Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

[opus101]

The mainstream media and the many others who have the same “gay” lobby agenda only hear what they want to hear. They ignored this Pope’s encyclical but are trying to take an off the cuff remark, twist it out of context, and make something out of it. There is no one as blind as those who chose not to see.

 

[BroomWagon]

To be fair though, NBC, Fox and CNN all have Clergy as guests on their shows discussing this.

To be fair also, what the Holy Father said is simply “newsworthy” and per the environment the West is in right now, it’s not surprising he may have made a comment on this.

I do wonder how he formed his conscience on what he said, has he been following the news out of UK and the USA and know this is a hot topic?? Or was he advised on it? I think it is a good thing he spoke out.

 

[BroomWagon]

Can you show any stories where the media is misinterpreting the Pontiff’s words??

I think it’s as simple as that what he said was newsworthy.

 

[vames]

IMO, the main problem here is that there is no common definition of terms.
I’m sorry if I missed the following information, but I just joined this thread and it is WAY TOO LONG to search in it for this info…

1.Were the questons asked in English? If not, what is the Spanish or Portuguese word for “gay”?

1. Does the 70sometihng year old Pope know that, in many cultures (including our own) the term “gay” means a practicing homosexual, not someone who just has same-sex attraction?

1. Questions were asked in Italian, Spanish and probably Portuguese and the Pope responded in Italian. “Lobby gay” has the same meaning as “gay lobby” in all Romance languages. “Gay” in all Romance languages has the same meaning as in English.
2. The Pope actually used the term “gay”, it was not the media falsely attributing him words and statements.
   And he used the term “gay” not because he’s a clueless old man who has no idea what he’s talking about, but:

1. because he was interested in drawing the distinction between having gay tendencies or being gay, on one hand, and lobbying for gay causes, on the other hand. This was the focus of the conversation. The question was about the gay lobby at the Vatican, not about the difference between same-sex attraction and practicing homosexuality.
2. because he was interested in educating Catholics that, if repented, gay people have the same access to divine forgiveness like any other sinner and that gay people shouldn’t be marginalized - rather, they should be integrated into society.

 

[opus101]

Somehow I just prefer the clarity of Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill asianews.it/news-en/Patriarch-Kirill-against-gay-marriage-and-the-dictatorship-of-free-will:-Signs-of-the-Apocalypse-28530.html on the subject.

Wow. He’s got a real point here…and I think he’s right about it bringing about the self-destruction of nations. I hope, in our case, that it will just be the self-destruction of the sin and it’s attendant culture…

Everything about it spells D-E-A-T-H. Death of the soul, bodily death from AIDS, death to innumerable unborn human beings through the invitro fertilization process, death to the psychological health of children “owned” by same sex couples, death to the innocence of all children exposed to this abomination.

No doubt, it will all end badly. Hopefully our nation will not go under with it. Abraham’s prayer must be our own. “For the sake of the just, do not destroy us…”

 

[altms]

Anyone who knows his bible and catchecism very well will understand what Pope Francis said without needing further clarification.

However, it’s caused wide-ranged confusion, thanks to our beloved secular media, and also because of people who get hysterical at headlines and don’t wanna do their research.

This morning we’ve had people phoning in on radio programs complaining that the Pope has embraced homosexuality. Our local media has also copy-pasted whatever the international media reported.

Several comments on facebook as well from people being ‘disgusted’ by the Pope and ‘ashamed’ to be Catholics.

Funny enough, we’ve had some gay-friendly famous people on twitter feeling that Christmas came early. Richard Branson, an atheist if I’m not mistaken, quoted the Pope’s statement and added, “finally a Pope that is brave to talk sense.”

Maybe we need Pope Benedict back to tell things as they are.

 

[BroomWagon]

It would have been interesting to have a poll on this issue, just from what the Pope said. I see it as a positive. To me, it invites people to the Church to see the point of view of the Church as Jesus wants all to belong to His Sacred Body.

Along the way, those interested will have to understand exactly what the position of the Church is on this.

 

[BroomWagon]

Let’s remember, all sides can misinterpret what was said.

 

[MaryT777]

To be fair though, NBC, Fox and CNN all have Clergy as guests on their shows discussing this.

To be fair also, what the Holy Father said is simply “newsworthy” and per the environment the West is in right now, it’s not surprising he may have made a comment on this.

I do wonder how he formed his conscience on what he said, has he been following the news out of UK and the USA and know this is a hot topic?? Or was he advised on it? I think it is a good thing he spoke out.

Well said.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Can you show any stories where the media is misinterpreting the Pontiff’s words??

I think it’s as simple as that what he said was newsworthy.

Take a look at the linked articles by the National Catholic Register writer to NYT, LAT, WSJ, and WaPo headlines.

ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/pope-approved-gay-marriage-or-something?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2013-07-30%2002:58:01
,

 

[opus101]

1. Questions were asked in Italian, Spanish and probably Portuguese and the Pope responded in Italian. “Lobby gay” has the same meaning as “gay lobby” in all Romance languages. “Gay” in all Romance languages has the same meaning as in English.
2. The Pope actually used the term “gay”, it was not the media falsely attributing him words and statements.
   And he used the term “gay” not because he’s a clueless old man who has no idea what he’s talking about, but:

1. because he was interested in drawing the distinction between having gay tendencies or being gay, on one hand, and lobbying for gay causes, on the other hand. This was the focus of the conversation. The question was about the gay lobby at the Vatican, not about the difference between same-sex attraction and practicing homosexuality.
2. because he was interested in educating Catholics that, if repented, gay people have the same access to divine forgiveness like any other sinner and that gay people shouldn’t be marginalized - rather, they should be integrated into society.

This only attempts to show what the Pope actually meant, not the media slant on it and the resultant misunderstandings.

To be sure, there is a difference in how the Pope used the word “gay” and the way that it is understood by the general public.

He said “When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between them being gay and being part of a lobby…”. But…in modern parlance “being gay” and having “same-sex atrraction” but not acting on it are two completely different things. My take on his words would be this rough translation: “When I meet a person with same-sex attraction, I have to distinguish between his orientation and being part of a gay lobby”.

His next staement supports the above interpretation: “The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…”. In other words, it’s not the tendency, but the lifestyle and support of the lifestyle that is the problem.

Well catechized Catholics will understand what he meant. Unfortunately, just about NO ONE ELSE will.

 

[fix]

And the inclination to scoop up a girl I’ve never met from a dance floor and make passionate love to her ISN’T disordered? I know that inclination, from the inside, and I can assure you it is disordered.

Lust is disordered not opposite sex attraction. The attraction to the same sex is always ordered incorrectly.

All sinful inclinations are disordered.

Heterosexual attraction is not objectively disordered.

Some of them are objectively disordered, because of the nature of the object of the desire. I agree that my inclination toward the girl in the above situation is not objectively disordered, since the object (heterosexual sex) is sometimes a proper end.

Ok

But by calling the desire for gay sex objectively disordered, the Church does not mean that it is JUST SO AWFUL AND TERRIBLE THAT IT CAN’T BE TALKED ABOUT.

She is not saying it is to be promoted as normal nor talked about and draw attention to it as it is done today. In fact, She has said the opposite.

Paul talked about it, and didn’t usually single it out as worse than other sexual sins, except to say that it was “against nature” – which is to say, objectively disordered. When we talk about it, we should usually be either urging others to avoid it, or seeking help in avoiding it ourselves.

It should be like other sins, in the confessional not constantly trotted out as it is today which is quite wrong.

 

[McCall1981]

This only attempts to show what the Pope actually meant, not the media slant on it and the resultant misunderstandings.

To be sure, there is a difference in how the Pope used the word “gay” and the way that it is understood by the general public.

He said “When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between them being gay and being part of a lobby…”. But…in modern parlance “being gay” and having “same-sex atrraction” but not acting on it are two completely different things. My take on his words would be this rough translation: “When I meet a person with same-sex attraction, I have to distinguish between his orientation and being part of a gay lobby”.

His next staement supports the above interpretation: “The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…”. In other words, it’s not the tendency, but the lifestyle and support of the lifestyle that is the problem.

Well catechized Catholics will understand what he meant. Unfortunately, just about NO ONE ELSE will.

This is true, but my question is, why do statements like this keep happening, that are so very open to misunderstanding and misinterpretation? Why not just speak clearly? I can understand this kind of thing happening once in a while, no one speaks perfectly all the time, but why is this happening so often now?

 

[fix]

I love the simplicity of it all. Do not judge. Turn the other cheek. Love one another. Treat others the way we want to be treated. Jesus had a simple message of love and respect. When we shackle ourselves to the writings and proclamations made by humans who are just as stained with bigotry and sin as the rest of us, we lose sight of the message of the Gospels where Jesus talked to us direclty, where he showed us the path to salvation. Jesus came up with the rule book and expects us to follow it. Any other rule book that we come up with is a feeble flawed human attempt to morph Jesus’ message into our own preconcieved notions of sin and justice.

Example. Thou shall not kill covers unborn children, criminals, enemy combatants, the terminally ill, etc. Yet we humans have made exceptions to this rule because we are weak and unwillingly to correct the causes of murder. We complain that it’s too expensive, too hard. Instead we write up exceptions to the rules and pretend God told us it was okay.

Same with homosexuality. We are hiding behind man made “catholic” rules like frightened children, scared to come out from behind our comfortable walls of bigorty and hatred.

Our real rules are simple. Do not judge others (example: homosexuals) Love one another (example:love Trayvon Martin AND George Zimmerman). Treat others as we want to be treated (example: dont deny rights like marriage that you wouldn’t want denied to you). Turn the other cheek (example: don’t shoot the thief. His sorry life is so much more important to God that your laptop and jewelry).

Thanks for the moral relativism commercial.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Video of Cardinal Dolan being interviewed at following link

Cardinal Dolan on pope’s gay remarks: We can judge actions, not people

Pope Francis’ comments about gays may have signaled a change in tone within the Catholic Church, but they did not reflect a break in church policy, a leading American Catholic cleric said Tuesday.

The church teaches to treat everyone — including gays — with dignity, even if they do not approve of the relationships they have, said Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“What the pope is saying is, don’t forget there’s another element to God’s teaching, namely that we treat everybody with dignity and respect, that we don’t judge their heart, that we love and respect them,” he told TODAY’s Matt Lauer.

On Monday, Pope Francis surprised church observers with his comments about homosexuality during a news conference.

“If a person is gay, and looks for the Lord and had goodwill, who am I to judge them?” he said.

Dolan said the pontiff’s comments didn’t surprise him, but everyone’s reaction did.

“This is no way could this be interpreted as a change in church doctrine or the church’s faith and morals. It is a change in tone," he said.

“It’s been a pretty clear teaching of the church based on the words of Jesus that we can’t judge people; we can judge actions,” he said.

But he emphasized that those actions — specifically, sexual relationships between gay people — are still considered immoral in the eyes of the Catholic church.

“Homosexual people deserve love respect and dignity, while homosexual acts are immoral,” Dolan said.

“The church’s teaching, which is based on the Bible and God’s revelation, is that sexual love is reserved only between a man and woman in the life-long, life-giving relationship of marriage and any relations outside of that, hetero or homo, would be less than God’s intention," he said. “That hasn’t changed.”

 

[vames]

So “one Vatican official close to the Pope” chides the media, but only “on condition of anonymity”. What was he afraid of? If the media is guilty of such a grave thing as misinterpreting the Pope on such a delicate topic, how come that there’s no official reaction from Vatican beyond this anonymous opinion?

Funny enough, the National Catholic Register story is itself misleading. “A Vatican official chided the mainstream media”, announces the author, but in a 1,500 words long story he offers only 2 short declarations from this unnamed official, who says 1) that the Pope “isn’t changing Church doctrine, but he is making a change of emphasis” (so the official acknowledges that the journalists who chose their headlines about the gay topic had a point); 2) that the Pope didn’t say that homosexual acts are not a sin (but I don’t remember any news story containing such a claim).

 

[BroomWagon]

I love the simplicity of it all. Do not judge. Turn the other cheek. Love one another. Treat others the way we want to be treated. Jesus had a simple message of love and respect. When we shackle ourselves to the writings and proclamations made by humans who are just as stained with bigotry and sin as the rest of us, we lose sight of the message of the Gospels where Jesus talked to us direclty, where he showed us the path to salvation. Jesus came up with the rule book and expects us to follow it. Any other rule book that we come up with is a feeble flawed human attempt to morph Jesus’ message into our own preconcieved notions of sin and justice.

Example. Thou shall not kill covers unborn children, criminals, enemy combatants, the terminally ill, etc. Yet we humans have made exceptions to this rule because we are weak and unwillingly to correct the causes of murder. We complain that it’s too expensive, too hard. Instead we write up exceptions to the rules and pretend God told us it was okay.

Same with homosexuality. We are hiding behind man made “catholic” rules like frightened children, scared to come out from behind our comfortable walls of bigorty and hatred.

Our real rules are simple. Do not judge others (example: homosexuals) Love one another (example:love Trayvon Martin AND George Zimmerman). Treat others as we want to be treated (example: dont deny rights like marriage that you wouldn’t want denied to you). Turn the other cheek (example: don’t shoot the thief. His sorry life is so much more important to God that your laptop and jewelry).

I think you are trying to express a difficult concept and do well. I think I agree with most of this.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

She is not saying it is to be promoted as normal nor talked about and draw attention to it as it is done today. In fact, She has said the opposite.

As for promoting it, you know very well that I am not advocating promoting homosexuality as morally acceptable. I am in support of recognizing that same-sex attraction is a temptation that many people have.

As for drawing attention to the situation of gay people who try to be chaste, clearly the Pope desires to do that. Looking at the lives of holy men and women who deal with temptation (e.g. Henry Nouwen) is a solution, not a problem. So I don’t see the Church discouraging this at all.

 

[EmyLou81]

I’ve had 2 Catholics who have fallen away from the Church tell me today that it’s about time the Church started accepting everyone. It is very frustrating because nothing has changed! The media…

 

[Holly3278]

I am glad that a statement like this was put out. My leftist friend already brought up the news and he had the same misconception that everyone else did so I promised to send him a couple of articles like this clearing up the misconception and I did so.