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

[malachi_johnson]

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.

This is not a matter of impression or opinion. It is what is said. The Advocate insists that the Pope while Cardinal, said to his Bishops that he would rather see Gay unions. It also says that he said the same thing to another activist. So it is not a matter of what you would like to impress upon your mind after reading it. It is a matter of what is been said.

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…

You are not getting it because you are trying to interpret how it impresses on you instead of just looking at what is written. I cannot help you there. I can give you the 95 thesis of Luther and you will probably say there is nothing contrary to the faith in them according to the “impression” you got. Please read the stated facts and use an objective rule of inference to arrive at your conclusion. Your “impressions” are simply an emotional stimulus which may simply reflect what you already hold.

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.

I think what you do not realize is that the list of sins I carefully quoted to you are all INTRINSICALLY IMMORAL ACTS. Furthermore, Murder and Homosexual acts actually qualify as Grave sins of the highest order (calls out to heaven for vengeance).

So while I understand that all sins are not equal, you seem to be unaware how far up Homosexual activity lies in the degree of grave nature of sins.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

This is not a matter of impression or opinion.

I disagree. It is a matter of opinion because I just read the piece and don’t see the same things you do.

The Advocate insists that the Pope while Cardinal, said to his Bishops that he would rather see Gay unions. It also says that he said the same thing to another activist. So it is not a matter of what you would like to impress upon your mind after reading it. It is a matter of what is been said.

The Advocate didn’t make that up, that story has been out there since his election as Pope. The piece then makes a point of saying he has never said such a thing as Pope.

You are not getting it because you are trying to interpret how it impresses on you instead of just looking at what is written. I cannot help you there. I can give you the 95 thesis of Luther and you will probably say there is nothing contrary to the faith in them according to the “impression” you got. Please read the stated facts and use an objective rule of inference to arrive at your conclusion. Your “impressions” are simply an emotional stimulus which may simply reflect what you already hold.

I think I could say the same to you. I simply don’t see what you see when reading the exact same article.

I think what you do not realize is that the list of sins I carefully quoted to you are all INTRINSICALLY IMMORAL ACTS. Furthermore, Murder and Homosexual acts actually qualify as Grave sins of the highest order (calls out to heaven for vengeance).

Contraceptives are intrinsically immoral actions.

 

[malachi_johnson]

I disagree. It is a matter of opinion because I just read the piece and don’t see the same things you do.

If you are looking for impressions, then it is more than likely you won’t seem the same thing I do. That is why people should approach these matters objectively, arrive at conclusions using an objective rule of inference rather than how you feel like it after reading it.

In this case, given the propositions

1. The article provides what it calls evidence that Pope Francis is pro- Gay unions while against same sex marriage.

People can read the article and see if there is evidence. If there is evidence, then yes, the proposition is true. It is not a matter of opinion.

If I may also give my “opinion”, opinions are dime a dozen. They are worthless if not backed by solid reasons.

The Advocate didn’t make that up, that story has been out there since his election as Pope. The piece then makes a point of saying he has never said such a thing as Pope.

So you admit the evidence is presented and proposition 1 above is true. The fact that he has not said it now is followed by a big “HOWEVER” tying it in to the “Who am I to judge”.

I think I could say the same to you. I simply don’t see what you see when reading the exact same article.

Because you do not seem to look at the evidence and then conclude but instead probably read it over and over again and consult how you “feel” about all of it at the end of each iteration.

For someone who looks at it objectively, the whole article is an insult. The group of persons that lobby for the right to homosexual activity (including same sex marriage) has labelled the Pope their man of the year. If the man who is suppossed to stand as a guiding beacon for faith and morals can be construed as being the champion for the cause of the LGBT community, there is something WRONG.

That is something any unbiased individual will be able to tell you. But you don’t want to hear that. You are under the impression that homosexual acts are really not that bad and we can tolerate them much perhaps. If you understand how gravely abhorrent homosexual activity truly is, then you should see how much of a scandal that this represents. Since you do not, no matter how many times you read the darn thing, you will not see the elephant in the room.

Contraceptives are intrinsically immoral actions.

Yes but this demonstrates you do not understand the hierarchy yourself. Homosexual activity ranges high above, next to murder. No one disagreed with you that contraception is intrinsically immoral and I will agree with you if you want to ban that too.

I think if we refrain from sugar coating homosexual activity, seeing this for what it is will be easy.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

I’m going to draw a parallel here and hope that people are smart enough to understand it.

In the 1800s the island of Hawaii was used as a colony for lepers to keep them away from the rest of society. The Church wanted the residents to still be able to receive the sacraments, but was barely better than the rest of the society that wanted them isolated.

The Catholic Church came up with a plan to send a priest who would build a church and administer the sacraments, but under no circumstances was he to touch any leper. In a few months, a replacement would arrive.

Then-Fr. Damien (now St. Damien of Molokai) was the first to volunteer. He was supposed to be there a few months, but stayed 16 years before contracting the disease himself.

His compassion for those previously treated as outcasts won many hearts over for God’s Kingdom.

It seems to me Pope Francis is applying the same logic with gays, who are often treated as outcasts by western society (especially “Christians”). We don’t want them in our schools, we don’t want them in our churches, we don’t want them anywhere.

Francis is challenging each and every Christian to look beyond the sinful behavior and look at the person. He wants us to welcome them with open arms as we would any brother or sister. He’s not opening the door for gay marriage, but he is opening the doors of our church to them so they can see what truly matters - the love of Christ. He is determined to cut through the animosity and vitriol of the arguments and get us to a level where we can calmly, lovingly show these people who - just like heterosexuals - are created in God’s image just how much the Father loves them in spite of their tendency towards sin.

Keep in mind, “All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

 

[Havard]

The fact that he has not said it now is followed by a big “HOWEVER” tying it in to the “Who am I to judge”.

Sorry to butt in, but are you saying the Holy Father never made that statement, or that he hasn’t said it recently?

 

[malachi_johnson]

I’m going to draw a parallel here and hope that people are smart enough to understand it.

In the 1800s the island of Hawaii was used as a colony for lepers to keep them away from the rest of society. The Church wanted the residents to still be able to receive the sacraments, but was barely better than the rest of the society that wanted them isolated.

The Catholic Church came up with a plan to send a priest who would build a church and administer the sacraments, but under no circumstances was he to touch any leper. In a few months, a replacement would arrive.

Then-Fr. Damien (now St. Damien of Molokai) was the first to volunteer. He was supposed to be there a few months, but stayed 16 years before contracting the disease himself.

His compassion for those previously treated as outcasts won many hearts over for God’s Kingdom.

It seems to me Pope Francis is applying the same logic with gays, who are often treated as outcasts by western society (especially “Christians”). We don’t want them in our schools, we don’t want them in our churches, we don’t want them anywhere.

Francis is challenging each and every Christian to look beyond the sinful behavior and look at the person. He wants us to welcome them with open arms as we would any brother or sister. He’s not opening the door for gay marriage, but he is opening the doors of our church to them so they can see what truly matters - the love of Christ. He is determined to cut through the animosity and vitriol of the arguments and get us to a level where we can calmly, lovingly show these people who - just like heterosexuals - are created in God’s image just how much the Father loves them in spite of their tendency towards sin.

Keep in mind, “All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

The problem for you here is that the analogy breaks down at the outset. Leprosy, even if contracted, is not an issue in the life since Christ. Leprosy was a big issue in terms of the covenant only before Christ.

Homosexual activity on the other hand is a GRAVE SIN. All you need to do to see something is wrong with what you have said is just substitute the word murder and murderer to your statements.

Let me do it for your last paragraph and you will get the point

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“Francis is challenging each and every Christian to look beyond the sinful behavior and look at the person. He wants us to welcome them with open arms as we would any brother or sister. He’s not opening the door for murder, but he is opening the doors of our church to murderers so they can see what truly matters - the love of Christ. He is determined to cut through the animosity and vitriol of the arguments and get us to a level where we can calmly, lovingly show murderers who - just like non-murderers - are created in God’s image just how much the Father loves them in spite of their tendency towards sin.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now there is a problem here. Murder, is a grave act. It causes destruction even if one may not see it immediately. If you just try to make people feel loved despite their sins, you have already strayed down a dangerous path.

Same with homosexuality. It does injury to the participants and others in society. Society has simply made it seem in recent times like it does not do so by using the media, psychologists etc. If our whole Catholic moral system is such a system of morality that can be overturned by psychologist and others who want to use a consequentialist approach to morality, then yes, by all means, put the practicing gay man on a pedestal and give him a crown.

But that is not how Catholic morality works (last time I checked but given the trends these days…)

 

[CatholicHockey7]

Yes but this demonstrates you do not understand the hierarchy yourself. Homosexual activity ranges high above, next to murder. No one disagreed with you that contraception is intrinsically immoral and I will agree with you if you want to ban that too.

I think if we refrain from sugar coating homosexual activity, seeing this for what it is will be easy.

There is no “heirarchy of sin” the way you describe it.

There are two types of sin: Mortal and Venial.

Mortal sins must be a grave (or serious) matter.
It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (no one is considered ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are inborn as part of human knowledge, but these principles can be misunderstood in a particular context).
It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.

Venial sins could still be a grave matter, but do not rise to the level of mortal sin because they were committed either without full knowledge of the sin and it’s gravity, or without complete consent.

This doesn’t mean our venial sins are not serious, it just means they do not cause us to completely lose the sanctifying Grace God has given us.

Also, there is only one penalty for sin: death.

Romans 5:12 - “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned.”

Romans 6:23 - “For the wages of sin is death.”

So if I will be put to death for lying to my parents, how is lying lower on the hierarchy than murder?

 

[Bill_Martin]

The problem for you here is that the analogy breaks down at the outset. Leprosy, even if contracted, is not an issue in the life since Christ. Leprosy was a big issue in terms of the covenant only before Christ.

Homosexual activity on the other hand is a GRAVE SIN. All you need to do to see something is wrong with what you have said is just substitute the word murder and murderer to your statements.

Let me do it for your last paragraph and you will get the point

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“Francis is challenging each and every Christian to look beyond the sinful behavior and look at the person. He wants us to welcome them with open arms as we would any brother or sister. He’s not opening the door for murder, but he is opening the doors of our church to murderers so they can see what truly matters - the love of Christ. He is determined to cut through the animosity and vitriol of the arguments and get us to a level where we can calmly, lovingly show murderers who - just like non-murderers - are created in God’s image just how much the Father loves them in spite of their tendency towards sin.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now there is a problem here. Murder, is a grave act. It causes destruction even if one may not see it immediately. If you just try to make people feel loved despite their sins, you have already strayed down a dangerous path.

Same with homosexuality. It does injury to the participants and others in society. Society has simply made it seem in recent times like it does not do so by using the media, psychologists etc. If our whole Catholic moral system is such a system of morality that can be overturned by psychologist and others who want to use a consequentialist approach to morality, then yes, by all means, put the practicing gay man on a pedestal and give him a crown.

But that is not how Catholic morality works (last time I checked but given the trends these days…)

The Church exists for sinners. Excluding entire groups of people and treating them like lepers because we find their sins icky is idiotic and not very Christian.

 

[pepipop]

And homosexuality is still serious sin. Anyway, didn’t the pope decry “lobbying” by gays?

If gay folks really wanted to know Christ and our Catholic faith, I would suggest the Catechism and the Bible rather than The Advocate or CNN. But I suspect that gays folks who want to better know Christ and His Church already know that. This is just shoddy ideological flourish–“see, even the Pope is on our side!” No, he is not. And if he were, you would still be wrong.

I am so sick of Time and this magazine and the whole lot of the media making a pathetic mockery of our Church, and using the Pope to do it. The question is, when will Catholics stop patting themselves on the back and rolling around in the good publicity and face the profound moral idiocy we are dealing with?

Hear, hear.

 

[malachi_johnson]

Sorry to butt in, but are you saying the Holy Father never made that statement, or that he hasn’t said it recently?

He definitely said it. It was a statement that together with what he has said before can only give the suggestion that he is pro-Gay. The LGBT community simply exploited that. Regardless of whether or not the LGBT community got the Pope right, their praise of him as the champion of their movement (over people like Obama and Windsor (who you would think should be the winner) is scandalizing.

If you were given the award on a different newspaper that you are not yet pro-abortion but you are championing the position of the pro-abortionist by leading the Catholic Church to it, would you not be upset?

 

[malachi_johnson]

The Church exists for sinners. Excluding entire groups of people and treating them like lepers because we find their sins icky is idiotic and not very Christian.

Church is for sinners because she is suppossed to

1. TELL THEM they are in SIN and are risking DAMNATION
2. TELL THEM to REPENT and ACCEPT SALVATION
3. TELL THEM and HELP THEM to CONTINUE TO LIVE IN A STATE OF GRACE

The phrase “Church is for sinners” was never meant to indicate “this is a place where whatever you do, you are accepted”. That is “idiotic and not very Christian”.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

The problem for you here is that the analogy breaks down at the outset. Leprosy, even if contracted, is not an issue in the life since Christ. Leprosy was a big issue in terms of the covenant only before Christ.

Homosexual activity on the other hand is a GRAVE SIN. All you need to do to see something is wrong with what you have said is just substitute the word murder and murderer to your statements.

Let me do it for your last paragraph and you will get the point

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“Francis is challenging each and every Christian to look beyond the sinful behavior and look at the person. He wants us to welcome them with open arms as we would any brother or sister. He’s not opening the door for murder, but he is opening the doors of our church to murderers so they can see what truly matters - the love of Christ. He is determined to cut through the animosity and vitriol of the arguments and get us to a level where we can calmly, lovingly show murderers who - just like non-murderers - are created in God’s image just how much the Father loves them in spite of their tendency towards sin.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now there is a problem here. Murder, is a grave act. It causes destruction even if one may not see it immediately. If you just try to make people feel loved despite their sins, you have already strayed down a dangerous path.

Same with homosexuality. It does injury to the participants and others in society. Society has simply made it seem in recent times like it does not do so by using the media, psychologists etc. If our whole Catholic moral system is such a system of morality that can be overturned by psychologist and others who want to use a consequentialist approach to morality, then yes, by all means, put the practicing gay man on a pedestal and give him a crown.

But that is not how Catholic morality works (last time I checked but given the trends these days…)

I am not advocating putting the practicing gay man on a pedestal and giving him a crown. I am advocating compassion for him the same as my Lord and Savior would.

It does not diminish the gravity of the sin to love the sinner and welcome him into your church. I came to the Catholic Church (and for years continued as a practicing Catholic) while buried in sins of lust and fornication. Should I have been told to go away because of my sins? Should the priest have barred the doors to keep me from coming in?

What about your sins, whatever they are? Would you expect to be kept out of God’s one True Church because of them? They go against natural law the same as homosexual acts do.

Jesus tells us to “love our enemies.” How are we showing them love when we don’t welcome them to our faith family and encourage them to discover God’s love for them? How are we loving them if we tell them over and over how “intrinsically evil” they are without making a point of showing them the redemption possible through Christ’s love?

If you think you can do that without welcoming them into the Church, good luck. It took me years of being IN THE CHURCH to finally realize how much God truly loved me. It took me years to realize the truth that the Catechism isn’t a bunch of rules that I have to live up to our I’m an evil person unworthy of redemption. It took years for me to truly become the person Christ was calling me to be.

If I had been denied Christ during that time, how would I ever develop a relationship with Him that opened my eyes to just what He did for me and what He was asking in return?

 

[Bill_Martin]

Church is for sinners because she is suppossed to

1. TELL THEM they are in SIN and are risking DAMNATION
2. TELL THEM to REPENT and ACCEPT SALVATION
3. TELL THEM and HELP THEM to CONTINUE TO LIVE IN A STATE OF GRACE

The phrase “Church is for sinners” was never meant to indicate “this is a place where whatever you do, you are accepted”. That is “idiotic and not very Christian”.

Except you’re advocating rejecting groups of people from the Church and treating them like they are unforgivable because they commit different sins than you do.

 

[malachi_johnson]

Except you’re advocating rejecting groups of people from the Church and treating them like they are unforgivable because they commit different sins than you do.

No.

I am advocating telling people things as they are i.e. if something is a sin and they are engaged in it without remorse, telling it to them.

Will that alienate them? Well yes. That is why they are outside the Church rather than inside. If they want to, they can enter the Church anytime as long as they REPENT of their sins.

So I am a sinner, yes. But I repent for my sins and I try my very best to stay away from the sins that plague my life. So should they. If they engage in GRAVE acts repeatedly, like abortion, gay sex or promote them, they must be deliberately excluded from the community.

That is how the early Church did it, that is how the medieval Church did it, and that is how we should do it too. Because that is what makes common sense. You don’t just accept people when they are still in SIN and REFUSING TO REPENT.

 

[malachi_johnson]

I am not advocating putting the practicing gay man on a pedestal and giving him a crown. I am advocating compassion for him the same as my Lord and Savior would.

It does not diminish the gravity of the sin to love the sinner and welcome him into your church. I came to the Catholic Church (and for years continued as a practicing Catholic) while buried in sins of lust and fornication. Should I have been told to go away because of my sins? Should the priest have barred the doors to keep me from coming in?

What about your sins, whatever they are? Would you expect to be kept out of God’s one True Church because of them? They go against natural law the same as homosexual acts do.

Jesus tells us to “love our enemies.” How are we showing them love when we don’t welcome them to our faith family and encourage them to discover God’s love for them? How are we loving them if we tell them over and over how “intrinsically evil” they are without making a point of showing them the redemption possible through Christ’s love?

If you think you can do that without welcoming them into the Church, good luck. It took me years of being IN THE CHURCH to finally realize how much God truly loved me. It took me years to realize the truth that the Catechism isn’t a bunch of rules that I have to live up to our I’m an evil person unworthy of redemption. It took years for me to truly become the person Christ was calling me to be.

If I had been denied Christ during that time, how would I ever develop a relationship with Him that opened my eyes to just what He did for me and what He was asking in return?

First, I do have a list of sins and some sins that I fall to often. I REPENT for them and try my best to not do them again. ALSO, they are not the same as murder or homosexual activity. There is a difference there that people just don’t seem to understand.

There is no redemption unless they WILLINGLY accept it. We cannot make them accept it if we just sugar coat what they do. How can you make a murderer repent when he just loves the kill? Do you just serve up protection of their “rights”?

 

[J_Peterson]

Church is for sinners because she is suppossed to

1. TELL THEM they are in SIN and are risking DAMNATION
2. TELL THEM to REPENT and ACCEPT SALVATION
3. TELL THEM and HELP THEM to CONTINUE TO LIVE IN A STATE OF GRACE

The phrase “Church is for sinners” was never meant to indicate “this is a place where whatever you do, you are accepted”. That is “idiotic and not very Christian”.

That’s exactly what it means to me. Do you pick those from the soup line that you feel aren’t deserving of charity? Perhaps they can afford to feed themselves but buy drugs instead. Do you exclude them or accept them despite thier shortcomings? If we are willing to do that with a bowl of food shouldn’t we be even more enthusiastic to invite them to experience God’s physical presence even if it’s not deserved? (note I’m not talking about recieving the Eucharist here)

Your outlook is a bit legalistic. Only God can lead someone from sin. We are to lead people to God, let Him do the healing. Laws and threats of damnation don’t work and thankfully we are starting to move away from that. Damnation is real but it’s not the result of a check list of bad things we did.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Your outlook is a bit legalistic.

Where could you possibly get that idea?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

If you are looking for impressions, then it is more than likely you won’t seem the same thing I do. That is why people should approach these matters objectively, arrive at conclusions using an objective rule of inference rather than how you feel like it after reading it.

For starters you are not looking at it objectively. Earlier in this thread you said the author “sent a message.” That was your interpretation of one of his quotes. What I, and others, have been saying is that we have a different interpretation. I think you’re taking it out of its context and trying to make it say things it never really does.

1. The article provides what it calls evidence that Pope Francis is pro- Gay unions while against same sex marriage.

The issue is addressed in a more nuanced way in the article. It says he reportedly argued they should be accepted as a “lesser of two evils” when compared to gay marriage. Considering something a lesser evil means that you still consider it evil. An Argentine gay activist is then quoted as saying that while Cardinal he told him that he “supported civil unions, but not same-sex marriage.” But no context is given, did he “support” it as the lesser of two perceived inevitable evils? I disagree with your interpretation that the author “quoted it and they sent a message with it.”

So you admit the evidence is presented and proposition 1 above is true. The fact that he has not said it now is followed by a big “HOWEVER” tying it in to the “Who am I to judge”.

The term “gay” does not necessary mean sexual activity. Its used in current times to denote one’s sexual orientation. For many gay people the fact that the Pope explicitly said he does not judge them based on their orientation was a very positive thing for them to hear.

Because you do not seem to look at the evidence and then conclude but instead probably read it over and over again and consult how you “feel” about all of it at the end of each iteration.

I read it and then made an opinion. I don’;t understand why you can’t figure out that reasonable people can come to different conclusions.

For someone who looks at it objectively, the whole article is an insult.

I am looking at it objectively and do not perceive it as an insult.

The group of persons that lobby for the right to homosexual activity (including same sex marriage) has labelled the Pope their man of the year. If the man who is suppossed to stand as a guiding beacon for faith and morals can be construed as being the champion for the cause of the LGBT community, there is something WRONG.

I don’t see anywhere in the article where the Pope is “construed as being the champion for the cause of the LGBT community.” In fact the article explicitly states: "Pope Francis is still not pro-gay by today’s standard… With less than a year as pope, Francis still must show whether his aspiration ends at not being our enemy… "

That is something any unbiased individual will be able to tell you. But you don’t want to hear that.

I am perplexed as to how you can draw these conclusions. Unbiased and reasonable people sometimes arrive at different conclusions. It happens all the time.

You are under the impression that homosexual acts are really not that bad and we can tolerate them much perhaps. If you understand how gravely abhorrent homosexual activity truly is, then you should see how much of a scandal that this represents. Since you do not, no matter how many times you read the darn thing, you will not see the elephant in the room.

No idea how you justify these statements.

Yes but this demonstrates you do not understand the hierarchy yourself. Homosexual activity ranges high above, next to murder. No one disagreed with you that contraception is intrinsically immoral and I will agree with you if you want to ban that too.

I think if we refrain from sugar coating homosexual activity, seeing this for what it is will be easy.

I was going off of your examples and replying to something you said. Go back and read the posts over again.

 

[malachi_johnson]

That’s exactly what it means to me. Do you pick those from the soup line that you feel aren’t deserving of charity? Perhaps they can afford to feed themselves but buy drugs instead. Do you exclude them or accept them despite thier shortcomings? If we are willing to do that with a bowl of food shouldn’t we be even more enthusiastic to invite them to experience God’s physical presence even if it’s not deserved? (note I’m not talking about recieving the Eucharist here)

Your outlook is a bit legalistic. Only God can lead someone from sin. We are to lead people to God, let Him do the healing. Laws and threats of damnation don’t work and thankfully we are starting to move away from that. Damnation is real but it’s not the result of a check list of bad things we did.

I am not sure what you are saying here. It seems as though you have a notion of charity apart from moral law. That is absurd.

Moral law is part and parcel of charity. The Church is not a building where people just come and occupy. It is a living entity that has a duty to be a beacon of truth to the world. It cannot do that duty by just hiding the truth instead.

If a person is in sin, they are in risk of damnation. That is not legalism. That is the truth! The fact that you think the Church is moving away from it and that it is how it should be suggests a grave misunderstanding on the definition of charity, justice, mercy, and God’s grace.

Damnation is indeed the result of bad things a person does in refusing God’s Grace. They are called Sins. Jesus came down to save us from original sin and our personal sins. If we don’t REPENT and ask for forgiveness, then we cannot accept the redemption offered by Christ for our personal sins. That is Catholicism 101.

 

[malachi_johnson]

For starters you are not looking at it objectively. Earlier in this thread you said the author “sent a message.” That was your interpretation of one of his quotes. What I, and others, have been saying is that we have a different interpretation. I think you’re taking it out of its context and trying to make it say things it never really does.

Look, don’t beat yourself over this one.

Lets just take the simple facts here so that we can have a logical discussion here.

1. Advocate, a leading LGBT rights advocate chose Pope Francis to be the MAN OF THE YEAR over the likes of Obama, or Windsor – FACT (not impressions or opinion)
2. Gay rights, apart from being the same rights as any other human is only different in the matter of the right to homosexual activity, for it to be considered normal, propaganda and gay marriage
3. Pope Francis is not in favor of Gay rights (for he is against the core of the Gay rights) and is only pro-human rights and is INFACT against actual gay rights – FACT (At least I hope so)
4. Therefore to give such an award to Pope Francis is an insult to him.

I would also like to add the following. Let us make a slight change to a paragraph in the Advocate article to show an absurdity.

Francis’s view on how the Catholic Church should approach Abortionist was best explained in his own words during an in-depth interview with America magazine in September. He recalled, “A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of Abortionist. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a Abortionist, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.”

See how absurd that sounds? We always CONSIDER THE PERSON. But we cannot NOT consider the ACTIONS done by a person. Such weak statements by the Pope have now been used to make a mockery of him.

You keep telling me that all of this is very positive.