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

[fix]

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.

That program has been criticized by many.

 

[livingwordunity]

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.

That might be true of child abuse outside of the Church but not with the scandal that happened in the Church. With the scandal in the Catholic Church, although less than 2% of priests have been accused, over 80% of the ones who were accused were the ones who admitted to being homosexual. Here are some links on the subject:

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: Office of Child & Youth Protection

Priest Files in Los Angeles Made Public

The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States

Sexual Abuse in Social Context: Clergy and Other Professionals

Q&A: Understanding the Priest Scandal

A Crisis of Saints

Over 600 Diocesan Clerics Accused In 2004 Of Sex Abuse Of Minors, Most No Longer In Ministry, Incidents From Decades Ago, Survey Finds

 

[Dawnia]

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!

I don’t think there is a differing of opinion at all. Francis is pointing out that there will be no witch hunts to root out homosexuals in the priesthood. He said nothing about changing the requirement/guidelines for being a priest. But, once ordained, he isn’t going to begin laicizing a priest simply because he may have sinned at some point in that one particular way.

 

[livingwordunity]

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.

I don’t care to read the propaganda you want me to read. I am able to read, think, and use tools like Google Translate to judge for myself what the Pope actually said in the official transcript. The Pope answered the question clearly the first time he was asked. He said that the Church’s teaching on the matter is “perfect”. There is no ambiguity in the word “perfect”.

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!”

What part of this is hard to understand? There was no other reason for the reporter to keep asking unless she was trying to get him to change his answer. But the media ignored this. An honest headline would have been “Pope says Church teaches perfectly on abortion and homosexuality”.

 

[vames]

I don’t care to read the propaganda you want me to read.

Pro-life propaganda? Right, it was so unreasonable of those pro-life propagandists to hope that the Pope would say one word about abortion at the WYD.
So the next time when there’s a thread about the contraception mandate, abortion or morning after pills in the US and how the Church deals with Obama, Cuomo, Pelosi etc, a correct reaction should be: What’s with this unreasonable insistence, fellow CAF members? The Catholic teaching is already clear!

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Aug 2, 2013 / 03:31 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Four days after Pope Francis left Brazil, President Dilma Rousseff signed into a law a measure that opens the door to the distribution of abortion-causing drugs in the country’s public health care system.

Upon its publication in the government’s official journal, the August 1 law requires health care centers in Brazil to administer the “morning-after pill” to women who say they have been raped up to 72 hours after the crime.

At the end of July, more than 20 pro-life organizations in Latin America issued a statement calling on the Brazilian people “not to be deceived and to do everything possible” to prevent the new law from being adopted.

During a World Youth Day catechesis session on July 26, Bishop Celso Antonio Marchiori of Apucarana in Brazil warned the pilgrims gathered there to be on alert for the imminent legalization of abortion in the country.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/brazilian-president-signs-law-permitting-abortion-after-papal-visit/

Thursday [Aug 1] was the constitutional deadline for ratifying law 3/2013, which was based on a bill presented in 1999 by Iara Bernardi, who at the time was a congresswoman for Sao Paulo from Rousseff’s left-wing Workers’ Party (PT).

But doubts had arisen as to whether it would be signed into law, due to rising pressure surrounding Pope Francis’ 22-28 visit to Brazil, even though the bill had been unanimously approved in both chambers of Congress.

Three days before the pope’s arrival, representatives of the Brazilian Catholic bishops’ conference and other religious bodies visited Rousseff at the government palace to ask her to partially veto the law.

They were lobbying for the removal of an article referring to “pregnancy prevention” and another requiring “victims to be informed of their legal rights and all the health services available to them” – that is, the right to abort, or to take emergency contraception pills, in cases of rape.

truth-out.org/news/item/17966-new-brazilian-law-guarantees-protocol-for-rape-victims

I don’t think that if Pope Francis had spoken loudly against this law, Dilma Rousseff wouldn’t have promulgated it. I don’t think either that he should have done that at the WYD. I only said that I understand where that question came from. And I have read Brazilian Catholic blogs whose authors really appreciated and quoted precisely his final words “I am the son of the Church”, which were the direct result of the reporter’s insistence.

 

[irishpatrick]

I cannot say this enough. We are living in the age of mercy, and that age will come to an end, it will not last forever. I believe that the Pope is trying to bring God’s Mercy to everyone, so that they might feel compelled to attach themselves to that same mercy. In that way, before this age of mercy ends, many more souls can and will be saved. In other words, I believe the Pope is being the ultimate Shepherd by enticing his flock to return home before a storm hits, a storm that will sweep away Jesus’ flock if they are not first brought back home and placed in safety. This, of course, does not mean that the flock is without defects (sins), some have many more defects than others, yet if a person truly loves Christ (no matter their defects), then they will hear the call that Pope Francis seems to be making…and in the process their souls will be saved.

I have no way to know if that supposition is anywhere near true, yet for me, it seems to fit the many statements our Holy Father has made in the short time that he has been Pope. If any of this is true, it implies that the age of mercy is coming to a close because the Pope’s work to encourage and save souls is at a heightened pitch. He really seems to be trying to pull as many souls as he can onto the Ark of the Church.

So, imo, we should pray, do sacrifices for everyone we know (including our own souls), and we should pray for the world…and when possible, we too should share the great news of God’s Mercy. You might very well help many souls come back onto the safety found in the Ark of the Church.

 

[irishpatrick]

I don’t care to read the propaganda you want me to read. I am able to read, think, and use tools like Google Translate to judge for myself what the Pope actually said in the official transcript. The Pope answered the question clearly the first time he was asked. He said that the Church’s teaching on the matter is “perfect”. There is no ambiguity in the word “perfect”.

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!”

What part of this is hard to understand? There was no other reason for the reporter to keep asking unless she was trying to get him to change his answer. But the media ignored this. An honest headline would have been “Pope says Church teaches perfectly on abortion and homosexuality”.

The Pope has a very clear message–people either hear it, or they do not. Take notice that the Pope is not trying badger anyone into accepting anything…he is speaking clear truth with great love, and he is letting that truth be accepted, rejected, or even outright maligned. Frankly, sort of seems a lot like Jesus when He spoke to the crowds. To those with open minds and ears, they will hear the message.

 

[kmcarl56]

I am still confused about this whole issue of what the Pope has alledgedly said and what the Church holds firm on this subject. As far as I can see, this should not even be a discussion among Christians. Homosexuality and SSA have been a problem in societies since way before The Church was ever established by Christians. It was forbidden in the times of Moses and Abraham, and it is still forbidden in most societies today, regardless of religion or denomination.

Sodomy is still unlawful in most societies and is still a sin in the Christian faiths. A man laying with a man, or a woman laying with a woman, is still a sin according to Christian beliefs. There is nothing “new” about it; it has been and will remain a problem in our cultures.

What is wrong with just stating that homosexuality and SSA are simply morally wrong in both civil and religious realms of society. God has made it pretty cut and dried in the Bible, and almost all laws on the books break down to the Ten Commandments and other laws stated in the Bible. Therefore, we, as Christians, need “lobby” against such behavior and the laws which justify it. Our voices can be heard if we shout it loud enough in harmony to the officials we have elected and are paying to obey our wishes.

Am I being naive or just ignorant?

 

[vames]

What is wrong with just stating that homosexuality and SSA are simply morally wrong in both civil and religious realms of society. God has made it pretty cut and dried in the Bible, and almost all laws on the books break down to the Ten Commandments and other laws stated in the Bible. Therefore, we, as Christians, need “lobby” against such behavior and the laws which justify it. Our voices can be heard if we shout it loud enough in harmony to the officials we have elected and are paying to obey our wishes.

Probably it has to do with what they often call “pastoral approach”, especially when it comes to Pope Francis. A very simplistic description of what it means would be: when you see that X lives in sin, there’s the legalistic approach - “you will go to hell if you don’t repent; God loves only us, the righteous, but He hates and condemns you, the sinners, so I hate and condemn you too and I don’t want you near me” and the pastoral approach - “you will be saved if you repent; God wants everybody to be saved and He commends us not to judge others, so I don’t want to judge you, but to understand and help you”.

 

[irishpatrick]

I am still confused about this whole issue of what the Pope has alledgedly said and what the Church holds firm on this subject. As far as I can see, this should not even be a discussion among Christians. Homosexuality and SSA have been a problem in societies since way before The Church was ever established by Christians. It was forbidden in the times of Moses and Abraham, and it is still forbidden in most societies today, regardless of religion or denomination.

Sodomy is still unlawful in most societies and is still a sin in the Christian faiths. A man laying with a man, or a woman laying with a woman, is still a sin according to Christian beliefs. There is nothing “new” about it; it has been and will remain a problem in our cultures.

What is wrong with just stating that homosexuality and SSA are simply morally wrong in both civil and religious realms of society. God has made it pretty cut and dried in the Bible, and almost all laws on the books break down to the Ten Commandments and other laws stated in the Bible. Therefore, we, as Christians, need “lobby” against such behavior and the laws which justify it. Our voices can be heard if we shout it loud enough in harmony to the officials we have elected and are paying to obey our wishes.

Am I being naive or just ignorant?

SSA (homosexuality) is not immoral.

 

[livingwordunity]

Pro-life propaganda? Right, it was so unreasonable of those pro-life propagandists to hope that the Pope would say one word about abortion at the WYD.

Are you saying that Patricia Zorzan is a reporter for a Pro-Life organization? It didn’t seem like it at all to me since the way she asked the question was to try to get the Pope to say he had a different opinion than that of the Church. She was basically saying, “We all know what the Church teaches, but what do you think?” which was an obvious attempt to get him to say that he disagreed with Church teaching. It was an attempt to divide the Pope from the Church. But he refused again to do that for her. You said that what I’m saying is “completely untrue”, but I don’t know how anyone can deny that she was doing this when it is so clear for anyone who reads the transcript. And it is true that everyone already knows what the Church’s position is on homosexuality and abortion otherwise those who are for it wouldn’t be protesting against the Church for rejecting abortion and so-called “same-sex marriage”.

 

[vames]

Are you saying that Patricia Zorzan is a reporter for a Pro-Life organization?

No. I’m saying that she, as a Brazilian reporter, knew very well that this is a topic of high interest in her country. Missing an occasion to ask questions about a topic of high interest or being content only with vague answers from an interviewee equal BAD JOURNALISM anywhere in the world.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

That might be true of child abuse outside of the Church but not with the scandal that happened in the Church. With the scandal in the Catholic Church, although less than 2% of priests have been accused, over 80% of the ones who were accused were the ones who admitted to being homosexual. Here are some links on the subject…

That is a very misleading statement. Nowhere in the study is it mentioned that priests were interviewed regarding their sexual orientation. It was erroneously assumed by someone who thinks that sexuality is as black and white as heterosexual vs homosexual and that the gender of the victim is the be all end all of the sexual orientation of the predator. If such interviews and evaluations were actually conducted with the offending priests I am 100% certain that the outcome would have been very different.

 

[livingwordunity]

EmperorNapoleon,

Firstly, I suggest we start by you telling me exactly what I said that isn’t the truth. And then prove what you say by giving more than your personal opinion.

LWU

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Firstly, I suggest we start by you telling me exactly what I said that isn’t the truth. And then prove what you say by giving more than your personal opinion.

No opinion in my post and I think I said exactly what you misspoke about.

 

[livingwordunity]

That might be true of child abuse outside of the Church but not with the scandal that happened in the Church. With the scandal in the Catholic Church, although less than 2% of priests have been accused, over 80% of the ones who were accused were the ones who admitted to being homosexual. Here are some links on the subject:

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: Office of Child & Youth Protection

Priest Files in Los Angeles Made Public

The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States

Sexual Abuse in Social Context: Clergy and Other Professionals

Q&A: Understanding the Priest Scandal

A Crisis of Saints

Over 600 Diocesan Clerics Accused In 2004 Of Sex Abuse Of Minors, Most No Longer In Ministry, Incidents From Decades Ago, Survey Finds

No opinion in my post and I think I said exactly what you misspoke about.

I provided links to credible studies for what I said. With no links or references, I can only regard what you said as an opinion of an anonymous online blogger that contradicts these credible and well-researched studies.

 

[kmcarl56]

How can you say that SSA (Homosexuality) is not immoral? If you are reading the same Bible that I am, it clearly states that a man should not lay with (have sex with) another man, nor should a woman lay with (have sex) another woman. It also states that sodomy is unnatural and sinful.

We, as Christians, are not to judge people with these tendencies, nor condemn them. However, as Christians we are obligated to love them enough to talk to them about God’s laws regarding such matters. We have the responsibility to help them see the errors of their ways, and help them repent and be forgiven in the eyes of the Lord.

Morality is based on what the Bible teaches, not the other way around. Social morality is based on all 400+ commandments in the Bible. Thousands of laws all break down to the basics of these commandments.

If you are a Christian, you have a responsibility to teach those who do not believe.

 

[bzkoss236]

How can you say that SSA (Homosexuality) is not immoral? If you are reading the same Bible that I am, it clearly states that a man should not lay with (have sex with) another man, nor should a woman lay with (have sex) another woman. It also states that sodomy is unnatural and sinful.

We, as Christians, are not to judge people with these tendencies, nor condemn them. However, as Christians we are obligated to love them enough to talk to them about God’s laws regarding such matters. We have the responsibility to help them see the errors of their ways, and help them repent and be forgiven in the eyes of the Lord.

Morality is based on what the Bible teaches, not the other way around. Social morality is based on all 400+ commandments in the Bible. Thousands of laws all break down to the basics of these commandments.

If you are a Christian, you have a responsibility to teach those who do not believe.

You are confusing terms. SSA is just the attraction to the same sex, not the acts. Homosexual acts are indeed sinful, but just merely having an attraction to the same sex is not sinful in itself, but is a temptation.

Also, morality is based on what God sees as good vs not good (evil). The Bible mentions somethings, but not all.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I provided links to credible studies for what I said. With no links or references, I can only regard what you said as an opinion of an anonymous online blogger that contradicts these credible and well-researched studies.

Have of those links are broken and none of the ones which work state that 80% of the priests who committed sexual abuse were evaluated to ascertain their sexual orientation. Your allegation remains unsubstantiated.

 

[Mike_tn]

The news interview had the appearance that the new pope softened his predecessors pointed stance on the matter of homosexuals being knowingly admitted to seminary/holy orders in the future. Other matters of faith and morals did not seem in jeopardy. But I suppose it follows that this one motion against his predecessors proclamations could eventually become a softening by the new pope on the matter of homosexuality in general. Saying “My position is that of the Church” instead of saying homosexuality is a significant potential impediment to serving as a priest creates at least, ambiguity and confusion.

I see many Catholics pretending what the pope said, or at least the pope’s tone, in the recent news interview did not actually happen.