Christians should apologize for helping to marginalize gays, pope says

[Strydersroom]

So I presume you did not attend her wedding then? If my parents, or in laws, did not attend my wedding, I think it would have been I who wrote the apology letter and it would be something exactly like this:

“An Open Letter to My Future Parents In-Law Who Won’t Attend Our Wedding”

July 20, 2015

Dear Russ & Pat:

Please, don’t discard this letter without reading it through. I write not to attack or disparage you or your beliefs. I would, however, issue you a challenge to really examine the actions you’ve taken in the name of those beliefs. Please, hear what I have to say. I think it is important you understand what has transpired and only wish to ask some admittedly difficult questions and beseech you to honestly consider them before dismissing me out of hand.

First of all, thank you for the birthday card and gift card; the sentiment was nice. I just wish it felt sincere — if not for me, then for your son, Tim. Oh, I know you love him (indeed both of us) in the best way you know how. Just like I know a lifetime of learning doctrine to mean one thing is not easy to reconcile with conflicting truths or even admit that it may be at least partially flawed. But not to even make an attempt to understand that the love you have for your living flesh-and-blood son should trump millennia-old religious texts written at a time when slavery was status quo, women were property and eating pork or shellfish was punishable by death or banishment is disheartening. No person can take every single Biblical tenet as literal law. You may protest that you do, but you and I both know the reverse is true, even if only to a degree.

Russ, surely you never shunned your wife as unclean during a certain time of the month to the extent you wouldn’t even share furniture with her. Pat, surely you wouldn’t agree to Russ keeping concubines or to you marrying his brother if he should die. And I’m pretty sure Carolyn wasn’t shunned, banished or condemned to death for divorcing one husband and taking another. So why do you take the fleeting six references to gay people in both the Old and New Testaments as nonnegotiable truth and law? Why won’t you at least entertain the possibility that the way in which scripture on this particular topic has been taught, like so many others that came before it regarding anti-miscegenation, race, slavery and women, may be flawed and tainted by archaic bias falsely cloaked under the insidious fallacy of “love the sinner, hate the sin”? Being gay is not a choice. It is not some addiction or disease that can be cured. It is innate and immutable. You can no more successfully hope and pray for a person’s orientation to change than you could hope and pray for a tomato to change into a brick.

Believe me. I wasted years of my youth trying to change because people I loved and respected expected it of me. I didn’t want to face what seemed like at the time would be an eternity of ostracism and hatred and loneliness. I tried and I tried. And I failed. And it took me a long time to realize that being who I am would lead to none of those fates — but hating myself for being who I am would. Finally, I learned that being gay is an inborn trait no different than height and hair color. After all, if it weren’t, don’t you think centuries of fervent efforts to rid humanity of it would have shown at least some modicum of success? Yet here we are.

I, and all gay people like me and your son, could no sooner turn heterosexual than you could will your eyes to change colors. And just like possessing eye colors that not everyone shares, being gay is just one in a pantheon of benignly healthy and natural human traits. We are born gay and someday, far in the future, we will die gay. Just as you are born with the eye color you will die with. It is a neuropsychological and biological fact. So, when you “hate the sin” in this instance, you are indeed hating the “sinner.”

continued…

 

[Strydersroom]

…continued…The only choice any of us has in the matter is how we react to what is a perfectly natural form of human life. My mother could not accept it at first. She had been raised to believe as you do that gay people like your son and me are depraved and lascivious monsters. When I was forced out of the closet to her, she faced a choice: Believe what others had told her, or believe her own eyes, heart, mind and soul. Thankfully, after a difficult struggle that took a couple of years of hard honesty and self-examination, she embraced me unconditionally. Which is why I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Experience taught me when people reject fear and instead open themselves to love, they change for the better.

Your actions and loving attitudes toward us over the past nearly two decades had given me hope that you acknowledged us as a committed couple who commanded at least some of the respect and dignity afforded to married couples like Tim’s brother and his wife. Our lack of marriage wasn’t through any lack of wanting. Had we been able to marry when we wanted, we would be celebrating our 15th wedding anniversary, not planning our wedding 17 years after we met and fell in love.

So I must admit, when Tim called you to find out if you would attend our wedding and you told him you would not even consider being there for him because you “just wouldn’t feel comfortable,” I was (and still am) shocked and deeply saddened. Look at your son. I mean honestly look at your son. He is loving, caring, generous of spirit, honest, creative, witty, helpful and talented in so many ways. That you will not allow yourselves to celebrate and love him unconditionally as I do is mindboggling. Instead you focus on one facet of his being that others have told you is flawed and detestable and condemn him for it. He may not show it, but he is devastated that the last 20 years of what he thought was growing acceptance on your part now feels like just so much lying (a sentiment I can’t help but share).

I hope this is not the case. The eternal optimist in me hopes your love for him truly is unconditional and is merely and unfortunately at odds with your faith to such an extent that you are unsure how you should act or how you should feel, but that, regardless, eventually you will land on the side of love rather than fear.

But the realist in me fears that is not the case. Deep down, I’m afraid that you are truly choosing how you’ve been taught to interpret your faith over allowing yourselves to love your son wholly and unconditionally. And to allow such a thing causes an astoundingly profound disservice to everyone involved.

Please prove the realist in me wrong. You are missing out on what should be a truly wonderful relationship with your son that is more than just awkward small talk made to hide your uncomfortable truth in a desperate attempt to keep him in your life. It would be real. It would be honest. It would be unconditionally loving. You would want to celebrate him as much as I do, not hide away who he is like a dirty secret.

As an aside, we don’t want to destroy marriage or “redefine” it. We want to join in its exalted status. To declare to each other and the world vows of love and fidelity to one another and only one another. You may feel uncomfortable with it, you may even loathe the very notion. But it is fact. Now that we legally can, we will be getting married this fall. I just wish you had chosen to be there and celebrate with us and the rest of those whom we hold dearest in our hearts.

But that moment has passed. The damage is done and I fear there is no going back. Regardless of your motives or justifications or future attempts to reconcile, the simple fact is you chose the words of an ancient book and the fire-breathing vitriol of preachers over the love of your own child.

This is why I must regretfully return your card and gift; I just don’t feel comfortable keeping them.

With sincere love and respect,

James"

 

[exnihilo]

So should i ostracize my daughter because she married her girlfriend? Where does the Church tell us to ostracize anyone?

Your daughter couldn’t have married a woman. As for the Church it would say to not attend such a ceremony. I would think that the Church would say that people living in gross immorality shouldn’t be put in positions of leadership. I would think that is a form of ostracism, as the word is popularly used.

My point is I just don’t see how removing all social pressure is a good thing. If anyone disagrees can they point to an example where things have changed without social pressure? Those pushing immorality certainly use it. If you are publicly against same sex ‘marriage’ and work for a corporation you may lose your job.

 

[estesbob]

So I presume you did not attend her wedding then? If my parents, or in laws, did not attend my wedding, I think it would have been I who wrote the apology letter and it would be something exactly like this:

"…

I would of but they got married before a JP with only two witnesses. They asked that no one else attend and did not announce when and where. I had long discussion with my family and my Pastor-the end result is i would have attended so as to not cause a rift between us. I love my children unconditionally.

 

[estesbob]

Your daughter couldn’t have married a woman. As for the Church it would say to not attend such a ceremony. I would think that the Church would say that people living in gross immorality shouldn’t be put in positions of leadership. I would think that is a form of ostracism, as the word is popularly used.

My point is I just don’t see how removing all social pressure is a good thing. If anyone disagrees can they point to an example where things have changed without social pressure? Those pushing immorality certainly use it. If you are publicly against same sex ‘marriage’ and work for a corporation you may lose your job.

I would not vote for someone who supports same sex marriage and/or homosexual adoption. That is far different than ostracizing your daughter.

 

[SWolf]

When he was Cardinal of Buenos Aires, the Pope once compared the adoption of children by same sex couples to child abuse. Now I certainly wouldn’t consider that marginalizing homosexuals, but I’m sure many others in this enlightened age would.

Societies marginalize all sorts of people:
Thieves
Sex offenders
White supremacists
Anti-Vaxxers
People with contagious diseases

There’s at least one on the list most would not have a problem marginalizing, because they see it as benefiting society as a whole. This goes down to even employment being denied.

Societies see it wrong to marginalize the following:
Divorcees, regardless of reason
Gays
Religious minorities

Yet can’t the same argument be made that marginalizing said groups helps society as a whole? Why is it acceptable to marginalize one group and not the other?

You can show love to all people without allowing them unequivocal access to your children, leadership positions, ‘protected class’ rights, etc.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Reading the Pope’s words in context, he wasn’t even singling out behavior toward homosexuals – and despite what some people are assuming, he never said any Christian would apologize for their beliefs, but rather, their behaviors, and not just toward homosexuals. He mentioned, as an example, families refusing to visit the divorced.

I know from my own life, that it is possible to express disagreement without shunning or ostracizing people. My mother, for example, opposes inter-racial marriage, and I know that. But she did not ostracize me when I dated a Black man. I was in high school then, still living with my parents. But she did not kick me out of the house, or beat me, or ground me, or even forbid me to see the man. (I suppose that might just have been a standard parenting strategy though, that forbidding your kids from dating certain people usually just backfires). However, she did not pay for us to go to the prom together. I paid for that out of my own money from a part time job I had.

Now, I’m not sure she would come to a wedding if I did marry a Black man, but I would not hold it against her if she did not. And while I certainly do NOT agree with my mother’s views at all, and am saddened that she has them, I also have no plans to shun or ostracize my mother for being a “bigoted racist”.

Ironically, my mother actually has a friend who is gay and lives with his partner (I’m not sure if they are legally married or not, though). She is also very sympathetic toward the plight of the transgendered, and apparently she knew someone when she was young who would likely be identified as “transgendered” today.

But on the other hand, she also told me a story about a friend from her younger days who actually married an African from Africa (I think he was a visiting student) and moved with him when he returned to his home country. Apparently they’re not friends anymore, but I think that was more because the friend was offended, than vice versa.

 

[exnihilo]

I would not vote for someone who supports same sex marriage and/or homosexual adoption. That is far different than ostracizing your daughter.

Let’s say someone told their child’s same sex partner they couldn’t come on a family vacation. I’d say that is ostracism. You’d say that is something you should never do?

Societies marginalize all sorts of people:
Thieves
Sex offenders
White supremacists
Anti-Vaxxers
People with contagious diseases

There’s at least one on the list most would not have a problem marginalizing, because they see it as benefiting society as a whole. This goes down to even employment being denied.

Societies see it wrong to marginalize the following:
Divorcees, regardless of reason
Gays
Religious minorities

Yet can’t the same argument be made that marginalizing said groups helps society as a whole? Why is it acceptable to marginalize one group and not the other?

You can show love to all people without allowing them unequivocal access to your children, leadership positions, ‘protected class’ rights, etc.

I agree. Add smokers to the list of the marginalized. They are heavily taxed, forced to go outside to endure their inclinations, and charged more for health care and insurance. All for good reason according to society. But we can make such arguments about lots of conditions. If you charged homosexuals more for health care because they have greater health care costs, and they do, you are a bigot. Actually in most places you aren’t just a bigot but breaking the law.

 

[JimG]

We should be apologizing to gays. But in the original Greek. Apologia.

“Apologia,” --a reasoned defense of the Church’s teaching. Something that John Paul Meenan does here in a non-confrontational manner.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

“Apologia,” --a reasoned defense of the Church’s teaching. Something that John Paul Meenan does here in a non-confrontational manner.

Exactly.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

I have to say I completely understand why people are ostracized. I’ve lived in a society that doesn’t ostracize people. Or more accurately it doesn’t ostracize people for grave sins but for minor or for no sin at all. The ostracism seems necessary to maintain good order. Without that social pressure people seem to come unglued. I struggle to see how no social pressure is prudential.

I believe social pressure is different from ostracism or shaming, probably more in degree. Social pressure acts as a caveat not to do things or else. Shaming is done frequently by the self-righteous. I like the saying, “when you point one finger, three are pointing back at you”.
Then again social pressure in its manifestations if applied to moral issues is much better than going to jail.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Let’s say someone told their child’s same sex partner they couldn’t come on a family vacation. I’d say that is ostracism. You’d say that is something you should never do?

I would forbid it if they were staying over night.

Add smokers to the list of the marginalized. They are heavily taxed, forced to go outside to endure their inclinations, and charged more for health care and insurance. All for good reason according to society. But we can make such arguments about lots of conditions. If you charged homosexuals more for health care because they have greater health care costs, and they do, you are a bigot. Actually in most places you aren’t just a bigot but breaking the law.

I really feel sorry for smokers, even though I do not smoke myself. Like pre-Prohibition in the US, alcohol was the scapegoat for all of society’s ills. Surely, burning of fossil fuels in industry and transportation is a much bigger cause of air pollution.
The argument what people do in the privacy of their own homes and businesses should apply to smoking as well. The nanny state should really bug out.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

As a priest, I am very disappointed in positions to be read in various commentaries.

The matter of the Pope’s decision on an issue such as the need for the Church to acknowledge what has been done wrongly by members of the Church is his decision as the visible head of the Church…it is anything but something upon which the laity are polled. Neither are the clergy. The Church is not a democracy. We are not congregationalists. Catholics live in Communion of Faith, Communion of Sacraments and Communion of Governance with our shepherds.

The Pope is the Successor of Peter. The Pope is the head of the College of Bishops.

The College of Bishops may act as a body – with and under the head of the College – or the head of the College may act unilaterally.

The Holy Father has announced what the Church is to do.

The bishops and the priests are the ones, properly, to implement this very directive in the name of and on behalf of the faithful who belong to their dioceses and their parishes as well as on behalf of the entire Church. And we are doing so.

The statement of the Archbishop of Chicago is a model for all the Bishops and Priests of the United States as well as those beyond:
*Our prayers and hearts are with the victims of the mass shooting in Orlando, their families and our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

We are grateful to the first responders and civilians who heroically put themselves in harm’s way, providing an enduring reminder of what compassion and bravery look like–even in the face of such horror and danger.

In response to hatred, we are called to sow love. In response to violence, peace. And, in response to intolerance, tolerance.

The people of the Archdiocese of Chicago stand with the victims and their loved ones, and reaffirm our commitment, with Pope Francis, to address the causes of such tragedy…*
The Archbishop, as the head of the archdiocese entrusted to him, has spoken in the name of and on behalf of the flock entrusted to him and which he governs.

The Pope said that forgiveness is to be asked. The result of that directive can only legitimately and properly be the implementation of the directive.

I have every confidence that the bishops will, of course, comply with this directive from the head of the College of Bishops and without regard for any dissent of individual members of the Church – although I would hope each and every member of the Church would faithfully echo with their own voices precisely what the Pope has called for.

As a priest, who was ordained as a co-worker to the Order of Bishops as the rite of ordination itself declares, I will assuredly be doing precisely what the Pope has commanded: Articulating how members of the Church, of the present and of the past, have failed in precisely those areas in which the visible head of the Church has determined; that there has been failure; that expressions of repentance and sorrow are to be articulated.

I was part of the work of reconciliation in Jewish-Christian relations after the Council, as we articulated the errors of the past which had such horrific and unspeakable consequences for countless Jewish persons.

I worked on behalf of the theological dialogue in the years after the Council concerning healing the aftermath of the tragedies when there were breaks in communion with the Church of Rome at the time of the Reformation; we acknowledged and begged forgiveness of those who descend from those groups for all the roles of Catholic Church leaders and members of the Catholic Church who contributed to these tragedies.

Finally, with regard to Pope Saint John Paul II’s apologies on behalf of the Church at the time of the Great Jubilee 2000 which were implemented around the world, in the various dioceses, and which are now forever part of the Church’s life and history – and I am delighted by this initiative of Pope Francis…and its implementation in every corner of the Church.

 

[estesbob]

The Pope said that forgiveness is to be asked. The result of that directive can only legitimately and properly be the implementation of the directive.

.

The Popes answer to a question in a press conference is a “directive”?

 

[JimG]

As a priest, I am very disappointed in positions to be read in various commentaries.

The matter of the Pope’s decision on an issue such as the need for the Church to acknowledge what has been done wrongly by members of the Church is his decision as the visible head of the Church…it is anything but something upon which the laity are polled. Neither are the clergy. The Church is not a democracy. We are not congregationalists. Catholics live in Communion of Faith, Communion of Sacraments and Communion of Governance with our shepherds.

The Pope is the Successor of Peter. The Pope is the head of the College of Bishops.

The College of Bishops may act as a body – with and under the head of the College – or the head of the College may act unilaterally.

The Holy Father has announced what the Church is to do.

The bishops and the priests are the ones, properly, to implement this very directive in the name of and on behalf of the faithful who belong to their dioceses and their parishes as well as on behalf of the entire Church. And we are doing so.

The statement of the Archbishop of Chicago is a model for all the Bishops and Priests of the United States as well as those beyond:
*Our prayers and hearts are with the victims of the mass shooting in Orlando, their families and our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

We are grateful to the first responders and civilians who heroically put themselves in harm’s way, providing an enduring reminder of what compassion and bravery look like–even in the face of such horror and danger.

In response to hatred, we are called to sow love. In response to violence, peace. And, in response to intolerance, tolerance.*

The people of the Archdiocese of Chicago stand with the victims and their loved ones, and reaffirm our commitment, with Pope Francis, to address the causes of such tragedy…
The Archbishop, as the head of the archdiocese entrusted to him, has spoken in the name of and on behalf of the flock entrusted to him and which he governs.

The Pope said that forgiveness is to be asked. The result of that directive can only legitimately and properly be the implementation of the directive.

I have every confidence that the bishops will, of course, comply with this directive from the head of the College of Bishops and without regard for any dissent of individual members of the Church – although I would hope each and every member of the Church would faithfully echo with their own voices precisely what the Pope has called for.

As a priest, who was ordained as a co-worker to the Order of Bishops as the rite of ordination itself declares, I will assuredly be doing precisely what the Pope has commanded: Articulating how members of the Church, of the present and of the past, have failed in precisely those areas in which the visible head of the Church has determined; that there has been failure; that expressions of repentance and sorrow are to be articulated.

I was part of the work of reconciliation in Jewish-Christian relations after the Council, as we articulated the errors of the past which had such horrific and unspeakable consequences for countless Jewish persons.

I worked on behalf of the theological dialogue in the years after the Council concerning healing the aftermath of the tragedies when there were breaks in communion with the Church of Rome at the time of the Reformation; we acknowledged and begged forgiveness of those who descend from those groups for all the roles of Catholic Church leaders and members of the Catholic Church who contributed to these tragedies.

Finally, with regard to Pope Saint John Paul II’s apologies on behalf of the Church at the time of the Great Jubilee 2000 which were implemented around the world, in the various dioceses, and which are now forever part of the Church’s life and history – and I am delighted by this initiative of Pope Francis…and its implementation in every corner of the Church.

With respect to Pope St. John Paul II’s document, posted earlier in this thread, I don’t think anyone here would object to anything in it.

But I have to ask, in view of the lengthy discussion in this thread, are we still talking abut a brief Q&A in an in-flight interview by Pope Francis? I’ve seldom seen major encyclicals discussed at greater length.

 

[bilop]

As a priest, I am very disappointed in positions to be read in various commentaries.

The matter of the Pope’s decision on an issue such as the need for the Church to acknowledge what has been done wrongly by members of the Church is his decision as the visible head of the Church…it is anything but something upon which the laity are polled. Neither are the clergy. The Church is not a democracy. We are not congregationalists. Catholics live in Communion of Faith, Communion of Sacraments and Communion of Governance with our shepherds.

The Pope is the Successor of Peter. The Pope is the head of the College of Bishops.

The College of Bishops may act as a body – with and under the head of the College – or the head of the College may act unilaterally.

The Holy Father has announced what the Church is to do.

The bishops and the priests are the ones, properly, to implement this very directive in the name of and on behalf of the faithful who belong to their dioceses and their parishes as well as on behalf of the entire Church. And we are doing so.

The statement of the Archbishop of Chicago is a model for all the Bishops and Priests of the United States as well as those beyond:
*Our prayers and hearts are with the victims of the mass shooting in Orlando, their families and our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

We are grateful to the first responders and civilians who heroically put themselves in harm’s way, providing an enduring reminder of what compassion and bravery look like–even in the face of such horror and danger.

In response to hatred, we are called to sow love. In response to violence, peace. And, in response to intolerance, tolerance.*

The people of the Archdiocese of Chicago stand with the victims and their loved ones, and reaffirm our commitment, with Pope Francis, to address the causes of such tragedy…
The Archbishop, as the head of the archdiocese entrusted to him, has spoken in the name of and on behalf of the flock entrusted to him and which he governs.

The Pope said that forgiveness is to be asked. The result of that directive can only legitimately and properly be the implementation of the directive.

I have every confidence that the bishops will, of course, comply with this directive from the head of the College of Bishops and without regard for any dissent of individual members of the Church – although I would hope each and every member of the Church would faithfully echo with their own voices precisely what the Pope has called for.

As a priest, who was ordained as a co-worker to the Order of Bishops as the rite of ordination itself declares, I will assuredly be doing precisely what the Pope has commanded: Articulating how members of the Church, of the present and of the past, have failed in precisely those areas in which the visible head of the Church has determined; that there has been failure; that expressions of repentance and sorrow are to be articulated.

I was part of the work of reconciliation in Jewish-Christian relations after the Council, as we articulated the errors of the past which had such horrific and unspeakable consequences for countless Jewish persons.

I worked on behalf of the theological dialogue in the years after the Council concerning healing the aftermath of the tragedies when there were breaks in communion with the Church of Rome at the time of the Reformation; we acknowledged and begged forgiveness of those who descend from those groups for all the roles of Catholic Church leaders and members of the Catholic Church who contributed to these tragedies.

Finally, with regard to Pope Saint John Paul II’s apologies on behalf of the Church at the time of the Great Jubilee 2000 which were implemented around the world, in the various dioceses, and which are now forever part of the Church’s life and history – and I am delighted by this initiative of Pope Francis…and its implementation in every corner of the Church.

Excuse me Father, but could you please point out where in Catholic teaching it says the Pope has the power to compel the clergy and laity to apologize for sins they didn’t commit? Where does this fall within the Pope’s teaching authority on faith and morals?

This seems well within the realm of a prudential judgement. The Pope can certainly apologize for official acts of the Church, but, I see no grounds for a compelled apology by some Catholics for the (hypothetical) sins of others. I don’t recall a Pope ever apologizing for the sins of Hitler, even though he was a baptized Catholic.

My understanding of theology s that guilt for our sins lies solely on ourselves, and anyone who directly abets us.

God Bless

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I was part of the work of reconciliation in Jewish-Christian relations after the Council, as we articulated the errors of the past which had such horrific and unspeakable consequences for countless Jewish persons.

Does this refer to the Holocaust? That, as a reminder, was carried out by the Nazis. If this does not refer to the Holocaust, then what exactly are the “horrific and unspeakable consequences for countless Jewish persons” which has been inflicted on them by Catholics?

I worked on behalf of the theological dialogue in the years after the Council concerning healing the aftermath of the tragedies when there were breaks in communion with the Church of Rome at the time of the Reformation; we acknowledged and begged forgiveness of those who descend from those groups for all the roles of Catholic Church leaders and members of the Catholic Church who contributed to these tragedies.

Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer - to what extent do the reformers carry their own responsibility for their wholesale rejection of the Pope, the hierarchy, and the entire Catholic Church, lock, stock and barrel? Who rebelled against who?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Excuse me Father, but could you please point out where in Catholic teaching it says the Pope has the power to compel the clergy and laity to apologize for sins they didn’t commit? Where does this fall within the Pope’s teaching authority on faith and morals?

I don’t know if he has such power, but I don’t think remarks on a plane are the same as an official directive to all clergy and laity to “apologize for sins they didn’t commit”. Indeed, since he used the word “Christian” I’m not even sure he was referring only to Catholics and I don’t think he has authority over non-Catholic Christians. Just because the Pope thinks Christians should apologize, is not the same as a command that they must apologize.

This seems well within the realm of a prudential judgement. The Pope can certainly apologize for official acts of the Church, but, I see no grounds for a compelled apology by some Catholics for the (hypothetical) sins of others. I don’t recall a Pope ever apologizing for the sins of Hitler, even though he was a baptized Catholic.

My understanding of theology s that guilt for our sins lies solely on ourselves, and anyone who directly abets us.

I really don’t think the Pope meant to say that “all Christians should apologize as a collective group for marginalizing gays and other sinners” but that we should consider if we had, and apologize if we had.

But, considering the numbers of people who have interpreted his remarks as a “Christians have collective guilt they must apologize for”, perhaps his remarks could have been a bit more specific.

 

[OraLabora]

Does this refer to the Holocaust? That, as a reminder, was carried out by the Nazis. If this does not refer to the Holocaust, then what exactly are the “horrific and unspeakable consequences for countless Jewish persons” which has been inflicted on them by Catholics?

You’re kidding right?

Jews were the outcasts of Europe for far too many years. Who do you think cast them out? Nazism was just the logical (and horrible) conclusion of turning Jews into second-class citizens. Even our local country club had, in its statutes, a clause prohibiting Jews from being members, as late as the 1960s. I don’t think in those days it was Muslims doing the excluding.

 

[holyrood]

But, considering the numbers of people who have interpreted his remarks as a “Christians have collective guilt they must apologize for”, perhaps his remarks could have been a bit more specific.

This is the problem. His remarks are being taken by a great many liberals to mean exactly that. In the little I’ve read on this, and from what I’ve seen in the past, I believe it’s going to be added as another brick in a wall of liberals saying, “See, even the Pope is saying homosexuality is fine and you Christians are bad people who must apologize for not approving.”

An earlier post said if we’re doing anything to drive someone from the Church, we must look at ourselves and our behavior. The problem with such a statement is that being cruel and un-Christian will drive some from the Church and Christian faith–but so will speaking the truth, regardless of how much love it is spoken with.

Of course there are some Christians who don’t behave in a very Christian way to gay people–but they’re in a very small minority. But I believe the Pope’s words are going to be used as further fodder against Christians in general, as if they routinely go out looking for gay people to harm, as if they are commonly guilty of deliberately harming others.

I would like to see someone demand that Muslims apologize for throwing gays off roofs and beheading them. But somehow, i don’t see that happening. I have seen a LOT more hatred and ugliness aimed AT Christians BY gays, including outright beatings.

I personally am beginning to feel that the shepherd is throwing his flock to the wolves.