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

[Sheeniac]

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.

I’m not sure where you heard this interpretation.

Indeed, a lack of hospitality in general played a part, but there are several biblical references to the sins, primarily sexual, of S&G.

 

[Sy_Noe]

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.

Indeed they were inhospitable with their intention to rape. And the Biblical account states all the men of the city were there. So unless it is to be believed every man in the city was gay, I can see where you might get it wasn’t because the people were gay.

 

[Elizium23]

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is not about homosexuality. It is about hospitality.

Right, and that is why to this day, the label of “sodomite” is attached to… oh, wait.

 

[MarcoPolo]

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.

The book of Jude suggests the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed tied into the sexual immorality there:*Jude 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomor’rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. *

 

[Sy_Noe]

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.

Perhaps it’s this soapbox you refer to which partly led Francis to say he is a son of the Church (implying no change in teaching) but then going on to say if a gay person seeks God and is of goodwill, who is he, the Pope, to judge. And then subsequently on his birthday he goes on and has breakfast with 4 homeless people.

 

[J_Peterson]

I love Pope Francis and the attention he gets regardless of the source. He reminds me of the following bit from Thomas Merton’s Seeds of Contemplation:

For the revolutions of men change nothing. The only influence that can really upset the injustice and iniquity of men is the power that breathes in Christian tradition, renewing our participation in the Life that is the Light of men.

To those who have no personal experience of this revolutionary aspect of Christian truth, but who see only the outer crust of dead, human conservatism that tends to form around the Church the way barnacles gather on the hull of a ship, all this talk of dynamism sounds foolish.

Each individual Christian and each new age of the Church has to make this rediscovery, this return to the source of Christian life.

It demands a fundamental act of renunciation that accepts the necessity of starting out on the way to God under the guidance of other men. This acceptance can be paid for only by sacrifice, and ultimately only a gift of God can teach us the difference between the dry outer crust of formality which the Church sometimes acquires from the human natures that compose it, and the living inner current of Divine Life which is the only real Catholic tradition.

 

[JReducation]

Perhaps it’s this soapbox you refer to which partly led Francis to say he is a son of the Church (implying no change in teaching) but then going on to say if a gay person seeks God and is of goodwill, who is he, the Pope, to judge. And then subsequently on his birthday he goes on and has breakfast with 4 homeless people.

We have to remember the context of that interview. He was being asked about a Monsignor who had committed some indiscretions more than 20 years before. The Holy Father said that there is difference between sin and a crime, such as child abuse. He said that if God forgives and forgets, how dare we not forget. That’s when he led into the next idea that concluded with “who am I to judge?”

The truth is that a pope has no authority to judge individuals. He can judge actions, but not hearts and consciences. Unless he’s the confessor or the spiritual director, he has no way of knowing what is happening inside a person. The best that he can offer is to repeat that we are all sinners and that God does forgive those who are seeking him. Therefore, we should be just as forgiving.

His other concern also makes sense. There is always a temptation to zero in on certain sins and not speak enough about other sins. This can give the mistaken impression that the Church is myopic. She sees very little of the human condition and of sin.

What he has done is to broaden our attention. Yes, these are concerns, but so are injustice, war, neglect, and indifference to human need. It’s not simply about doing social service. There is more to this. We are called to love as Christ loves and to love those whom Christ loves. I have always taught my novices that they must pray for the grace to love all people as Christ loved from the Cross and to love those whom he loved from the Cross.

Being human and flawed, we tend to see the good in those who think like us. Pope Benedict once wrote that we must come to the table open to learn from the other person, regardless of his beliefs and his condition. Every human being has something to teach us he said. We can only learn if we’re open to the otherness of the neighbor. Whatever the neighbor’s position may be on something, there is something good there to be appreciated.

 

[Djames581]

Its a conman news or article. every one describe his idea but majority is authority.

 

[RPRPsych]

Rather than go to a link that tells me what someone else wrote, I went to The Advocate itself. To my surprise, the article is very positive toward the Holy Father and it is not by any means disrespectful toward Catholics or the Catholic Church.

That’s what I found, too.

One thing that impressed me about the article is that this writer is one of the few that actually quoted the pope correctly when he said that we speak too much about abortion, homosexuality and contraception. Most writers have been quoting part of that sentence and leaving out, “I am a son of the Church.”

Exactly.

The writer does not flatter Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict, but he does not have to do so. As long as he is polite in his disagreement. The truth is that he’s more polite than some Catholic bloggers were to Bl. John Paul, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis. Go read back issues of Rorate Caeli and compare.

The point, really.

Dear Pope-bashers (Rush Limbaugh, Patrick Buchanan, R***** C**** and others):

“Was no one found to give the Pope his due, except a gay magazine”?

 

[Havard]

R***** C****

Who?

 

[Elostirion]

From the horse’s mouth is always best I say.
I suppose though, that extra publicity isn’t all bad.

For once can there be a thread without mention of Gomorrah? Sodiom is fine though.

 

[RPRPsych]

Who?

I make it a point not to type their name, because they deserve a damnatio memoriae (they had the gall to call for a damnatio on the documents of Vatican II). But if you insist: the opening words of Isaiah 45:8 in Latin.

 

[CrossofChrist]

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.

Good analysis.

IMNSHO Ignatius would also be appropriate since the current faith crisis stems from individualism which basically came from the Reformation, albeit not in its current form. But I do agree Francis is better.

 

[PhilomenaMaria]

I completely disagree. I think the point of this article is, like Colorado007 said, to say “the Pope is on our side, he said homosexuality (and abortion etc) are ok now, so we like him”.

They are saying “yes” only because they think he is approving their lifestyle (or at least because they can present it that way to misinform others). They are blatently, using him, and are causing great harm by doing so

i’m not the best at posting my thoughts to words so i apologize in advance if i have anything wrong…

this is the entire reason i signed up to post and echos what i meant to say… the Pope’s comments will be misunderstood by those with this agenda and he will be used to further their cause… because they feel that ‘not judging’ is equal to ‘accepting’ the lifestyle… now Catholics can no longer say that homosexuality is wrong because ‘our leader’ said we aren’t to judge them… that Jesus said to ‘love all’… but they don’t realize that we are to love the way He loved… and that love included informing the world of its sinful ways to the point of being killed for it… Jesus was very serious in condemning the actions of the world… and he did it with love for those lost to these things… that is how we are to love… we aren’t to condemn anyone as though God can’t change that person, but this doesn’t mean when we tell someone they’re doing something wrong that they’re being ‘judged’ by us…

but i was sad to see the Pope’s comments because I know most of those outside of our faith and many within will take it the wrong way, and the battles we have rising up in this country will just take added courage and ammunition from it to further their cause… as is shown by the magazine picture above… they don’t have him on there for any other reason than to point out what they ‘feel’ he meant… Jesus didn’t come on the Earth to be on the cover of a magazine being praised for accepting the views of those He basically condemns the actions of… beware of worldly praise coming from those who attack what you believe…

 

[meltzerboy]

The Advocate’s Person of the Year: Pope Francis

Rather than go to a link that tells me what someone else wrote, I went to The Advocate itself. To my surprise, the article is very positive toward the Holy Father and it is not by any means disrespectful toward Catholics or the Catholic Church.

One thing that impressed me about the article is that this writer is one of the few that actually quoted the pope correctly when he said that we speak too much about abortion, homosexuality and contraception. Most writers have been quoting part of that sentence and leaving out, “I am a son of the Church.”

Also, the writer of this article quotes the entire statement that the Holy Father made on the plane on his way home from Brazil. I heard that interview live. The media cuts the Holy Father’s response at “Who am I to judge,” leaving out the words that lead into that sentence.

The writer does not flatter Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict, but he does not have to do so. As long as he is polite in his disagreement. The truth is that he’s more polite than some Catholic bloggers were to Bl. John Paul, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis. Go read back issues of Rorate Caeli and compare.

We must learn to accept the good regardless of where it comes from. If these folks have a warm feeling toward the Pontiff, we should simply learn to say “Thank you for loving our Holy Father.” Leave it at that.

You don’t take someone’s praise and gratitude and throw it back in their face, because there is something about the person that you do not like or with which we disagree. The Holy Father spoke about this in one of his homilies last week.

Rejecting the messenger because you reject the messenger doesn’t make sense

Well stated (as always), JReducation! I would only add that one should not always look for ulterior motives either. And practice what you preach: that is, be critical of the sin, if you must, but love the sinner, which means everyone.

 

[Chris_Stein]

Pope Francis is a great man who shows love and compassion! We must realize people who want to bring down the Chruch will twist and turn everything he says so that it benefits them! We must realize this.

 

[PhilomenaMaria]

Pope Francis is a great man who shows love and compassion! We must realize people who want to bring down the Chruch will twist and turn everything he says so that it benefits them! We must realize this.

true and all the more reason to more clearly state where you stand on something… because the short time of his showing love to these people will lead to eternity of them being apart from God because it wasn’t clarified that their ways are separating them from heaven… we know what he meant, but most of them do not… if you don’t have someone standing there cutting off what is wrong, what is wrong will remain… many people will not turn back to God because of this as ‘they feel’ he has justified their way of life… this is what the agenda so desperately seeks from us as Christians… they must have not only the approval of society, but from the one religion written on their hearts (whether they know it or not)… they need acceptance that it is ok what they do so once and for all they can be done with their conscience that hints to them they should change… and this is the reason for the venomous reaction whenever we quote the Bible that condemns their ways… because most of them refuse to believe what is written anyhow… but the Bible is the sword that pierces all hearts…

 

[sennincatholic]

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 think the answer is intentional distortion by the secular mass media.Pope Francis’ election was the ideal opportunity to manipulate the masses to misinterpret the church’s teachings through Pope Francis because he is still new in office and the masses love change and anything that is new.This was also done during at the beginning of Pope Benedict’s and JPII’s pontificates but towards the middle to the end of their terms the masses get tired of seeing thesame old faces in white robes and dont even care anymore.That’s what is going to happen to Pope Francis in say 2 years from now.For now he is still new in office.

 

[sennincatholic]

true and all the more reason to more clearly state where you stand on something… because the short time of his showing love to these people will lead to eternity of them being apart from God because it wasn’t clarified that their ways are separating them from heaven… .

I disagree with you here.How can love,which is from God, directly lead somebody to Hell? This can happen only if the message of love is rejected and that is why the Word of God is said to be a double-edged sword because it cuts into 2. Christ, was said to be a Sign of Contradiction because He was "…a sign established for the falling and rising of many in Israel,… (Luke 2:34). Just think about it, if Jesus had not wanted his words misunderstood so that the jews should not go to hell, he would have spoken differently about eating His body and drinking His blood to those disciples who left him in John 6:66.
Grosso modo, Pope Francis is a sign of contradiction, just as Jesus was and the Catholic Church is…His mission is not to be working on speeches to please the masses but to preach the truth about the gospel and if the consequences are that people reject or misunderstand his words, then, its inevitable and we can only pray for them.