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

[ReConverted]

And by “Honey” I refer to basic human decency and respect for the individual, NOT lying to people. It is NOT the Advocate’s job to teach the doctrines of the Church. Some people won’t even take YES for an answer.

 

[ReConverted]

Their hopes may not be realized in the sense that the Pope will capitulate entirely to their demands. However, the real danger is that their portrayal of Pope Francis will make many Catholics feel less incline to call homosexual activity for the sin and abhorrent activity that it is. That is a victory for the LGBT that you might not understand the consequences of at the moment.

Capitulate entirely to their demands? That’s laughable.

They do, which is why their think tanks chose to give Pope Francis the award. Do you think they do not know that it is probably better deserved by someone like Windosr? Yes, they do. But they know that they can do more damage this way. **They can for the first time use a Pope as an inspiration for their members to continue in their sinful lifestyle and work to promote it. That is GOLD in their eyes. **

Amazing. You do realize that gay people can read and comprehend what they read?

 

[malachi_johnson]

And by “Honey” I refer to basic human decency and respect for the individual, NOT lying to people. It is NOT the Advocate’s job to teach the doctrines of the Church. Some people won’t even take YES for an answer.

Do you agree that HONEY is to tell the truth with a gentle, soft tone? Perhaps buy a hot cup of coffee on a winter day before the conversation?

What is missing, at least to my understanding here is that many on this thread are advocating not telling a gay person they are in sin. That is their honey. I am glad if this is not what you mean. Because that aint honey. That is more like Glycerol: Tastes super sweet but kills you over time!

 

[malachi_johnson]

Capitulate entirely to their demands? That’s laughable.

Amazing. You do realize that gay people can read and comprehend what they read?

Which part of my reply assumed they have reading comprehension issues? I am explaining to you how they are experts in social engineering and you are accusing me of saying they have reading comprehension issues. In case it was not clear, social engineering experts know how to read, yes!

 

[ReConverted]

Cafeteria Catholicism at it’s finest, albeit concerning some different issues.

I’m well aware of what sin is, not to mention Church teaching.

I KNOW what the Church says, I don’t need your “You don’t understand” bilge.

Love your neighbor as yourslef" is not an excuse to bash people. Share the faith, but do it kindly. Why would anyone want to join or rejoin the Church when the person sharing the Catholic faith seemingly has nothing but bile in their veins. Let’s be clear here; treating a person with kindness is NOT sugar coating the gospel. NOT ONE bit.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.

You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.

Proof what you write before you post.

You may not make disparaging remarks about:

• Vatican II
• Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
• Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
• Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
• Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
• Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
• Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Benedict XVI. He is fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.

Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.

 

[ReConverted]

His “shift in emphasis” seems nonexistent. It’s remarkably consistent with our previous two Popes. It’s just now the world is actually choosing to listen to the message.

Agreed. I will say that in many ways Pope Francis is taking a somewhat different tone than his predecessors, but he’s still getting the point across, very well I might add. A lot of people are returning to the Church because of his example. I think he couldn’t have picked a better name.

 

[ReConverted]

“Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.”

Robert, if I’ve done so, I apologize. I don’t recall doing that, though.

 

[CrossofChrist]

But this is exactly the point, the world is not listening to him.

According to the world, the Pope/Church is in the process of “changing” it’s thinking, and they are happy about it. Most of us here think that the Pope is saying essentially the same things as JP II and Benedict did, and if we are right, then he is most definitely not changing anything. That means, by definition, that the world is not listening to him. They are willfully, or mistakenly, getting the message wrong, and either way means they are not listening.

The only other possible option is that they are right, that he is changing things, a premise that we all (I think) reject.

There is no debate about whether the world has misunderstood his message (or at least that the Advocate in this instance), it has, as the above quotes from the article show. The only thing that can possibly be debated is whether the world’s misunderstanding of his message is genuine misunderstanding, or intentional distortion. We could debate that, but not whether or not the message is misunderstood.

Or maybe the fact that the world is finally listening shows how out of tune they really are with the Church; they weren’t listening or even trying to, so now when they finally decide to acknowledge what the Church actually teaches regarding homosexuality, it seems as if something monumental is happening, that there really is a change and therefore some false “hope” for the secularist. They hear the message. They are listening. They just have no idea that it’s what we’ve been saying for 2000 years.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I think he couldn’t have picked a better name.

Ignatius perhaps? Maybe Dominic?

 

[nuff_said_2013]

Agreed. I will say that in many ways Pope Francis is taking a somewhat different tone than his predecessors, but he’s still getting the point across, very well I might add. A lot of people are returning to the Church because of his example. I think he couldn’t have picked a better name.

When he took the name Francis I assumed it was after Francis Xavier. I was delighted that he chose the name after Francis of Assisi. It was almost too much to hope for. He is an amazing man. God bless him and keep him safe for a long time.

 

[Bill_Martin]

No, let me re-phrase.

The world, or at least the Advocate in this case, is asserting that Francis is in process of changing the Church’s teaching. Given the quotes below, I don’t think it’s possible to argue that they are saying so:

“The remaining holdouts for LGBT acceptance in religion, the ones who block progress in the work left to do, will more likely be persuaded by a figure they know. In the same way that President Obama transformed politics with his evolution on LGBT civil rights, a change from the pope could have a lasting effect on religion.”

and

“Still, LGBT Catholics who remain in the church now have more reason to hope that change is coming. Listen to the reaction to the pope’s “Who am I to judge?” comment.”

We here in Catholicland say, “the Pope is not changing anything, he is saying the same things Popes have said before”.

Thus, the Advocate says he is changing something, we Catholics say he is not, we cannot both be right because these two options logically exclude each other.

If you, (and I, and the rest of us) are right in thinking that he is not changing anything, it means, by definition, that the Advocate is incorrect. If Francis is, indeed, not changing anything, the Advocate is incorrect in how they are understanding his message. As I said, they are either intentionally distorting it, or genuinely misunderstanding it.

If the Pope says, “My favorite ice cream flavor is Chocolate”, then the Addvocate says “The Pope’s favorite ice cream flavor is vanilla” they have not gotten the message, the have not listened. They have genuinely misunderstood, or they have intentionally distorted, but they have not listened to what he said.

They cannot be “listening to him” and have his message wrong at the same time.

They think the message is changing because they have been misunderstanding the message for decades. Much of that is the fault of people within the Church for misunderstanding it ourselves and/or explaining it incorrectly or carelessly. How many gays out there think that the Church teaches sexual orientation by itself is a sin? Probably most of them. I’m willing to bet that most of them also don’t feel welcome at Mass because of this or have been pushed away from the Church because of it.

I think the biggest difference between Pope Francis and Pope Benedict is that Francis is more perceptive of where the misunderstanding occurs and is doing a better job of reaching people. Thus, groups like The Advocate see a change in policy when in fact they’re witnessing a change in presentation.

 

[JReducation]

When he took the name Francis I assumed it was after Francis Xavier. I was delighted that he chose the name after Francis of Assisi. It was almost too much to hope for. He is an amazing man. God bless him and keep him safe for a long time.

Ignatius perhaps? Maybe Dominic?

Ignatius of Loyola and Dominic of Guzman wouldn’t have worked as well. These were great preachers, but they were not preachers to the common man. For 800 years, these orders left preaching to the common man up to the Franciscans, precisely because Francis was not interested in the scholars or the non-Catholics. He was more interested in converting Catholics back to Christianity. If one notices, most of Pope Francis’ message targets Catholics. This is probably why some Catholics don’t like him. He rattles them. They prefer to see him rattle those on the other side and leave them alone.

Many religious, priests and bishops loved him until he told us to get rid of the SmartPhone, the iPhone, iPads, expensive cars, fancy houses, and expensive clothes. This did not sit well with priests and religious in Europe and the USA who are addicted to these things. Now, you have to justify these things. “I want it” is no longer a good enough reason. When he told the religious in South America that if the curia asked questions, just answer the bloody question and move on with their work. This did not sit well with those who want to be feared.

Ignatius of Loyola and Dominic were not preachers at this level. It’s not that they didn’t subscribe to these beliefs. It’s that there was too much work to be done in the Church. With an army of Franciscans preaching to the clergy and the man in the pew, it freed Ignatius and Francis to deal with heretics.

I feel that Pope Francis wants to speak to the man in the pew or the man who should be in the pew, not to the scholar. He leaves that to his brother Jesuits.

But this is exactly the point, the world is not listening to him.

According to the world, the Pope/Church is in the process of “changing” it’s thinking, and they are happy about it. Most of us here think that the Pope is saying essentially the same things as JP II and Benedict did, and if we are right, then he is most definitely not changing anything. That means, by definition, that the world is not listening to him. They are willfully, or mistakenly, getting the message wrong, and either way means they are not listening.

The only other possible option is that they are right, that he is changing things, a premise that we all (I think) reject.

There is no debate about whether the world has misunderstood his message (or at least that the Advocate in this instance), it has, as the above quotes from the article show. The only thing that can possibly be debated is whether the world’s misunderstanding of his message is genuine misunderstanding, or intentional distortion. We could debate that, but not whether or not the message is misunderstood.

I have a number of people in my family who are in the media. I have learned a great deal from listening to them. I tend to think that the problem with today’s media is probably not that unusual. The difference is that the rest of use don’t write news.

Today’s media is the product of mediocre education, as are many people. Journalists don’t always know much about their subject and don’t bother to find out. That’s the first problem. When a pope says “Whom am I to judge?” most journalists don’t know know that the individual has no right to judge another person’s soul or conscience. We can only make objective statements, not subjective statements. Only a spiritual director or a confessor can make a subjective statement about the soul of the person before him.

They don’t know how to listen. They focus on the part of the sentence that sounds new and interesting. But they don’t hear the sentence in context. That particular sentence was the conclusion of a thought. The thought is rarely quoted. In fact, this article is the first that I’ve seen that quotes the entire thought. Even this writer doesn’t seem to understand it. There is an absence of critical thinking skills in the media as well as in other disciplines.

Finally, there is a lot of wishful thinking in the press. I see this when they report on many things, not just religion.

Is there agenda posting? Of course there is. But I don’t see agendas in everything. My first rule of thumb is to separate the article that reflects a lack of understanding by the writer, the article that shows comprehension and what I have left is agenda. I don’t see everything that is contrary to what the Church believes as agenda.

We must be careful not to become overly suspicious. An overly suspicious person loses the joy of the Holy Spirit and the confidence that he should have in God’s protection.

 

[McCall1981]

They think the message is changing because they have been misunderstanding the message for decades. Much of that is the fault of people within the Church for misunderstanding it ourselves and/or explaining it incorrectly or carelessly. How many gays out there think that the Church teaches sexual orientation by itself is a sin? Probably most of them. I’m willing to bet that most of them also don’t feel welcome at Mass because of this or have been pushed away from the Church because of it.

I think the biggest difference between Pope Francis and Pope Benedict is that Francis is more perceptive of where the misunderstanding occurs and is doing a better job of reaching people. Thus, groups like The Advocate see a change in policy when in fact they’re witnessing a change in presentation.

Well, I think you make a good point here. The media has definitely gone from saying "the Pope hates gay people (which obviously wasnt true) to saying “the Pope says being gay is ok” (which also obviously isnt true). The drastic change being in what the media says, not what the Church says.

But I think the argument that there were all these people out there who genuinely thought the Church hated gay people until six months ago is a bit of a straw man. I mean, come on, anyone who’s the slighest bit informed, with even the slightest bit of intellectual honesty, knows the Church has been in super inclusive, PC mode on this issue for half a century.

I’ve attended mass my whole life and literally never heard homosexuality mentioned in Church. I’ve heard sins that I’ve committed mentioned plenty of times.

It just strikes me as very false , as does this article.

 

[JReducation]

Well, I think you make a good point here. The media has definitely gone from saying "the Pope hates gay people (which obviously wasnt true) to saying “the Pope says being gay is ok” (which also obviously isnt true). The drastic change being in what the media says, not what the Church says.

But I think the argument that there were all these people out there who genuinely thought the Church hated gay people until six months ago is a bit of a straw man. I mean, come on, anyone who’s the slighest bit informed, with even the slightest bit of intellectual honesty, knows the Church has been in super inclusive, PC mode on this issue for half a century.

I’ve attended mass my whole life and literally never heard homosexuality mentioned in Church. I’ve heard sins that I’ve committed mentioned plenty of times.

It just strikes me as very false , as does this article.

I think I can address this for you. You are right. The Church has not come out with any condemnation of gay people. In fact, the CCC slaps everyone else’s wrists for not being welcoming of gay people in our parishes and for being unfair in protecting their rights.

Having said that, I think we have to recognize that every institution has people who speak louder than others and those are not usually the best representatives. Many of the Catholics who have spoken on gay issues in the public square have done a very poor job at representing the Catholic community, making us look like bigots and homophobes. Nothing can be further from the truth, if one looks at our ministries on behalf of gay people, our writings on homosexuality, the families of homosexuals and the pastoral care of homosexuals. But the few Catholics who speak about gay issues don’t mention these.

I count myself among those who should hang their heads in shame. Those of us who know the truth have not come out and contradicted these folks and told the world that the fear, hate, and prejudice that these folks preach is not Catholic. These folks are Catholic, but they do not represent the Church’s position on this issue. We have been cowardly quiet.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Well, I think you make a good point here. The media has definitely gone from saying "the Pope hates gay people (which obviously wasnt true) to saying “the Pope says being gay is ok” (which also obviously isnt true). The drastic change being in what the media says, not what the Church says.

But I think the argument that there were all these people out there who genuinely thought the Church hated gay people until six months ago is a bit of a straw man. I mean, come on, anyone who’s the slighest bit informed, with even the slightest bit of intellectual honesty, knows the Church has been in super inclusive, PC mode on this issue for half a century.

I’ve attended mass my whole life and literally never heard homosexuality mentioned in Church. I’ve heard sins that I’ve committed mentioned plenty of times.

It just strikes me as very false , as does this article.

I have never met anyone, outside of a handful of devout Catholics, who actually understands the Church teaching on homosexuality. A lot of Catholics don’t understand it and that’s another part of the problem. Then there are the self righteous people who are desperately looking to feel better about themselves by condemning others not like them, and gays make a good target. They can stand on a soapbox and loudly condemn gays as people all day long without having to worry about inadvertently pointing a finger at themselves, since they don’t struggle with those sins. Because people like this exist and are loud and visible, a lot of people associate it with official Church teaching when it isn’t.

It’s a huge combination of misunderstanding, terrible communication of Church teaching, hypocrisy on the part of some, and an ill-informed media that can’t tell the difference.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Well, I think you make a good point here. The media has definitely gone from saying "the Pope hates gay people (which obviously wasnt true) to saying “the Pope says being gay is ok” (which also obviously isnt true). The drastic change being in what the media says, not what the Church says.

But I think the argument that there were all these people out there who genuinely thought the Church hated gay people until six months ago is a bit of a straw man. I mean, come on, anyone who’s the slighest bit informed, with even the slightest bit of intellectual honesty, knows the Church has been in super inclusive, PC mode on this issue for half a century.

I’ve attended mass my whole life and literally never heard homosexuality mentioned in Church. I’ve heard sins that I’ve committed mentioned plenty of times.

It just strikes me as very false , as does this article.

I’m not sure the idea of a “shift in emphasis” or rhetoric necessarily means people think the Pope is changing any teaching. He isn’t. Indeed teaching on topics such as homosexuality and abortion remain as they have been. Though I’m uncertain what you meant about it isn’t true being gay is ok. Isn’t it acting upon SS attraction that is the sin? But anyway perhaps what it is, is people rightly or wrongly have the sense he’s placed more emphasis on topics such as the poor, the potential pitfalls of unregulated capitalism, & homelessness. But in any case certainly it’s true the Church has held the same positions on those topics as well under other Popes. Or in part it may be people are perceiving his personal style to being humble. People for instance may like that he lives in the guest quarters rather than the papal apts. And a lot of it might be his tone and people sense a tone of compassion and less condemnation. You may have never heard homosexuality mentioned in Church. But it may have been one of the 2 or 3 hottest topics people have seen discussed on various Catholic internet sites or perhaps by certain members of the hierarchy. Whatever it is, as others have noted, he seems to have gotten the attention of many who perhaps weren’t paying as much attention before.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

The angels were there because of the sins of the city (homosexual behavior). The attempted rape didn’t happen until after the two angels had arrived. The argument that the bible isn’t against homosexual behavior isn’t even believed by the “gay” activists or they would not have come out with their own bible which omits all of the verses that they know are against it.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is not about homosexuality. It is about hospitality. Yes, the people of Sodom intended to rape Lot’s guests. It wasn’t because the people of Sodom were gay, it was because they wanted these visitors to tell others how horrible they were treated so people wouldn’t stay in the city overnight. They didn’t want visitors there after the gates were supposed to be closed.

 

[Sheeniac]

Agreed. I will say that in many ways Pope Francis is taking a somewhat different tone than his predecessors, but he’s still getting the point across, very well I might add. A lot of people are returning to the Church because of his example. I think he couldn’t have picked a better name.

Are they? At least in the US are they?

 

[Sheeniac]

Many of the Catholics who have spoken on gay issues in the public square have done a very poor job at representing the Catholic community, making us look like bigots and homophobes. Nothing can be further from the truth, if one looks at our ministries on behalf of gay people, our writings on homosexuality, the families of homosexuals and the pastoral care of homosexuals. But the few Catholics who speak about gay issues don’t mention these.

I’m not sure I can agree with that. I think that anything less than full acceptance is considered ‘hate’. Witness the whole blow up about the pasta company owner in Italy when he said he prefers to show traditional families.

I just haven’t seen what you are referring to in terms of Catholic voices (mainstream) that are bigoted. I have seen that the general public tends to lump us all together with non-Catholic voices (except for muslims who actually kill gay people, not just condemn them).

That said, I would agree with your overall point (think) that calling people to God MUST start with love.