 |
| Pope Francis Source: Twitter |
American Magazine carries the headline:
"Pope Francis declares support for same-sex civil unions for the first time as pope"
"Gay couples deserve legal protections for their relationships" Pope Francis said in a documentary.
Fine. Not so fine if this is taken as a green light leading to same-sex marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others and for life.
Same sex partnerships are to be welcomed but activists take any opportunity to further their cause. Witness feminism in the Church and how civil partnerships were bent and twisted in demands for same sex marriage.
Pope Francis has not changed his stance. When Archbishop of Buenos Aires he advocated same-sex civil unions in an attempt to block a same-sex marriage law.
Probably the best archbishop we never had, Bishop Michael Nazir Ali, summarises the situation in this tweet:
"Anyone living together in long term arrangements should have legal protection. This can include siblings or mother and daughter, as well as those in other kinds of relationships being protected eg in tenancy or visiting rights. Such legislation, however, should not mimic marriage."
Exactly.
Wonderful news from the Papacy - positive and hospital and Christian in its acceptance of same-sex relationships and desirous of legal protection and recognition. Sounds like marriage to me, but just another name for it. Wonderful. As for Nazir Ali, remind me how he got his "PhD" again? I know I had to study for mine ...
ReplyDeletePhD in what, social sciences, media studies?
DeleteIt was obviously not Theology.
Wikipedia states that he has a 'Lambeth DD', which I understand to be entirely honorary. However he's also a B.Litt and M.Litt from Oxford and an M.Litt of Cambridge, so - assuming he didn't buy the accolades! - he presumably has some objective scholarly theological nous,
DeleteAB is quite correct: Francis hasn't changed his stance, which appears to be one of long standing. What he does seem to be doing is acknowledging that there's an absolute distinction which, in modern times at least, must be drawn between (a) the Church and (b) society in general. That's a distinction which has been entirely apparent for all of my lifetime, in the UK and probably across much of Europe as well. And, moreover, one which has probably existed for considerably longer than the sixty-odd years during which I've been mature enough to be aware of such things.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet well within my lifetime I can recall traditionalist Christian controversialists regularly arguing that changes, whether in custom or in law and even in matters of purely private concern, were totally unacceptable "in a Christian country such as ours" and must be resisted and opposed absolutely.
The reality seems to me that no country in Europe - with the possible exception of Poland, and even there I suspect it'd be small town and rural Poland - can accurately call itself "a Christian country", whatever might have been the case in the more distant past. Overwhelmingly our societies are pluralist now. And just as the Church has rightly always argued for freedom of belief and practice for its own members, it should be ready to acknowledge the rights of others who hold to different views and beliefs and notions of morality. Given his enormously significant role, it seems to me wholly encouraging that the Roman pope seems now unambiguously to be embracing that view.
He's doing far more than that John, and your assessment downplays the significance of a Pope teaching that same-sex relationships are such that he wishes for there to be recognition in law and that such recognition comes with his blessing. He wishes for same-sex couples to experience the blessing of family. It's a momentous move in the theological understanding of the Catholic Church. Glad you mentioned Poland where same-sex couples have experienced an upsurge of hate in the last few months (from the church of all places). His intervention and wise/hospitable words are prophetic. Was you say, wholly encouraging and wholly unambiguous. The Pope welcomes same-sex couples - bet Ratzinger is livid.
DeleteNo. The church argued for its belief and practice because these were representative of objective truths, truths it was commanded not to deny. It cannot argue for rights based on anything other than those truths. The alternative is relativism and corrupting self-denial.
DeleteBen
John - I agree entirely (although I have to say that your comments would fit very well into traditional "old" Nonconformist thinking!)
Delete@ Gaychristian:
DeleteI think you make of the pope's statement more than what in reality it will bear. He acknowledges that the Church's view of same sex relationships isn't shared by numbers of folk outside 'the household of faith' and recognizes that the household of faith has absokutely no right to seek to impose its own view on those whose convictions are different. Which seems to me entirely right.
@ Ben:
The Church can and must assert, on its own behalf, what it deems to be 'objective truths'. What it has no moral right to do is to attempt to impose those truths on those who don't share its credal premises. As Jesus himself taught, "Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?"
Are you asserting then when the British empire forced the Hindus to stop throwing widows on the funeral pyre they committed an unchristian act of tyranny?
DeleteBen
@ Ben:
DeleteThe problem in the context to which you point is that an invader is inevitably on shaky ground when he tries to impose his values on the invadees, given that no one invited him to assume the role.
Although these days I'm a sceptic religiously speaking. I've no doubt whatever that Christianity, overall and when it's at its best, stands for a more loving and humanitarian ethic than do other religions. But the fact remains that a conqueror who seeks to impose his own morality on the unwillingly conquered by virtue of his own military and political strength will inevitably be viewed as a tyrant by most of those conquered folk. And not entirely unreasonably.
Hearts and minds need to be changed, and a conqueror's arbitrary diktat is most unlikely to achieve that.
@ Baptist Trainfan:
DeleteI'm not overly familiar with 'traditional "old" Nonconformist thinking', but I'll take your word for it! I can readily see that it might appeal to a 'dissenter' faced with an establishment seeking to enforce conformity.
Yes, exactly ... so one which highly prizes religious liberty and the free expression of views, even when they are different to one's own. (And rather different from the strait-laced Nonconformist conformity of later years!)
DeleteBTW "Old Dissent" refers to people such as the early Baptists and Independents (or Congregationalists) who appeared around 1600 in Britain - as opposed to the "New Dissent" of the Methodists who came along 150 or so years later and thought in rather different ways.
Ah, I see your point, and I do know a bit about that. Fifty years ago I ended up living in Monmouthshire and there learned about the early emergence of Baptist independency in that area: in the Olchon valley, and subsequently the establishment of a 'community of the elect' at Llanfaches. But I can't claim any expertise on the matter!
DeleteAll states are founded with force and all authorities continue to preserve their legitimacy with force. I doubt very much that the Islamic Mughals that the east India company and then the empire replaced where considered legitimate when they arrived nor the Romans, nor the mongols, nor the Danes or Normans. The history of Japan is the constant assertion of the power of various Shogunates. The question is how the Christian is commanded to interact with the civil power, particularly if he wields that power. My point is that he cannot avoid the commandments of Christ in the exercise of that power without denying their truth and universality. However since you are a sceptic the point is moot as you will be judging this from a position outside Christianity.
DeleteThe pope may be a good sceptic but he is supposed to be a Christian and as a Christian he is called to regard fornication and abusing oneself with mankind as sins, the first only may be avoided by Christian marriage. Civil partnerships are not Christian marriage, they may be mandated by the state, they may be legal but they should not be condoned or supported by a Christian.
Ben
@ Ben:
DeleteThere's some evidence around that at least some of our Brythonic ancestors weren't entirely averse to Roman invasion, given that technology and trade tended to accompany it - some able to afford them rather took to better opportunities for building villas and importing amphorae of Mediterranean wines! But of course your argument is a fair one.
I'd say that while indeed the pope can't avoid the commendments of Christ, he also has to take into account the context in which they're to be applied. I doubt any modern pope holds in practice that his 'universal jurisdiction' encompasses those who don't acknowledge his authority or even share his faith. And as the magisterium has for centuries held that a person's conscience, albeit informed, is his or her highest authority and must ultimately be followed even when doing so involves disobeying an ex cathedra teaching, it's hardly surprising if he accepts that the civil law should make some provision for the legal acknowledgement of same sex relationships.
Nor does Christian morality exists in an abstract vacuum; necessarily it applies in concrete human situations. An example is a problems faced by nineteenth century Anglican missions in Africa when they encountered polygamy. When a wealthy African prosperous enough to maintain a number of wives asks to be baptized, how should the Church respond? Does the missioner, or, ultimately, the bishop, say 'Our teaching is that a man must have just one wife. To be baptized into the Church you must choose just one of your wives, and dismiss the others'? That was in fact the response in those parts of Africa where the evangelical CMS operated. But the problem which then inevitably arose was that, in these societies, the man had taken responsibility for his several wives and had numbers of children by them. Who would subsequently take care of the ones whom he repudiated? Would their families feel slighted because their daughter had been rejected? Might community tensions and even minor cvil wars erupt as a consequence? Which is why UMCA dioceses ultimately decided to take a different approach.
Both counter-reformation Jesuit casuistry and mid-twentieth century protestant situation ethics have received their share of criticism, some of it cogently argued; but both have arisen from a recognition that Christian morality has to be applied in complex and often untidy human situations.
"Francis hasn't changed his stance, which appears to be one of long standing. What he does seem to be doing is acknowledging that there's an absolute distinction which, in modern times at least, must be drawn between (a) the Church and (b) society in general."
DeleteSo, one assumes Francis couldn't be speaking ex-cathedra and therefore infallible? Because if he were, he would be in direct opposition to God himself when he said homosexuality is an abomination. Now I understand why some people consider the Catholic church as a sect rather than a bonified Christian church.
Looks like Stan Laurel in a white cassock.
ReplyDeleteHe is looking increasingly like a false prophet. Am I alone in so thinking?
ReplyDeleteBob
No you most certainly are not Bob.
DeletePopes have been false prophets for centuries, which is why we had the Reformation.
DeleteTalking of popes - and people who behave as if they are popes - here's an interesting one concerning the previous Archbishop of Wales. I had a 'phone call earlier today from a journalist friend of mine. He'd been talking to one of his old BBC chums who seems to have close contacts quite high up in Lambeth Palace. He asked me if I'd heard anything about the Archbishop of Canterbury writing a stinging letter to Barry the Golfer, reprimanding him over something he recently wrote in a church newspaper that is supposed to have caused no end of problems for Christians being persecuted in Iran. He didn't know any more than that, other than his BBC chum seemed to get the impression that the Archbishop of Canterbury was pretty unhappy with the Golfer.
ReplyDeleteI told him I'd look on AB as this is my usual source as to what is really happening behind all the spin and massaging of figures in Anglican circles in Wales.
In the absence of anything else on here so far, has anyone else heard about this - or know anything? I'm assuming the letter is in the public domain if someone with BBC connections knows about it. Or is it that there are still good journalists out there with a nose for a story?
Could this be the article referred to?
Deletehttps://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2020/7-august/comment/opinion/iran-s-christians-defy-crackdowns
See also
https://irannewsupdate.com/news/iranian-opposition/former-archbishop-of-wales-supports-iran-opposition-mek/
Or, perhaps, my dear 'Ear to the Ground', while you're at it, why is it that page 75 of the Golfers essay in Professor Norman Doe' publication on the centenary celebration of the Church in Wales is apparently blank? Was the contributor short of enthusiasm or ink? Maybe we can be of help?
DeleteEnforcer
That looks like the article in question, AB.
DeleteI don't suppose, 'Ear to the Ground', that the 'BBC chum' referred to in your initial comment is an erstwhile head of BBC wales arts & entertainment (then head of the Welsh Arts Council) who now has the thankless task of organising the never-to-happen Lambeth Conference is it?
DeleteMarriage belongs to many civilisations and ancient societies and the ceremony happened long before Christianity.
ReplyDeleteChristianity has its own understanding about what marriage means to Christians ,but I believe Pope Francis is rightly acknowledging that the institution of marriage is not owned by Christianity. There exists very many unions between two persons who love and desire to support, protect and uphold each other. We do not have the right to impose our understanding of what a union between two people should be, based on our understanding of Christianity, to do so is censorious and is willfully denying such persons an opportunity to be part of the Christian family.
Our Faith is a gift from God and it is not within our gift to deny another.
Marriage ... is an honorable estate instituted of God in paradise, in the time of mannes innocencie, signifying unto us the misticall union that is betwixte Christe and his Churche
Delete... instituted of God ... hands off
Pete - another important element of the Christian marriage service says "it was ordained for the procreation of children". Another important difference between a civil partnership and a Christian marriage.
DeleteNemesis
Are you then saying that a sincere Christian couple who voluntarily decide not to have children don't have a "real" marriage?
DeleteI think you're indulging in some sophistry here Trainfan. Let's look at two examples. In the first a married couple want to have children but are not able to do so because of medical/biological reasons. In the second, a married couple decide, on the basis of free will, not to have children. These factors do not affect the fact that both couples are married in that they have exchanged their vows and have been pronounced man and wife by the presiding priest or minister. The point I was trying to make is that the reference to procreation in the introduction and intercessions of the Anglican and Catholic marriage services is an affirmatio of the established teaching of those churches that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. This is not the case in a civil partnership. I accept that my views are based firmly on my belief in Anglican and Catholic teaching on the true meaning of marriage. I realise that others hold different views and I could not possibly comment on the position of the free churches in this matter. I think we shall have to agree to disagree.
DeleteNemesis
I don't disagree with much of what you say; although I'm very reluctant to assert - as you too may be - that the wedding of a couple who appear to evidence no faith can really be called "Christian" in any meaningful way, even if conducted by a Minister in a church: I'd honestly prefer them to have a Civil ceremony of some kind.
DeleteThat aside, my main caveat was with the use of the word "ordained" in respect to the procreation of children. To me that gives the impression that, if a couple are - voluntarily and not for medical reasons - deciding not to have children, then they are in some way disobeying a divine commandment; and that this, in extremis, could be regarded as invalidating the marriage. (This isn't my position, of course; but it seems to be the position that the language can push one into).
@ Baptist Trainfan:
DeleteOn the subject of church marriages I agree with you entirely. I've always preferred the routine pretty universal, as far as I know, across most of Europe that civil and religious ceremonies should be clearly distinguished from one another and viewed as entirely separate.
Don't you get it Simple Soul? It is your anything goes of a liberal fundamentalist attitude with its own agenda of a 'censorious' spirit 'imposing' its demands of ' such, (Whitewash weddings as in Bangor) yet, with impunity and arrogance, whilst 'wilfully denying' the traditional believer an 'opportunity' to exercise what is traditional faith and doctrine. The reply of the pie man in the rhyme to Simple Simon was clear - "Pies you fool". So, marvel not dear friend.
ReplyDeleteEnforcer
Thank you Enforcer-yes I do ‘get it’ that Christianity has its own understanding of marriage.
ReplyDeleteHowever there are billions of people in our world who do not (yet) understand Christianity and to be totally intolerant of others beliefs is censorious.
Even in our small country, where 1.7% are members of the Church in Wales,we shall never succeed in attracting souls to Christianity if we ostracise those who have a different spirituality.
We have no right to imply, that people whose understanding does nor confirm to our own, are excluded from God’s grace.
Pope Francis seeks to share the benevolence of Christ.
He's doing nothing of the sort.
DeleteHe's just pandering to the gay lobby and being politically correct, it's a PR stunt.
I'm sorry, I really cannot believe that. To me he seems to be a man of integrity. We may disagree with him, that's fair enough; and yes, he's good with the media. But to label his comments a "stunt" is to do him a disservice.
Delete"Christianity is caught not taught". Cardinal Heenan Liverpool. Worth a read Simple Soul.
DeleteEnforcer
@BT
DeleteWhy can't you believe that?
As a Prince of the Church he should be defending the Sacrament of Christian marriage against the relentless march of the secular permissive society.
Every word uttered by Popes analysed and scrutinised and often there are consequences, some unintended.
Because the word "stunt" implies a deliberate attempt to be frivolous or to deceive, and I don't see his statement (whether one agrees with it or not) in that light.
DeleteI do agree with your last sentence, of course.
Good heavens Simple Soul how do you calculate that the Church IN Wales represents 1.7% of the nation? One of the rapidly vanishing breed of male Canons at Bangor Cathedral would confirm that the Duke of Kent and Queenie are more popular in Wales than the illustrious 'joker Golfer'. Why not read Professor Norman Doe' published editorial on the CiW 20020 UCW press, (£75 per copy) and see for your self, if you can find one)? Depressing forecast and read. You should consider the figure to be more likely in the region of -1%. Come back 'Bob the Builder' - all is forgiven.
DeleteEnforcer
PP. Unfortunately, all denominations are suffering congregational decline, clergy vocations/retention and closures. Most are still re-arranging deck chairs!
ReplyDeleteSadly, until someone wakes up, grasps the nettle of how to bring Jesus Christ's message into our modern lifestyles nothing will change. But, one little window of hope is how the church however small has embraced new ways of sharing faith in this current Covid pandemic. Sadly, the leaders still seem to think spending vast sums on vanity positions is the way forward, while the pew sitter coughs up, be sees their church doors close and clergy worked into the ground with mission areas, that do not work. Burnout is rife amongst FT Priests and even SSMs
Anonymous, do you really mean that clergy are worked 'into the ground' or into the 'duvet'? Most mornings a journey of 10 miles between 7.30 to 8.30 am takes me past 6 vicarages. Rarely is there a sign that the occupants have come up for air let alone anything else. Not a good advert in communities where unemployment is rife.
ReplyDeleteI do not buy this nonsense that clergy are always overworked. Some are simply lazy. They are not 'burnt out' because they hardly ever get off their back side to 'get out' in the first place. Any excuse to avoid a service and close the church door is a relief. The present lockdown must be a dream to some of them. I mean, how many can be spotted on a Sunday out riding their bikes?
A vicar friend of mine on retirement took time off to travel around the diocese listening and joining in worship. Too often he would go home feeling depressed and soon found himself back in the pulpit having discovered the shallowness of what some congregations have to put up with Sunday after Sunday. This was the underlying problem that brought us the 19th century Tractarian revival, the preaching of the gospel and the sacrament. The Anglican church moved from a shabby style of worship where the sermon sounded like something thought up by the priest on his way to church. Much like it is today?
Then there is that old excuse by churchgoers why the priest is difficult to understand when he is preaching "its because he's such a clever man", when, if truth be known, its probably because he had nothing to say in the first place. To some preaching is pure nightmare. Its as if they never read their bibles. Archbishops, bishops or priest often make the sermon slot a time for snooze and the sacrament as something to get it over and done with. No change please.
I detect a good amount of enthusiasm in your reply Mr/Ms Anonymous. It is to be nurtured. Remember the walls of Jericho had to be brought down before they could be built again. We have pockets of renewal in every denomination and your concern for vanity is valid. Whatever change may come, the Word and Sacrament is central, as is Jesus, who is the same yesterday, today and for ever.
Enforcer
PP (Mr) I have to agree with the laziness issue in some parts, but not all. Some are busy at the frontline.
DeleteSermons are frequently more subjective, lead nowhere,leave no pause for thought or, action. I have heard excellent preaching and down right apauling ones. I always thought preaching was a theological college must.
However, I share the need for Tractarian impetus, evangelism, but how are new mission strategies, suppose to work or at best bring Christ to the communities? Will the sudden engagement with Church Army advancement, HTB in Cardiff and Wrexham? With clergy numbers falling and laity doing much more, with little training the future looks interesting.
Perhaps if At Padern's was better led, resources and was the hub it should be, maybe that change could be possible.
The Church needs at least one bishop with a passion for preaching, teaching and evangelism. Then the cloak of the darkness may lift.
The Church needs bishops who are full of the Holy Spirit Anonymous, not just passion. We don't seem to have any in Wales. The Tractarians of the 19th century in the Bangor diocese were powerful preachers, such as the vicar of St Padarn in Llanberis. People flocked from surrounding areas to the Welsh Gosper to hear him preach.
DeleteToday you wouldn't get enough to fill a Volkswagen Caravanette. Burial fees are much more attractive for todays cleric.
Enforcer
PP. You are probably right Enforcer. As for burial fees they are huge in comparison to other denominations.
ReplyDeleteSadly, and although I think that good, passioned, informed preaching is vital, I think that the days of people flocking to hear "the great man (or woman) preach" have long gone, for many reasons: a declining sense of community, the ease of transport, the end of deference and sense of "oughtness", growing mistrust in the Church, the rise of secularism, greater prosperity and - last but not least - the far greater choice of things we can do on a Sunday morning! Yes, poor preaching and poorly-constructed worship will deter worshippers; but we can't imagine that doing things in the fashion of 150 years ago will change things - it won't. I know that folk in these discussions don't like modern worship with all its trappings of lights, band and volume; I'm not keen on it myself as I feel it can be far too simplistic. But it does seem to "click" more with non-churchgoers who simply don't relate to "our" culture and we can't ignore that fact. (And please don't come back with the argument that "cathedral congregations are growing". While I think that may be true, partly because of their excellent aesthetic standards and aldo because people can 'observe' without becoming 'involved', it cannot be a model for ordinary parish ministry).
ReplyDeleteAllow me to butt in, but Baptist Trainfan, are you an Anglican or a nonconformist minister? Either way, it is little wonder churches and chapels are closing by the dozen.
ReplyDeleteYour choice of get out clauses reminds me of the 'Jocker Golfer' and his kind. You place your trust in 'vanity' and not the power of God to change lives; Ephesians 2: v 8 - 10.
In Tractarian terms - unbelief.
Enforcer
I'm a Nonconformist. But I genuinely don't understand your comment, especially the bit about 'vanity'. Of course I believe in God's power to change lives: but I also believe that every church exists within a cultural context and must communicate the Gospel in ways which people in that context will relate to. I also note that, over history, there have been times when society has been more ready to respond to the Gospel than others. Even in the New Testament, we see the people in some places responding more enthusiastically than others - for instance, the reception to Paul's message in Athens seems to have distinctly cool!
DeleteI see Trainfan. A Church where you, or we, are more or less in control of everything. No use referring to the likes of the ancient Newman and Pusey with you then. The 'Jocker Golfer' is someone to emulate after all?
ReplyDeletePerhaps the words of a popular 50s - 60s Welsh comedian and light entertainer might be more apt:
"If you're not very clever, then make them think that you are".
(Elwyn Pont Sian)
Enforcer
Apology. Correction. It should read, Eirwyn Pontshan. (1922-1994. 'Ti'n Jocan' by Lyn Ebenezer)
ReplyDeleteThe Vatican reclarified and showed the quotes were taken out of context. He was referring to a gay member of a family not being excluded from a family.
ReplyDeleteSecondly as regards civil partnership a papal anecdote does not trump the official declaration of 2003.
As dissenter and ex priest Bernard Lynch pointed out this is not a change in teaching
The Vatican issued a clarification, showing the editors had used dubious editing technique, isolating the context and chronological order.
ReplyDeleteImportantly Catholic teaching remains unchanged. Bernard Lynch , a dissenting priest noted this, as this is a mere papal anecdote. Catholics do not regard the every comment of a Pope as de fide, like a cult leader.