J
Journalists use quote marks all the time, and it is often difficult to ascertain whether they meant them as scare-quotes or exact-quotes, or both.It’s all good. The writers of this article put ‘children of God’ in air quotes like they didn’t think people would believe the Pope said this. I can see why you were defensive.
Ambiguous Pope is ambiguous.God loves them ‘as they are’ because they ‘the children of God’.
Because that’s a thing now.Why is there a picture of a toddler in an article about “gay children”?
There is no one among us who doesn’t sin. When we generally that God loves all, we don’t add qualifiers such as “except for…”. Why should we do anything differently in this case?Does that mean that the sins they may or may not commit cannot remove them from a state of Grace, that sodomy or willful lustful thoughts are no longer gravely evil, or that they can remain in a state of mortal sin without seeking repentance and an intention to reform their lives and still achieve the beatific vision?
No.
The language here must be taken very carefully to only include what the Church has always taught: there is no sinner so far gone that he cannot repent, but mortal sin cuts the sinner off from God and puts one’s soul in a state of damnation and only repentence can remove the soul from the bonds of the devil and back into the arms of the Shepherd.
It’s not news. And it’s obvious that they used a picture of Pope Francis with young kids as a subtle jab/ scare tactic. Half the people reading probably think “Gay children” refers to the kids in the picture.I’m not entirely sure why any of this is news?