Pope Francis on homosexuality: My position is "that of the Church. I am a son of the Church"

[McCall1981]

This is google translated (I cleaned up the grammar slightly) from the Vatican website from the Press Conference Pope Francis gave on returning from Rio. I found it reassuring, and also informative on how Pope Francis determines what to talk about. Haven’t found it in English yet.

attualita.vatican.va/sala-stampa/bollettino/2013/07/30/news/31494.html

Patricia Zorzan:
“Speaking on behalf of the Brazilians. Society has changed, young people have changed and you see so many young people in Brazil. You did not mention abortion, marriage between persons of the same sex. In Brazil, a law was passed that extends the right to abortion and allowed marriage between persons of the same sex. Why did you not talk about this?”

Papa Francesco:
“The Church has already expressed this perfectly. It was not necessary to go back, as I have not even talked about fraud, deceit or other things on which the Church has a clear doctrine!”

Patricia Zorzan:
“But it is a topic that interests the young …”

Papa Francesco:
“Yes, but there was no need to talk about this, but the positive things that open the way to the boys. Is it not? In addition, young people know exactly what is the position of the Church!”

Patricia Zorzan:
“What is the position of Your Holiness, can we talk about it?”

Papa Francesco:
“That of the Church. I am a son of the Church!”

 

[livingwordunity]

The reporter’s questioning makes me think about how in the Bible the Pharisees tried to test Jesus with a trick question. The Pope answered the question clearly. Then the reporter tries to get him to go against the Church, but he refuses. It’s like they are trying to trick him by repeating the same question until maybe he gives an answer that is ambiguous enough for them to use for a misleading headline. The Pope also said:

“The problem is not having this tendency [SSA], no, we must be brothers, because this is one, but if there’s another, another. The problem is to lobby for this…” - Pope Francis, Press Conference in Return Flight from Brazil (Google Translate, “SSA” added by me)

I interpret this as him saying that SSA by itself isn’t a sin as long as homosexuality isn’t lobbied (actively promoted). This is essentially no different than what it teaches about homosexuals in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[StudentMI]

This whole episode is just tiring. On one hand, the media alleged it was a change from Pope Benedict’s position and ran with the idea that the Church was changing its position, and on the other some Catholics seem to have become upset that the Pope spoke with compassion about those with SSA. On one side are those who want the Church to approve of everything, and on the other those upset that the Pope isn’t calling down fire from Heaven. It’s distressing.

 

[vames]

The question wasn’t stupid and the journalist’s insistence wasn’t exaggerated. I know that the recent law that “open ways” towards liberalization of abortion is a big topic for Catholic Brazilian priests and pro-lifers and they had waited anxiously for a reaction from the Vatican, as the law was approved by the Congress and awaits promulgation by president Dilma Rousseff. They really needed that “I am a son of the Church”.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3048035/posts
lastdayswatchman.blogspot.ro/2013/07/the-imminent-abortion-legalization-in.html
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/07/urgent-on-eve-of-papal-visit-brazil.html

From the other side of the story:
bigstory.ap.org/article/brazil-doctors-urge-legalization-abortion
blog.iwhc.org/2013/07/22/what-will-the-popes-visit-mean-for-women-and-young-people-in-brazil/

 

[TimSpalding]

The difference on same-sex marriage and abortion is one of emphasis. Recent decades have seen these issues, and sexual morality stressed so much that it can seem—especially to outsiders—that’s it’s the only important element of Christian morality. In passing up every opportunity to mention both topics since his election, and stressing other issues, like Catholic social teaching, Francis is correcting course.

On gays it’s more than emphasis. It’s at least tone. Catholic doctrine or no, it was striking. Yes, as many have noted, he cited the catechism, but he was selective. The reasons may be pastoral or whatever the polite word is for “public relations.” It’s also possible he avoided the phrase “objectively disordered,” for other reasons. It is certainly logical to transfer it and say homosexuals are “objectively disordered” (who isn’t exactly?). For what it’s worth, that phrase was only added in the second edition, replacing the statement that homosexuals don’t choose it. (Apparently between 1992-1997 Catholics were required to believe homosexuality isn’t a choice. Now you can. Go wild, guys.)

I think it’s perfectly possible this will augur change in Benedict’s decision to forbid those with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” from becoming priests. That is not, of course, a doctrinal issue, but a much more ordinary question about how seminaries should be run. If the tendency were itself a problem, Francis would not have said it was not, and specifically in reference to a gay priest. It remains to be seen if goes that way or not.

 

[TimSpalding]

The problem is to lobby for this

No, that’s not the context. The “lobby” phrase occurs in a context—the notion that there’s a “gay lobby” in the Vatican. The Italian press is fixated on the idea. The idea isn’t so much that the “gay lobby” is promoting acceptance of homosexuality within the Vatican, but that a cabal is involved in advancing the careers of its members, and using blackmail against other clerics. (Ricca was accused of being part of this “lobby.”) In any case, the Pope was not plugging into a conversation about secular politics, but about internal Vatican squabbles.

Also, it’s not lobby “for” this. It’s a lobby “of” this. The parallelism with “a lobby of greed, lobby of politics, lobby of masons, so many lobbies” makes this clear, if the larger context did not.

Italian: vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-francesco_20130728_gmg-conferenza-stampa_it.html

 

[bellasbane]

This is google translated (I cleaned up the grammar slightly) from the Vatican website from the Press Conference Pope Francis gave on returning from Rio. I found it reassuring, and also informative on how Pope Francis determines what to talk about. Haven’t found it in English yet.

attualita.vatican.va/sala-stampa/bollettino/2013/07/30/news/31494.html

Patricia Zorzan:
“Speaking on behalf of the Brazilians. Society has changed, young people have changed and you see so many young people in Brazil. You did not mention abortion, marriage between persons of the same sex. In Brazil, a law was passed that extends the right to abortion and allowed marriage between persons of the same sex. Why did you not talk about this?”

Papa Francesco:
“The Church has already expressed this perfectly. It was not necessary to go back, as I have not even talked about fraud, deceit or other things on which the Church has a clear doctrine!”

Patricia Zorzan:
“But it is a topic that interests the young …”

Papa Francesco:
“Yes, but there was no need to talk about this, but the positive things that open the way to the boys. Is it not? In addition, young people know exactly what is the position of the Church!”

Patricia Zorzan:
“What is the position of Your Holiness, can we talk about it?”

Papa Francesco:
“That of the Church. I am a son of the Church!”

Thank you Pope Francis!

It is refreshing to hear the Pope say that he thinks the position of the Church on abortion and same-sex marriage is perfectly clear to all so there is no need to constantly beat the drum on the negative.

To the contrary, he seems to be suggesting that we need to do is to focus more on the positive - especially if the goal is to inspire young people to embrace the faith.

I think this will be hard for many people, especially those who seem to thrive on indignation.

 

[bellasbane]

No, that’s not the context. The “lobby” phrase occurs in a context—the notion that there’s a “gay lobby” in the Vatican. The Italian press is fixated on the idea. The idea isn’t so much that the “gay lobby” is promoting acceptance of homosexuality within the Vatican, but that a cabal is involved in advancing the careers of its members, and using blackmail against other clerics. (Ricca was accused of being part of this “lobby.”) In any case, the Pope was not plugging into a conversation about secular politics, but about internal Vatican squabbles.

Also, it’s not lobby “for” this. It’s a lobby “of” this. The parallelism with “a lobby of greed, lobby of politics, lobby of masons, so many lobbies” makes this clear, if the larger context did not.

Italian: vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-francesco_20130728_gmg-conferenza-stampa_it.html

Do you know how were they blackmailing other clerics? Where they threatening to “out” them for being gay if they blew the whistle on what the others were doing?

If so, it would go a long way towards explaining the motivation behind the “Who am I to judge gay people” comment by the Pope. By making a public statement that he will not condemn anyone simply for being gay, he effectively disarmed anyone who would seek to blackmail a cleric for this reason.

I believe the same thing was going on in the military before DADT was repealed. Gay soldiers were being blackmailed under the threat of being “outed”.

 

[livingwordunity]

What the reporter wanted to do was to try to get him to go against the Church and say that so-called “same-sex marriage” and abortion was ok. He would not do that. So they went ahead without him anyway and tried to make it seem like he said what he did not say by cherry picking from what he said and ignoring the parts of what he said that didn’t fit with their agenda. But if they knew anything about Catholicism they would know that they were wasting their effort since it doesn’t even matter what he says when he is speaking off the cuff. When he speaks off the cuff it’s not binding. So for the heterodox who wanted to see him throw out 2,000 years of Church doctrine it was another case of this (Charlie Brown represents the media, Lucy represents the Catholic Church, and the football represents the deposit of faith):

http://blog.themistrading.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/lucy.jpg

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

The reporter’s questioning makes me think about how in the Bible the Pharisees tried to test Jesus with a trick question. The Pope answered the question clearly. Then the reporter tries to get him to go against the Church, but he refuses. It’s like they are trying to trick him by repeating the same question until maybe he gives an answer that is ambiguous enough for them to use for a misleading headline.

Yup. You are spot on. He handled this so well. for the pope!

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

It is refreshing to hear the Pope say that he thinks the position of the Church on abortion and same-sex marriage is perfectly clear to all so there is no need to constantly beat the drum on the negative.

To the contrary, he seems to be suggesting that we need to do is to focus more on the positive - especially if the goal is to inspire young people to embrace the faith.

I think this will be hard for many people, especially those who seem to thrive on indignation.

So true. The church has been on the defence for a long time: practically justifying itself to the world for not accepting a number of heresies and sins. It is time for this to stop so the Gospel can be proclaimed. That is the positive message that is worth repeating.

 

[TimSpalding]

Here’s what Benedict said in Light of the World (p. 152):

“Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don’t want to get married anyway. …*The Congregation for education issued a decision a few years ago to the effect that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, from the intrinsic nature of priestly being.”

Now, someone tell me that does not differ from what Francis said. Doesn’t one get he clear sense from Francis that, while homosexual acts are immoral, he accepts priests who are homosexual? After all, the whole context of the statement was the question of gay priests in the Vatican. If Francis agreed that homosexual orientation was intrinsically opposed to the priestly nature, surely he’d have said something different!

 

[saveusfromhell]

Here’s what Benedict said in Light of the World (p. 152):

“Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don’t want to get married anyway. …*The Congregation for education issued a decision a few years ago to the effect that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, from the intrinsic nature of priestly being.”

Now, someone tell me that does not differ from what Francis said. Doesn’t one get he clear sense from Francis that, while homosexual acts are immoral, he accepts priests who are homosexual? After all, the whole context of the statement was the question of gay priests in the Vatican. If Francis agreed that homosexual orientation was intrinsically opposed to the priestly nature, surely he’d have said something different!

unfortunately the VAST majority of disgusting attacks on children were by homosexual priests, on pubescent teens, one can understand pope Benedict reluctance to open the church to more of the same scandal. if pope Francis believes that this is no longer a challenge for them then I pray he is right. I suppose the awareness now of priestly candidates of the dangers of interfering with children may have altered that situation

 

[Elizabeth502]

Doesn’t one get he clear sense from Francis that, while homosexual acts are immoral, he accepts priests who are homosexual?

One gets the sense that he’s not going to engage in an inappropriate vendetta if/where it’s a matter of attraction and not behavior. One also gets the sense that he distinguishes from those clergy who are passively homosexual and not lobbying. The interview was on lobbying, and specifically assumptions that anyone who is clergy and has SSA must therefore be conspiritng/collaborating with others, especially in the Curia. That’s what he is “not judging” (without evidence).

He said nothing, to my knowledge about admission of candidates to seminaries who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies as described by BXVI. Just because he has not announced a stripping of faculties and laicization of current priests does not mean that he has reversed BXVI’s policy about seminarians.

 

[Aletheian]

Do you know how were they blackmailing other clerics? Where they threatening to “out” them for being gay if they blew the whistle on what the others were doing?

If so, it would go a long way towards explaining the motivation behind the “Who am I to judge gay people” comment by the Pope. By making a public statement that he will not condemn anyone simply for being gay, he effectively disarmed anyone who would seek to blackmail a cleric for this reason.

If this is true, then His Holiness handled the situation extremely well.

 

[vames]

What the reporter wanted to do was to try to get him to go against the Church and say that so-called “same-sex marriage” and abortion was ok. He would not do that.

This is completely untrue. Please, make a small effort to inform yourself and read the links contained in post #3 before assuming anything. I know some posters love so much to talk about how the poor Pope is always attacked by the wicked media who hates Catholicism. Not in the case. Is that hard to understand?
I would be so embarrassed to post stereotyped opinions on a topic without knowing anything about what I’m talking about.

 

[The_Bucket]

unfortunately the VAST majority of disgusting attacks on children were by homosexual priests, on pubescent teens, one can understand pope Benedict reluctance to open the church to more of the same scandal. if pope Francis believes that this is no longer a challenge for them then I pray he is right. I suppose the awareness now of priestly candidates of the dangers of interfering with children may have altered that situation

See that’s the problem. I understand B16’s desire to completely stamp out any and all potential abusers… but child molesters are typically heterosexual, not homosexual. Pretty much every U.S. diocese reinforces that statistical fact in its program aimed at protecting the youth.

 

[JimG]

See that’s the problem. I understand B16’s desire to completely stamp out any and all potential abusers… but child molesters are typically heterosexual, not homosexual. Pretty much every U.S. diocese reinforces that statistical fact in its program aimed at protecting the youth.

Having attended the Virtus Training several times, I can vouch for the fact that it certainly does reinforce the fact of heterosexual child abuse. Which always struck me as perhaps a little strange, in view of the fact that in the specific priestly abuse crisis (to which this training program was in part a response), the vast majority of the cases were in fact cases of homosexual predation on boys.

 

[canis73]

If so, it would go a long way towards explaining the motivation behind the “Who am I to judge gay people” comment by the Pope. By making a public statement that he will not condemn anyone simply for being gay, he effectively disarmed anyone who would seek to blackmail a cleric for this reason.

The Pope not only is a holy man, he is a brilliant politician. These were my thoughts exctly.

 

[saveusfromhell]

See that’s the problem. I understand B16’s desire to completely stamp out any and all potential abusers… but child molesters are typically heterosexual, not homosexual. Pretty much every U.S. diocese reinforces that statistical fact in its program aimed at protecting the youth.

first of all the USA is not the church, and if you have some statstic on it being typically hetrosexuals then i would like to read it. Most cases ive seen are homosexuals attacking boys