they want some the same benefits as marriage - such as medical or financial power of attorney.  But people can get those without a "civil union" or "gay marriage" - so I don't see the point of "civil unions" for those in same-sex relationships, except as a stepping stone to force others to see their unions as actual "marriage."

[readselerttoo]

What exactly is the point of civil unions? Why couldn't three people have a civil union? Why couldn't a brother and sister? We don't issue licenses for best friends. Why issue licenses for homosexual lovers?

The idea that the state recognized marriages stemmed from the obvious fact that the state had an interest in making sure children were born into stable environments. Moreover, the traditional family usually created an economic dependent out of the woman, who needed the larger society to hold her husband accountable to provide for her and the children lest he choose to ditch them. None of those things apply to gay couples. Why should the state take an interest in who lives with whom?

If the state simply stopped recognizing marriage at all, the only people who would suffer would be traditional families. They are the people around whom the whole concept of legally recognized marriage was developed, and the only ones who actually need it.

Some who argue for same-sex "civil unions" say they want some the same benefits as marriage - such as medical or financial power of attorney.  But people can get those without a "civil union" or "gay marriage" - so I don't see the point of "civil unions" for those in same-sex relationships, except as a stepping stone to force others to see their unions as actual "marriage."

Exactly.  However the business is to explain that the estate makes a marriage and same-sex couples do not qualify in this matter of the estate.  There is the benefit that God recognizes the estate as only that which this man and this woman enter.  While God does not recognize that estate-quality for other types of civil unions.  God truly recognizes marriage as His boundary-drawn order in nature while other social configurations which look like the estate of marriage do not exist or only exist in the collective human consciousness, if there is such a thing.  Of course society can construct all types of consociation along with the benefits.  But the connection to God's recognition of an order/consociation, like the order of family, or merchant-buyer, or the fact that I am the first born son of my parents and my brother could never exchange into that or that somehow I could be replaced in the unique configuration among my dad and my mom and me is as a result of God's creative nature and not a figment of collective human consciousness somehow put into play through a legislative process.

[James J Eivan]

There have been stories over the years of a high-level Vatican cabal of homosexuals.  Pope Francis was accused of being under their influence.  I have no idea if that is true or not,

Then why would you post it?

well the Revs. Austin and Stoffregan can post all sorts of wild speculations, why can't I?  Certainly I have no way of knowing what the internal activities of the RCC might be, but some of the people who have made such charges possibly do so, including the former papal envoy to the US

Welcome to my world Pr Culler ... not only am I frequently victimized by the Johnson snark, like you it is quite apparent that he shields and encourages the behavior of those you have eluded to.

While the media is so eager to report the pope is accepting of the GLBT agenda, it is quite apparent that the pope is preserving and defending the difference between the Biblical concept of one man/one woman marriage and the civil concept of anything goes civil ungodly unions. 

It appears the pope continues the love the sinner ... hate the sin concept by refusing to commingling marriage relationships and the secularly sanctioned alternatives ... so smoothly done the MSM hasn’t figured it out yet.

[Charles Austin]

Tom Eckstein writes:
Some who argue for same-sex "civil unions" say they want some the same benefits as marriage - such as medical or financial power of attorney.  But people can get those without a "civil union" or "gay marriage" - so I don't see the point of "civil unions" for those in same-sex relationships, except as a stepping stone to force others to see their unions as actual "marriage."

I comment:
You do not have to “see the point” because it does not affect you.
As for a “stepping stone to force others,” really? How are you being forced concerning marriage? You do not have to call what happens between “them” marriage. You do not have to have anything to do with them.
And if civil law - under whatever term - grants gay couples what your marriage gives you under the law, does that infringe on your rights or force you to deny your faith in any way? It does not.
BTW children put up for adoption do not have anything but a biological father and mother until they are adopted. And the biology means nothing in terms of real life fathering and mothering.

Peter writes:
Everyone is in a family. Honor your father and mother. Everyone has one of each. Not everyone replicates that by becoming a husband or wife. But the design is husband and wife, not simply two people who love each other.
I comment:
You say this but everyone doesn’t. And is your “design” the only one that can be recognized by Civil law? Why?
You say “let gay couples be gay couples, but why license it.”
We know the civil benefits of doing so, and I do not see how recognition would hurt you.

[Rev. Edward Engelbrecht]

If everyone has a right to be in a family, how come priests can't marry?

[Charles Austin]

Priests can marry. Under certain circumstances, Roman Catholic priests can be married. But you know that. And you know that certain things are matters of church discipline, where those wishing to be in the church vocation voluntarily give up some of their rights the sake of their vocation.

[Rev. Edward Engelbrecht]

Priests can marry. Under certain circumstances, Roman Catholic priests can be married. But you know that. And you know that certain things are matters of church discipline, where those wishing to be in the church vocation voluntarily give up some of their rights the sake of their vocation.

The only circumstance for married priests that I was aware of is when a married minister from another church body is ordained in the RCC. That is a tiny number of priests. Are there other exceptions?

I'm simply testing the logic of Francis's statement.