Jimmy Akin unspins the media spin on F1's "support" for same-sex civil unions. . .
Now that he’s been elected pope, some are trying to spin this as
evidence of him being “flexible” on the issue and open to “dialogue” on
the subject and as “seeking compromise” and “reach[ing] out across the
ideological spectrum”–all ostensibly being signs that he may propose the
same thing as pope, presumably on a global scale.
[Of course, "open to dialogue," "flexible on the issue," etc. just means, "The failure to abandon your principles and embrace our leftist social engineering agenda means that you are closed to dialogue and inflexible, etc." This is a rhetorical move that plants support for marriage on the fringes of polite society. F1 is too smart to fall for that slimy move.]
The same voices have also been contrasting this approach with the inflexible approach of Pope Benedict.
[Another slimy, perfidious rhetorical move designed to pressure F1 into cashing in on the "reformist spirit" currently possessing the Church in order to radically upend the natural law. IOW, the message is: "Pope Francis, use the excitement behind the push for curial reform to bring about some doctrinal reform as well! If you don't, we will portray you as a right-wing nut the way we did BXVI."
______________Follow HancAquam or Subscribe and DONATE! ----->
The media may be wrong in what they are doing but Jimmy Akin is wrong in the cover he is giving to Pope Francis. The best comment that derails Mr. Akins analysis is this...
ReplyDeletePosted by Deacon Peter Trahan on Thursday, Mar 21, 2013 10:56 AM (EDT):
I understand the Church’s documents and the idea of supporting legislation that would lessen the harm of an unjust law, but I think applying that to same-sex unions as less harmful than same-sex marriage is a stretch because in effect same-sex unions don’t lessen the harm at all, it is just a change of name. It doesn’t even lessen the impact on the definition of marriage. The moral pillar of marriage as the primary unit of family would be damaged whether or not the technical definition is effected. The primary unit of family would change.
Furthermore, the idea that proposing same-sex unions a second time does not bring the Church’s teaching into play if the first proposal did not result in booked law. The Church’s statement of “first” proposal is in reference to “already on the books.” We see this as it is applicable to the abortion laws. Laws that lessen the harm of abortion but do not eliminate the original law are understandably licitly supported. But with no law on the books, a lesser law proposed as an alternative is not what the Church had in mind as being licitly supportable.
Having read many Church documents (translated) as you have Mr. Akin you know that the language sometimes does not reflect the Church’s intention. In any case when it seems to contradict the overarching objective moral foundation, the language should be reconsidered.
____
Also, the Pope (cardinal at the time) is not a politician so the CDF comments don't even apply to him.
I think we need to quit making excuses for our leadership and hold them accountable for stupid thoughts. Why can't we just say "yes, the pope was wrong at the time to suggest such a thing, which is why the other bishops overruled him and nixed the idea. He is human and knows better now." Period, the end. Next question.
Michael
Michael, the Pope wasn't wrong at the time. . .b/c the man who supported civil unions in Argentina as an alternative to same-sex "marriage" wasn't the Pope. The media are using the Cardinal's three year old suggested alternative to pressure the Pope to make the same suggestion now.
DeleteFather, the primary reason the comment is wrong is because there was not a law on the books already. This was not a case where sodomites could marry already and we were looking to make it illegal again, but were only able to compromise with just calling it by a different name. Also, same sex unions do the same damage as same sex marriages, just under a different name. And third, this is an intrinsic evil which cannot be negotiated with.
DeleteGod bless,
Michael
Hi, Father! I promise this is not spam. I just nominated you for the Liebster blog award because I think your blog deserves more visibility. See what I mean: http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-liebster-award-helping-blog.html Congrats! ;)
ReplyDeleteAmbrose, my thanks for the nomination. . .but I don't qualify. I have over 200 subscribers and some 475 followers.
Delete