Good article: Prominent gay rights magazine honors pope on 77th birthday

[McCall1981]

What’s wrong with the Church fully embracing gay Catholics? It should be doing that anyway. It doesn’t mean accepting the actions as okay; it means welcoming gays the way all sinners are welcomed. That’s what the Pope has been getting at with all these statements. For too many years we have been treating gays as some kind of subhuman species not worthy of anything but contempt. The truth is that we’re all sinners, even if we get tempted by different things.

Gays have been pushed away from the Church because of this. That’s exactly the problem that the Pope is attacking. His words are being received in such a positive way by gays because they’re much needed. The ironic thing is that he’s just reiterating what the Church has taught for a long time, but doing it accurately.

I think we all know perfectly well that when the Advocate says “fully embracing gay Catholics” it does not mean embracing the people while rejecting the actions, it means full acceptance of the actions too.

Let’s take this in small steps.

The first step is to start with a simple question. **What is the purpose of the article? Its purpose is to express affection toward the Holy Father. ** This affection, regardless of where it comes from should be appreciated by any Catholic, not thrown back in peoples faces.

I appreciate what you’re getting at here, but I definitely do NOT think the point of this article is to express affection. The express purpose of the Advocate is to advance the homosexual “cause”, that is literally and unabashedly its purpose. Its not trying to be an objective news source, they are honest and clear about their purpose. So I dont see how anyone could honestly not think there is an agenda here.

I feel pretty confident that if we asked the people at the Advocate, “Were you trying to advance the homosexual cause with this article?”, they would look at us like we were crazy and say “Of course we were, thats the whole point of this organization”.

 

[JReducation]

I think we all know perfectly well that when the Advocate says “fully embracing gay Catholics” it does not mean embracing the people while rejecting the actions, it means full acceptance of the actions too.

I appreciate what you’re getting at here, but I definitely do NOT think the point of this article is to express affection. The express purpose of the Advocate is to advance the homosexual “cause”, that is literally and unabashedly its purpose. Its not trying to be an objective news source, they are honest and clear about their purpose. So I dont see how anyone could honestly not think there is an agenda here.

I feel pretty confident that if we asked the people at the Advocate, “Were you trying to advance the homosexual cause with this article?”, they would look at us like we were crazy and say “Of course we were, thats the whole point of this organization”.

Since the article is about Pope Francis, let’s stop and ask how he would respond to this article.

Would he accept the kindness at face value or would he look for an agenda?

Being a Franciscan, I’m tempted to say that he would accept it at face value.

Can there be an agenda? Of course there can be an agenda. Do we have to respond to a covert agenda? No all the time.

St. Bonaventure taught us that one of the best ways to derail a hidden agenda is not to acknowledge it. It that case, it has to show its face or it will be ineffective. To acknowledge what we assume to be a hidden agenda is not what St. Francis would have liked for us to do in the first place, because it triggers an argument, something for which St. Francis said that any friar who does so will forfeit his soul. I’m not about to do that.

If Francis is right and I forfeit my soul by triggering an argument that is not necessary, why doesn’t this rule apply to you folks? Was Francis wrong? Are unnecessary arguments permissible and moral?

The next point is rather simple. Was Bonaventure’s logic wrong? Is it necessary to speculate that there is a hidden agenda and if so, to engage? Bonaventure said that it was unnecessary and illogical. Hidden agendas will show themselves for what they are if left alone. He proved this at the University of Paris. OK, granted, they murdered him. But he proved his point. Their agenda surfaced and they were unmasked.

In the meantime, if someone says Happy Birthday to Pope Francis, we say “Thank You for your kindness.”

You’re not going to sit there and tell me that you’re right and 1.7 million Franciscan men and women alive today who live by these teachings are all mistaken. You and I have been around a long time. I know that you’re much smarter than that.

Take the good and leave the rest alone. If there is something there, it will show itself in good time. If nothing happens, then we can all live in peace another day.

 

[_Abyssinia]

This, if I may humbly point out, can be classified as naive optimism (or perhaps you never read the entire article).

Let me quote some parts of the article on Advocate for everyone and I am sure they will see the same

“But it’s actually during Pope Francis’s time as cardinal that his difference from Benedict and hard-liners in the church became apparent. As same-sex marriage looked on track to be legalized in Argentina, Bergoglio argued privately that the church should come out for civil unions as the “lesser of two evils.” That’s all according to Pope Francis’s authorized biographer, Sergio Rubin. Argentine gay activist Marcelo Márquez backed up the story, telling The New York Times in March that Bergoglio “listened to my views with a great deal of respect. He told me that homosexuals need to have recognized rights and that he supported civil unions, but not same-sex marriage.””

If you are telling me that this is accurate material, there are some more grave questions to ask about where Pope Francis is heading. Is he going to bless Civil Unions now, not as a Sacramental blessing of course but just as someone blesses a bike or a car perhaps. Is it your position that this is accurate?

I excerpted this part of your post. The Advocate did not mention that the claim that Cardinal Bergolio said that he supported civil unions is disputed.

Claims that Pope supported gay civil unions disputed

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Is this magazine legally allowed to use a photograph of the Pope Francis?

Huh? I mean, presumably, you think that GQ or Vogue or Rolling Stone can use a picture of the pope, right? But not a gay magazine? Why? The other magazines I mentioned are just as likely to advocate sinful behavior.

 

[malachi_johnson]

Let’s take this in small steps.

The first step is to start with a simple question. What is the purpose of the article? Its purpose is to express affection toward the Holy Father. This affection, regardless of where it comes from should be appreciated by any Catholic, not thrown back in people’s faces.

If I expressed affection for Jesus because I thought he was pro-Gay marriage, that is wrong. If I expressed affection that you are pro-Euthanasia, that is wrong. If I expressed affection to God because he is anti-institutions like the Catholic Church, that is wrong.

This is why I still hold that to blindly accept affection is naive. What would be your answer?

Obviously, you don’t know who I am. You can ask several thousand people on CAF and you’ll find out that I’m neither naive nor dumb. I won’t be able to convince you of this. I won’t even try. I’ll let someone else do that.

I think what is written should speak for itself. If you feel confident that it conveys what you want to say about yourself, I am sure anyone who reads it will figure it out. So lets not worry about it.

It has been said that the Holy Father made this comment. I did not hear it. I can only extrapolate what he’s talking about. The CCC clearly says that all forms of discrimination against gay people must be avoided.

Regardless of whether you heard it, the quoted it and they sent a message with it. This is not some virtual world where “if you personally think this is not how it happened, its not going to have any consequences”. Damage is done every-time it is quoted and the Holy Father remains silent.

India recently enacted a law making homosexual activity a crime. The Church is opposing this law. While we never condone homosexual activity, we do not criminalize it either.

WHAT? So all of a sudden, gay sex is normal then? I hope India gives the Church the message to stay out of her way.

This is a very good example of what can happen when discrimination is allowed to exist. People are criminalized for being sinners. But being a sinner is part of being human. We sin. We get up and we sin again. They cycle continues as we move toward God.

Well last time I checked, that was OK. Murder for an example, which is a sin, is criminalized. Abortion, is criminalized.

So yes, there is nothing wrong with criminalizing abhorrent activities. What would you like to fight next? Decriminalization of Pedophile sex?

None of the people who have repeated this statement ever said that then Cardinal Begoglio said anything about blessing such unions. He deliberately used the term “civil”. It becomes a matter of the state not the Church. I’m not sure why you’re bringing up blessings.

The point remains that what he sought to do, if he did, shows a grave misunderstanding on his part. He does not seem to understand that Catholics cannot support either of them because both are sins.

Again, you’re making your post about me. Why?

I have no idea what you mean. You gave your opinion. To comment on it requires me to address your possible mindset for making the opinion. I must be able to recognize the “person” behind the opinions and why he or she is acting that way. That is why I address you as a person rather than merely writing to you assuming you are a computer.

There is nothing wrong with this statement.

1. No one has the right to belittle anyone.
2. No one has the right to make inflammatory remarks about another person, regardless of whether he’s a sinner or not. If God forgives and forgets, who dare we not do the same.
3. The Church has a moral duty to protect the rights of workers as much as people in other situations.
4. The pope spoke compassionately, There is nothing wrong with that.
5. Embracing gay and lesbian Catholics is commanded in the CCC. The author probably means accepting gay and lesbian relations. This is his or her hope. There is nothing offensive in stating such a hope, just because it won’t happen.
6. The author also says that the pope did not articulate a change in the Church’s moral teaching, more than some Catholic sources have suggested. Even you’re suggesting that he’s going in that direction.

You see nothing wrong because you seem to not understand consequences. What is disordered should be shunned, discouraged and legislated against. The State has a RIGHT and an OBLIGATION to do that. You don’t stop legislating against murder because the killers will feel sad and left out. You don’t stop legislating against Pedophilia so that the Pedo’s are going to have a hard time.

I am afraid I will have to conclude that you seem to have a very misguided view of what can be done and should be done to discourage disordered activity.

 

[malachi_johnson]

The problem is what I mentioned in my post. Those who took those words, left out an important part of that sentence. Did you want the pope to say, “I can judge other people’s souls”? We know that he has not right to do so.

Last time I checked, as VICAR OF CHRIST, he has the RIGHT TO MAKE JUDGEMENTS. Can he give the final judgement for the soul? No, that is for God. But every judgement is not about the final (or particular to be precise) judgement of the soul.

So the Pope can indeed say that if he meets someone who is a gay practicing priest, he MUST make the judgement that the soul is in danger of damnation. To not do so is to abandon ones Christian duty.

This is what the actual article suggests in the case of Pope Francis.

Again, why are you making this about me?

It seems to me like you are taking this personally. When I said your post was naive, I meant your POST was naive. You might be very bright but people make mistakes.

You quoted him incorrectly.

Doesn’t change the facts does it? Prophets, Saints, and Christ himself was hated by the world. Now the world loves the Pope for the wrong reasons. Something is not right.

You are making this about me again.

You have used the word “ME” so many times in your post that I am not sure its me who is making this about you.

I didn’t know that my opinion was so threatening to you.

In fact, I don’t have much of an opinion other than the article is rather positive toward the Pontiff on his birthday and that it speaks warmly of him. We Catholics should be grateful for this. It has been a long time since this community had anything nice to say about a pope.

As to rejecting the messenger. I’m not about to tell the pope that his sermon is wrong, nor am I about to say that to the world. It is not my place to pass judgment on the pope’s sermons.

You’re free to do so, if you like. I can’t stop you. I wouldn’t encourage you to do so. But this thread is not about you anymore than it’s about me

Can we thank these folks for honoring the Holy Father on his birthday?

No, we cannot for being honored for what a man does not actually stand for is a dishonor. It is an insult.

Unless you are trying to say that the Pope is all they have made him out to be in the article, which seems to be what you are saying, there is no grounds to consider this an honor. In fact, if they are right, we have a big problem on our hands.

 

[malachi_johnson]

This comment of yours deserved a separate post

India recently enacted a law making homosexual activity a crime. The Church is opposing this law. While we never condone homosexual activity, we do not criminalize it either.

What is criminalized is not having homosexual thoughts. What is criminalized is the homosexual activity. That is the right thing to do.

If possible, even adultery should be criminalized.

Anyone who think this law is unjust has serious issues. It is a MORAL RIGHT AND AND OBLIGATION of the State to criminalize such abhorrent activity. Is the Church going to support the ***** Riot is Russia in support of legalizing Gay propaganda now too?

 

[frobert]

You see nothing wrong because you seem to not understand consequences. What is disordered should be shunned, discouraged and legislated against. The State has a RIGHT and an OBLIGATION to do that.

Regardless what our beliefs as Catholics are, the state does not have an OBLIGATION to legislate one or more of them. As citizens we have a right to lobby for or against legislation but not to demand it as an obligation. If I am wrong please point me in the right direction with more than opinion. Links to specific church teachings would be helpful.

 

[malachi_johnson]

Regardless what our beliefs as Catholics are, the state does not have an OBLIGATION to legislate one or more of them. As citizens we have a right to lobby for or against legislation but not to demand it as an obligation. If I am wrong please point me in the right direction with more than opinion. Links to specific church teachings would be helpful.

If it is a moral evil, then the State does have a right and an obligation to legislate laws to suppress it.

Church teaching:

"it leaves untouched the traditional Catholic doctrine
 about the moral duty of men and societies to the true religion
 and the only Church of Christ." (Dignitatis Humanae)

 "For you know well...that there are not a few, who...applying
 that impious and absurd principle of what is called naturalism,
 dare to teach, 'that the best state of public society and civil
 progress absolutely requires that human society should be so
 constituted and governed, that there is no consideration of
 religion, as if it [religion] did not exist, or at least with no
 distinction made between true and false religions.'"  (Pius IX, "Quanta cura")

 "Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God. (***Condemned ***proposition in the Allocution "Maxima quidem")

Homosexual activity is contrary to nature. While we cannot criminalize Gay feelings, we are obligated to criminalize the acting out of such feelings i.e. gay sex, gay propaganda etc. Homosexual activity is contrary to natural law. The sinfulness is not just homosexual marriage but the activity itself is a grave offense. It is listed in Scripture as one of the sins that cry out to heaven for VENGEANCE.

Yet, some people seem to insist that it cannot be criminalized

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I haven’t read The Advocate article, however based on other news reports about the article it doesn’t appear that it made any reference to Pope Francis changing any teaching. Instead the publication seemed to simply praise Pope Francis for a change in “tone.”
I’m not sure what the big controversy is…

 

[J_Peterson]

Homosexual activity is contrary to nature. While we cannot criminalize Gay feelings, we are obligated to criminalize the acting out of such feelings i.e. gay sex, gay propaganda etc. Homosexual activity is contrary to natural law. The sinfulness is not just homosexual marriage but the activity itself is a grave offense. It is listed in Scripture as one of the sins that cry out to heaven for VENGEANCE.

Yet, some people seem to insist that it cannot be criminalized

Ignoring the poor and needy is also a sin. Should that be illegal to? Considering it is one that Jesus Himself said will result in damnation, it seems like it’s a pretty important thing to not do.

 

[malachi_johnson]

I haven’t read The Advocate article, however based on other news reports about the article** it doesn’t appear that it made any reference to Pope Francis changing any teaching**. Instead the publication seemed to simply praise Pope Francis for a change in “tone.”
I’m not sure what the big controversy is…

That is because you have to read the full thing to appreciate all the nice details that they included about him.

Apparently, if Advocate is right, Pope Francis is pro-homosexual unions but anti-gay marriage.

In short, to spare you the trouble, the article paints a picture of the Pope that he is pro-gay sex. He just doesn’t like the idea of gay marriage. They seem to strongly believe that if Pope long enough, he will allow gay unions.

I would also like people who think there is nothing wrong with the quoted excerpts of the Pope to do the following. Substitute the word “Homosexual” or “Gay” with “Murderer” or “Pedophile” to the questions asked from the Pope and his replies.

Then tell me if it all sounds ok in the Advocate article. It should be clear to anyone that Advocate had quoted Pope Francis to make a theological mockery and picture him as their new Point Man. In fact, in the words of Advocate, they are hoping that the Pope will be the champion of gay rights (as if there is such a different category from straight rights called gay rights apart from the right to gay sex and marriage/unions and propaganda which are all moral evils).

Anyone who says that Pope is indeed a champion of Gay rights has a serious ignorance of what Gay rights are.

 

[malachi_johnson]

Ignoring the poor and needy is also a sin. Should that be illegal to? Considering it is one that Jesus Himself said will result in damnation, it seems like it’s a pretty important thing to not do.

Actually, ignoring the poor can be legitimate (like in the case when you are poor yourself) and it is not contrary to natural law.

Homosexual activity is contrary to natural law and is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. So two different things.

 

[J_Peterson]

Actually, ignoring the poor can be legitimate (like in the case when you are poor yourself) and it is not contrary to natural law.

Homosexual activity is contrary to natural law and is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. So two different things.

I’d like a source on that because it sounds wrong to me. Christ didn’t put any conditions on his statements about the poor.

The Franciscians are poor. So it’s okay for them to ignore the poor?

 

[malachi_johnson]

I’d like a source on that because it sounds wrong to me. Christ didn’t put any conditions on his statements about the poor.

The Franciscians are poor. So it’s okay for them to ignore the poor?

Can you clarify which specifically you want a reference for? (I will try to give a general answer for now)

It also seems to me that you are unaware that all sins are not equal. There are things that are listed as sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. In that list is homosexuality. There is also the sin of depriving men and women of just wages for their work and oppressing the poor.

But oppressing the poor is not the same as not feeding or helping the poor. Generally, speaking, actual oppression of the poor (or weak) is legislated against by any state. Any law protecting the vulnerable will qualify as such.

This same list, which includes murder as well, clearly has homosexuality in it. So just as we legislate against murder, deprivation of wages, abusing the vulnerable, we must also legislate against homosexual activity.

With respect to Christ and the Poor, these are Graces given to perform GOOD WORKS which if refused continuously can lead one to damnation and lead one to grow in favor as they co-operate with the Grace. But not doing those is not a sin in the same level as a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

 

[J_Peterson]

Can you clarify which specifically you want a reference for? (I will try to give a general answer for now)

It also seems to me that you are unaware that all sins are not equal. There are things that are listed as sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. In that list is homosexuality. There is also the sin of depriving men and women of just wages for their work and oppressing the poor.

But oppressing the poor is not the same as not feeding or helping the poor. Generally, speaking, actual oppression of the poor (or weak) is legislated against by any state. Any law protecting the vulnerable will qualify as such.

This same list, which includes murder as well, clearly has homosexuality in it. So just as we legislate against murder, deprivation of wages, abusing the vulnerable, we must also legislate against homosexual activity.

With respect to Christ and the Poor, these are Graces given to perform GOOD WORKS which if refused continuously can lead one to damnation and lead one to grow in favor as they co-operate with the Grace. But not doing those is not a sin in the same level as a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

The Catechism only mentions “the sin of the Sodomites” as a sin that cries to heaven and the sin of Sodom was not simply homosexual activity:

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49 )

So, assuming you are able to help the poor, should ignoring the poor be criminal?

 

[malachi_johnson]

The Catechism only mentions “the sin of the Sodomites” as a sin that cries to heaven and the sin of Sodom was not simply homosexual activity:

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49 )

So, assuming you are able to help the poor, should ignoring the poor be criminal?

The Church has always taught that homosexual activity itself is abhorrent. So while Sodom may have had many issues, its main crime is always held in tradition to be homosexual activity. They were not destroyed for not helping the poor. The Theologians today have a bone to grind with this because they do not like what it says. But it cannot change the fact that it has been held to be homosexual activity throughout sacred tradition.

On the matter of being able to help the poor and it being criminal, you are again forgetting the concept of some sins being intrinsically evil regardless of circumstances.

Whether or not someone did not help a poor person is not an intrinsic moral evil. But if someone abused a poor person, took advantage of that person etc, it is an intrinsic evil (which should be legislated against and is legislated against in most States).

In the same way, homosexual activity is also an intrinsic evil. So I do not know if you are honestly asking these questions but if you are, your misunderstanding seems to be because you equate all sins to be the same. They are not. In fact, St. Thomas considered Murder to be the gravest and Homosexual activity to be second right after it.

 

[frobert]

The Church has always taught that homosexual activity itself is abhorrent. So while Sodom may have had many issues, its main crime is always held in tradition to be homosexual activity.

Even granting that the major sin of Sodom was homosexual activity the fact is obvious that the activity was rape. A secondary concern you might want to factor in was in the story it the “whole town or towns” that were homosexual which tells us that it was nothing like the homosexuals we are talking about on here that only comprise 3-6% of the population. I find it a stretch that story conflates rape albeit homosexual rape with homosexuality in modern times yet overlooks the more obvious reason of ingrained customs of hospitality towards strangers that many biblical scholars find more plausible.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

That is because you have to read the full thing to appreciate all the nice details that they included about him.

OK, I just read it.

Apparently, if Advocate is right, Pope Francis is pro-homosexual unions but anti-gay marriage.

I didn’t get that impression at all. The article references a widely reported “behind the scenes” conversation but then goes on to say: “As pope, he has not yet said the Catholic Church supports civil unions.” This could be taken as either he will at some point or that he has abandoned a previously held position. Either way it makes clear that he’s said no such thing as Pope.

In short, to spare you the trouble, the article paints a picture of the Pope that he is pro-gay sex. He just doesn’t like the idea of gay marriage. They seem to strongly believe that if Pope long enough, he will allow gay unions.

I’m not sure where you get that. The article praises his change in tone and then states: “With less than a year as pope, Francis still must show whether his aspiration ends at not being our enemy.” That’s faint praise…

I would also like people who think there is nothing wrong with the quoted excerpts of the Pope to do the following. Substitute the word “Homosexual” or “Gay” with “Murderer” or “Pedophile” to the questions asked from the Pope and his replies.

Sorry but not every sin is the same. You can’t simply substitute “artificial birth control user” with “murderer” or “pre-marital sex” with “pedophilia.”

The article while praising the Pope’s change in tone also laments that he’s not changing any teachings.

 

[malachi_johnson]

Even granting that the major sin of Sodom was homosexual activity the fact is obvious that the activity was rape. A secondary concern you might want to factor in was in the story it the “whole town or towns” that were homosexual which tells us that it was nothing like the homosexuals we are talking about on here that only comprise 3-6% of the population. I find it a stretch that story conflates rape albeit homosexual rape with homosexuality in modern times yet overlooks the more obvious reason of ingrained customs of hospitality towards strangers that many biblical scholars find more plausible.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. But you should know that Homosexual activity is a grave sin. Whether or not you want to dispute the particular interpretation or what not (as modern Theologians do), it is irrelevant since the Church has spoken and repeatedly done so through Sacred Tradition.

All Homosexual activity is sinful. There is no change based on time and place and number of the Homosexual population. You should also know that the only Biblical scholars that advocate such a drastic view are those who refute the traditional interpretation of the Church. The Church tolerates such interpretations today but you should know that it will never become part of Sacred Tradition for it contradicts what has been taught for 2000 years.