The Church in the News

[Irish YJ]

The video (from June of 2019) is deceptively edited:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">1. The interview from which the film clips of Pope Francis are in the news today is actually from Late May/June 2019. (<a href="https://t.co/fydYlt5Nyi">https://t.co/fydYlt5Nyi</a>)<br>2. The first clip, when speaking of a "right to a family," very clearly means that parents shouldn't disown their gay children. 1/5 <a href="https://t.co/43zeP3zffN">pic.twitter.com/43zeP3zffN</a></p>— �� joe �� (@BarnasJoe) <a href="https://twitter.com/BarnasJoe/status/1319073059861635076?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 22, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

And the person who presumably did the deceptive editing and "released" the video obviously has an agenda:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Rank incompetency to allow a bad faith actor like this full access to the Pope. Took 5 seconds to find this. <a href="https://t.co/5XXcpfsuqZ">pic.twitter.com/5XXcpfsuqZ</a></p>— �� joe �� (@BarnasJoe) <a href="https://twitter.com/BarnasJoe/status/1319305586983534592?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 22, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="und" dir="ltr">hmmmm <a href="https://t.co/wUVBq3ox4Z">https://t.co/wUVBq3ox4Z</a> <a href="https://t.co/uR372YYFfH">pic.twitter.com/uR372YYFfH</a></p>— �� joe �� (@BarnasJoe) <a href="https://twitter.com/BarnasJoe/status/1319282464708124674?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 22, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The real issue is not with Pope Francis but the people around him who keep giving access to these sorts of creeps who are obviously seeking to use him.

So I'm confused. Are you saying PF did not endorse same sex civil unions?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

So I'm confused. Are you saying PF did not endorse same sex civil unions?

Not in the way it's being portrayed, no.

"Homosexual persons have a right to be in a family... you cannot throw anyone out of the family, etc."

"Secular states want to validate civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, driven by the need to regulate economic aspects between people, such as ensuring health care. These are cohabitation pacts of various kinds, of which I could not list the different forms.”

"I have always defended doctrine. It is a contradiction to speak of homosexual marriage."

These are all quotes from Pope Francis. He's clearly saying: (1) parents should not disown their children due to their sexual preferences; and (2) it's good for the state to ensure that people in unusual domestic situations can still nominate medical proxies and designate heirs. Afineevsky takes those first two comments out of context and juxtaposes them to paint PF as advocating for SSM. He's doing nothing of the sort.

 

[zelezo vlk]

The video (from June of 2019) is deceptively edited:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">1. The interview from which the film clips of Pope Francis are in the news today is actually from Late May/June 2019. (<a href="https://t.co/fydYlt5Nyi">https://t.co/fydYlt5Nyi</a>)<br>2. The first clip, when speaking of a "right to a family," very clearly means that parents shouldn't disown their gay children. 1/5 <a href="https://t.co/43zeP3zffN">pic.twitter.com/43zeP3zffN</a></p>— �� joe �� (@BarnasJoe) <a href="https://twitter.com/BarnasJoe/status/1319073059861635076?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 22, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

And the person who presumably did the deceptive editing and "released" the video obviously has an agenda:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Rank incompetency to allow a bad faith actor like this full access to the Pope. Took 5 seconds to find this. <a href="https://t.co/5XXcpfsuqZ">pic.twitter.com/5XXcpfsuqZ</a></p>— �� joe �� (@BarnasJoe) <a href="https://twitter.com/BarnasJoe/status/1319305586983534592?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 22, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="und" dir="ltr">hmmmm <a href="https://t.co/wUVBq3ox4Z">https://t.co/wUVBq3ox4Z</a> <a href="https://t.co/uR372YYFfH">pic.twitter.com/uR372YYFfH</a></p>— &#55356;&#57154; joe &#55356;&#57154; (@BarnasJoe) <a href="https://twitter.com/BarnasJoe/status/1319282464708124674?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 22, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The real issue is not with Pope Francis but the people around him who keep giving access to these sorts of creeps who are obviously seeking to use him.

This hermeneutic of suspicion against the Holy Father never turns out well. As you said, there's legit merit to questioning whether it's prudent to give such "muddied" responses. But I find the suspicion against every thing Pope Francis says to be just as destructive, a la Taylor Marshall.

Sent from my SM-J337U using Tapatalk

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This hermeneutic of suspicion against the Holy Father never turns out well. As you said, there's legit merit to questioning whether it's prudent to give such "muddied" responses. But I find the suspicion against every thing Pope Francis says to be just as destructive, a la Taylor Marshall.

Agreed. As usual, the best practice is the pray for both the Pope and the Emperor, and pay as little attention to "news" about court intrigue as possible.

 

[Irish YJ]

Not in the way it's being portrayed, no.


These are all quotes from Pope Francis. He's clearly saying: (1) parents should not disown their children due to their sexual preferences; and (2) it's good for the state to ensure that people in unusual domestic situations can still nominate medical proxies and designate heirs. Afineevsky takes those first two comments out of context and juxtaposes them to paint PF as advocating for SSM. He's doing nothing of the sort.

Ok, but I also thought I read he said a few other things (from what I read in a few Catholic periodicals) like the below.

What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Ok, but I also thought I read he said a few other things (from what I read in a few Catholic periodicals) like the below.

He's in favor of civil unions generally, as he feels that being able to do things like designating medical proxies and heirs is important for basic human dignity. And while such unions will cover same-sex couples, that's not the same thing as advocating for same-sex civil unions specifically.

Here's another thread with more clarification:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Thread of what we know so far about Pope Francis's comments on Same Sex Civil Unions <a href="https://t.co/bS2NOREmcJ">pic.twitter.com/bS2NOREmcJ</a></p>— Catholic Arena (@CatholicArena) <a href="https://twitter.com/CatholicArena/status/1319047385725755392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 21, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irish YJ]

He's in favor of civil unions generally, as he feels that being able to do things like designating medical proxies and heirs is important for basic human dignity. And while such unions will cover same-sex couples, that's not the same thing as advocating for same-sex civil unions specifically.

Here's another thread with more clarification:

To the bolded, IDK... You're basically asking the general masses to use a lot of "brain power" to split a hair. I get it that some want to distort, or amplify, but removing that noise, he's still muddy and grey (back to my general point).