Vatican City State: Pope Francis accession/Inauguration & Current Events:March 2013-


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Falklands would have absolutely no bearing on who The Queen sent. Falklands has nothing to do with the royal family or the current Pope now. It's a political argument and Elizabeth is above politics.

Anyone see the various stories about the Cardinal Napier who says paedophilia is a mental illness not a crime?

He said SOME paedophiles are not criminally responsible because they are mentally ill. He did not say there was no CRIME.

And of course this is a legal, not a moral issue of which he spoke.
Not defending the man, just illuminating his comments.

IMHO, from a moral and legal perspective, no one should be abused and abusers need to be stopped.
 
Hi, Moonmaiden,
Protestants do not see this is break of the sacrament, as it is allowed in Protestantism, that ALL CRISTIANS, whether they are catholic or protestant, are able to receive the Eucharist.
Bye Bine

Bine221, thanks for response. I know that Protestants feel that way, but Catholic and Orthodox churches are different, due to the sharply different understanding/teaching of what the Eucharist is. Both religions would prefer that Protestants NOT approach-except in emergencies. Catholics are discouraged from taking Protestant communion for the same reason.

Iluvbertie, thanks for explaining about the Kents.
 
Hi, i just wanted to try and clarify some issues raised here:
1.- As far as Francis' position against gay marriage, he is against using the word "marriage" to describe the procedure, ceremony and result of such a union. But he is perfectly fine with "civil union" instead.
A few years before the legalization of gay marriage here in Argentina (which he was against, as many people here have pointed out previously) the city of Buenos Aires legalized the civil union, which was essentially the same, only excluding the right to inheritance between the newly united couples (because that could only be changed by the federal government) and the right of adoption (also, an issues that only the federal government can change), and he did not oppose it, he was actually in favor of it and took quite a beating from the catholic right wing because of it.
2.- As far as the accusations of colluding the last military junta, theese accusations were made by a journalist known for his ties with the government, a government that has been in conflict with Bergoglio simply because he is not affraid to call them on the rampant corruption, poverty and insecurity in my country.
All the apolitical figures of the human rights fight during the last junta, like Adolfo Perez Esquivel (novel peace laureate), Alicia Oliveira (Founder of the Center for Legal and Social studies) and Graciela Fernandez Meijide (ex-senator and mother of a son that was "vanished" by the junta), have said that the accusations are completely false.
As far as what the founder of the "Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo" and the founder of the "Madres de Plaza de Mayo" have both said, both groups have lost all credibility here in Argentina in the last decade, since they have been attaking and accusing anyone who opposes or dares to criticise the current administration of beeing a supporter of the last military junta.
 
He said SOME paedophiles are not criminally responsible because they are mentally ill. He did not say there was no CRIME.

And of course this is a legal, not a moral issue of which he spoke.
Not defending the man, just illuminating his comments.

IMHO, from a moral and legal perspective, no one should be abused and abusers need to be stopped.

Let's face it - 500 years ago, they didn't call it paedophilia and no one raised an eyebrow when grown men married children. It was even possible to marry one's niece if she was the daughter of a sister, not a brother. There are many things in the RC that are still like in the 1500s - so why wonder?

Plus a lot of Catholics including the clergy still believe in the existence of Satan and his demons. So it is no big step to believe that someone abused by a priest is in fact a demon sent to coax the priest away from celibacy and God, not someone to pity as a victim. And that it is best to deal with the priest's "Fall from Grace" within the Church's authority.

When you consider this, the Church has already gone a long way to a more realistic view on the world and on sexual abuse. They now see that there a victims of abuse and they now see that priests are a part of society like anyone else and need to be dealt with by the laws of the society they live in.
 
Hi, i just wanted to try and clarify some issues raised here:
1.- As far as Francis' position against gay marriage, he is against using the word "marriage" to describe the procedure, ceremony and result of such a union. But he is perfectly fine with "civil union" instead.
.

Then he apparently does not grasp the concept that separate but equal is in fact not equal. Since the debate is always about civil marriage the churches should just stay out of it. If they do not want to perform a religious marriage fine and dandy, that is their choice, but civil marriage is a civil matter not a church matter.
 
Then he apparently does not grasp the concept that separate but equal is in fact not equal. Since the debate is always about civil marriage the churches should just stay out of it. If they do not want to perform a religious marriage fine and dandy, that is their choice, but civil marriage is a civil matter not a church matter.

^this. Well said.
 
Then he apparently does not grasp the concept that separate but equal is in fact not equal. Since the debate is always about civil marriage the churches should just stay out of it. If they do not want to perform a religious marriage fine and dandy, that is their choice, but civil marriage is a civil matter not a church matter.

True, I agree with you.
But even that position shows way more "progressive" thinking on his part that the position of most of the catholic preasts.
Look, I don't think that any of us will live to see a pope that is in favor of gay marriage, abortion or eutanasia, but to have one that at least is willing to accept that different styles of life should be respected and even given some kind of legal protection is a welcome change in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Hi, i just wanted to try and clarify some issues raised here...
Hi SoleS-

That's very interesting information, thank you and welcome to TRF! :)

Kataryn- The Catholic Church believes in the existence of Satan because, quite simply, Christ Himself did and warned people repeatedly about the existence of demons as well.

If you believe the teachings of Christ, it is not possible to reject as preposterous the idea that Satan exists. Frankly, I don't need to do anything other than turn on the TV, my computer, or read a newspaper to be convinced.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SoleS, I agree that your post was very informative and welcome! Thanks for that post, it clarified a bit on Francis' positions. I agree on the gay marriage equality, but overall it puts him in the much much better light.

I think overall he will be one of the better popes. Let's wait and see.
 
To religions, "marriage" is a religious ceremony or rite. As a society we have secularized the word marriage.

As many European countries already do, there is a civil union which is legal and binding, and then the couple goes to the church for the religious ceremony of marriage.

I have no problem with civil unions. Although I did vote in favor of gay marriage because a) I believe gay couples should have the same legal advantages heterosexual couples enjoy via a government sanctioned union, aka marriage and b) I'm never going to win on my next point.

The government needs to get out of the "marriage" business and leave that to the churches. The government should do civil unions for all couples homosexual and heterosexual.
 
Hi, i just wanted to try and clarify some issues raised here...
Can you post any official statements by (then Cardinal) pope Francis where he says he has no problem with civil unions between homosexuals or homosexuals adopting children?
Everything I've been able to find so far indicates the opposite.

Let's face it - 500 years ago, they didn't call it paedophilia and no one raised an eyebrow when grown men married children. It was even possible to marry one's niece if she was the daughter of a sister, not a brother. There are many things in the RC that are still like in the 1500s - so why wonder?
Also too remember that the professional psychiatric community thought for years it was possible to 'cure' pedophiles (and homosexuals) and they were the ones advising that the offenders be sent for a 'rest' and then rehabilitated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi, i just wanted to try and clarify some issues raised here...
Thank you for this, as it is difficult to know who or what to believe coming out of an Argentina that must be delighted with the election of one of their own to the pontificate yet frustrated with a government that does not seem to take the troubled history of Argentina seriously! This board member at any rate will continue to watch the activities of Pope Francis with hope while aware of the difficult past with which he must negotiate.:flowers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To religions, "marriage" is a religious ceremony or rite. As a society we have secularized the word marriage.

The government needs to get out of the "marriage" business and leave that to the churches. The government should do civil unions for all couples homosexual and heterosexual.
Actually in the early Christian era marriage was seen as a private matter, with no religious ceremonies required, and for Protestantism, Martin Luther's view on marriage was that it was a civil matter, not a religious one, Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So marriage as a religious ceremony was not fundamental for the first Christians, perhaps one reason was that during pagan times the Hieros gamos, holy marriage, was a sacred sexual ritual of marriage between a god and a goddess, and the first Christians wanted to distance themselves from pagan rituals. It was first in the beginning of the fourth century marriage became a matter for the church.

So my opinion is, marriage should be a matter for the civil authorities, and if the church(es) wants to have some kind of blessing ceremony to celebrate the union between two people, they can create a new name for that ceremony/rite, but the religious ceremony should not be seen as a legal marriage.
 
Last edited:
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't there an issue being a Catholic and not being married in the Church? Technically, if sexually active, even if legally married, they are living in sin and may be denied sacraments. Heck, there are bishops in the US who still believe gays are living in a state of sin for being gay - but that's another argument.
Plumping for civil union settles little - because the issue remains about being able to take sacraments, the position of any children the couple have and those children's place in the Church. Imagine raising your children, helping to prepare them for First Communion and Confirmation while being denied the sacraments yourself.
I saw this in my own family, so don't say it does not happen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, a Catholic has an obligation to be married by a priest, if they do not do so their marriage is not recognized as valid or sacramental. Ergo they should not receive the Sacraments until they correct the situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.

The government needs to get out of the "marriage" business and leave that to the churches. The government should do civil unions for all couples homosexual and heterosexual.

Heterosexuals would not want their non-church union to be seen as less than what it is....a marriage. Lots of hetero sexual couples opt for civil marriages for various reasons-non religious people, mixed faith couple, one or both divorced and church will not marry divorced people etc. Perhaps a better solution would be for all couples who wish to be considered as legally married to have a civil marriage and then those who wish it could follow up with a non-legal church service, or failing that lets just have churches stay out of the debate about civil marriages all together.
 
Thanks for the specific clarification about the role of the new pope in the "disappearances". It speaks volumes in Francis' favor that these two leaders of the movement against the former regime say that the Archbishop was innocent, not in collusion with the government. They are used to speaking out, at their own peril, the truth. So what they say is weighty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
According to royalblog.nl the Duke of Parma will also attend the inaugural mass of the new pope.
 
Can you post any official statements by (then Cardinal) pope Francis where he says he has no problem with civil unions between homosexuals or homosexuals adopting children?
Everything I've been able to find so far indicates the opposite.
First, thank you all for your kind words.
I think I wasn't clear enough due to my bad English, I'm sorry. He was in favour of civil unions back in 2002, when the civil union project was approved by the City of Buenos Aires.
At the same time, he is against homosexuals adopting children because he thinks it is a form of discrimination agains't the children since they won't be allowed to grow up having both a father and a mother (which is, thankfully, a position that most of the argentinians think is idiotic and outdated).
As far as official statements go, you won't find any. He didn't like to give interviews (you'll find 5 or 7 at the most since he was appointed archbishop of Buenos Aires) and, while in favour of civil unions, he didn't make any official statements since he knew the official position of the church in that aspect.
What I did find were some statements (only in Spanish, sorry) made by the people that talked with him about the subject when the civil union project was about to be approved by the parliament of the City of Buenos Aires.

“Bergoglio es de una gran apertura dentro de la Iglesia” | Internacional | EL PAÍS

Las polticas que buscaban consejo en el Papa Francisco - ABC.es

http://www.infonews.com/2013/03/14/politica-65325-como-convivir-con-un-papa-argentino-en-roma.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not a problem I have a SIL from South America, she can translate for me.

I thought as much though, nothing directly from pope Francis that I can find anywhere...at this point I'm not willing to accept that is his position based on second hand info. We've seen stuff like this before from/about Church officials and their positions and they turn out to not be exactly accurate.

I'll wait and see what he does and says now....but thanks for the reply!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No problem :)

Since you have someone that can translate Spanish for you, you might like to peruse this: Clarín | Suplemento Especial - El Papa del fin del mundo
It's a special supplement made by an argentinian newspaper about the pope. It pretty much puts into paper what we argentinians already know about our archbishop of Buenos Aires (well..ex-archbishop now I guess :p) plus a few new things about his early history, but I guess it can be a good source of information for the rest of the world about the pope.

By the way, sure, it's second hand info. But, in my opinion, it's the truth. Back in 2002, as I remember, his silence spoke volumes. More so when in 2010 he opposed the civil marriage law, since many of us realised that, had he been against civil unions, he would not have hesitated to say so 8 years before.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This man captures everyone by his simplicity,openness,humour and off the cuff remarks..."Hey,I'm not promoting the books of my Cardinals hey.."...LOL... The man is like a breath of fresh air at a place where that was needed most!!!

Here in The Netherlands tuesdays Inauguration of HH Pope Francis will be aired starting at 09.00AM local time till 13.00PM on Ned2, GMT+1. Germany's ZDF has very much the same times.:)

St.Peter Square and the Via della Conciliazione yesterday,packed with an estimate 150.000

http://www.anpfoto.nl/search.pp?eventid=1462975

courtesy anp
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pope Francis is almost as joyfully and universally accepted as Barack Obama was when he came into office-hopefully he will have better luck than the US president and take the right steps to lead the church into the 21st century and give it a human attitude.
I thoroughly enjoyed his speech,he has a refreshing,candid way of talking that I find very good to listen to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So far we have

T.M.The King and Queen of Belgium
TRH The Grand Duke and Duchess of Luxembourg
TRH The Prince and Princess of Asturias
TRH The Prince of Orange and Crown Princess Maxima
TRH The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester
TSH The Prince and Princess of Monaco

I wonder if Liechtenstein,Sweden,Norway or Denmark will send anyone?

Of the non reigning houses,we might see some Italian,Portuguese,French,German and Austrian royals.
 
The Patriarch Bartholomew,leader of the Eastern-Orthodox Church will attend the Popes Inauguration tomorrow.It will be the first time since the Eastern Schism in 1154 that a Patriarch will attend this ceremony.

An indication the present Pontiff wishes to further improve relations between other denominations.Greek Orthodox hymns will be sung during tomorrows ceremony.Also representatives of the Jewish-,Islam-,Buddhism-,Sikh- and Jain communities will be in attendance.
 
Last edited:
I read he in his own understanding of being the "bishop of Rome" already contacted the Jewish and Muslim communities of Rome in order to introduce himself as the new Catholic "collegue". And of course mentioning Cardinal Walter Kaspar in his first Angelus-speech was an important point because it is known that he is close friends with Kasper who was the Catholic head of mission for for the wording of the ocumenical creed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom