Comments

1
Is he saying gay people in civil unions can get the sacraments? I'm presuming he's talking about Catholics. Anybody else is none of his business. I'm being polite today.
2
That's sweet, even if it's conditional and qualified all to hell. Let me know when the Church actually changes.
3
He's sticking his toe in the waters of change...see how his flock reacts. There's no commitment here though. IMHO he knows they better change because young people have been and will continue to leave over this and other issues.
4
It's a step.

Back to 600 AD but still.
5
Simply recognizing that the marriages recognized by the State of Washington need not correspond exactly to the marriages the Catholic Church thinks would be recognized as groovy in the eyes of Jesus would be a great start.
6
If a priest were to enter into a civil union, he technically would not be married, so he could still be a priest?
7
@6 There are usually vows of both celibacy (not marrying) and chastity (not having sex). Also, a lot of religions don't like non-marital sex. So, it probably would be frowned upon, and at least be seen as a poor example.
8
It's huge news. Don't forget that this comes after his statement a few months about about not judging. This is your homophobic parents inviting your same-sex significant other to accompany you to Christmas dinner at their house.

I think it's likely that this Pope would not approve of that Catholic HS firing its vice-principal for getting married.

And this means Seattleblues will soon have no choice but to join the Moonies.

If this isn't progress, what's wrong with you (other than being Seattleblues, that is)?
9
@6 A few years ago, Al Copeland, founder of the Popeye's Fried Chicken dynasty, got married for the fourth time and did so in a Catholic church wedding (St. Louis Cathedral in New Orleans).

How was this allowed? He had married wife #1 in the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). Copeland and his first wife divorced, but their marriage was never annulled by the RCC.

He then married and divorced wife #2 and wife #3. Since the marriage to wife #1 had never been annulled, the marriages to wife#2 and wife #3 were never recognized by the RCC.

However, by the time he was ready to wed wife #4, wife #1 had died. Since this was the only one of Copeland's marriages that the RCC had ever recognized, and since wife #1 was now dead, the RCC considered him a widower, and that meant that he could marry wife #4 within the church, even though he had two (unrecognized) ex-wives still very much alive.

So...the short answer to your question is: yes. The RCC is very good at not recognizing marriages that take place outside of its administration, and if the RCC doesn't want to recognize a marriage, as far as the RCC is concerned, it never happened.
10
@9 Then it's a sort of de facto admission that celibacy is a fraud.
11
It seems huge. It appears to be an official recognition of the idea of a separation of church and state. That the RCC can set its rules for marriage (1 man + 1 woman), but that it doesn't object to the notion of the state creating a different rule. It doesn't go so far as to give unqualified support to gay couples, but if the Pope is okay with my civil marriage, I'm good with that. I don't want or need his church's blessing. I just want him to leave me alone to enjoy the civil rights that heteros enjoy, like joint tax returns, which I will be filing for the first time in my life this year.
12
@11, congrats man!

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.