Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pepipop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pope Francis cannot condemn the sin of homosexual acts to a higher degree than other sins of a sexual nature; fornication and adultery. They, too, are an abomination !
 
When taken in the full context, he’s exactly right. We don’t want to marginalize people with homosexual attraction. We don’t want to push them away because then they are captured by the enemy. We want to embrace them with the love of Christ. And while we cannot and should not condone their actions, we should not and must not make them feel like they are not children of God.

And that includes allowing them to be priests and serve in leadership capacities in the church. Having a homosexual attraction is no different than having a heterosexual attraction when one is called to be celibate.

Let’s get this clear: Homosexual attraction has nothing to do with child sexual abuse. Nothing at all.

Francis affirmed the Church’s teaching on homosexual acts but called for greater forgiveness for people who stumble and fall. What’s wrong with that? He’s quite right to note that St. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and the earthly Church even after denying he ever knew Christ. I daresay that’s a pretty big sin.
 
The_Bucket said:
When taken in the full context, he’s exactly right. We don’t want to marginalize people with homosexual attraction. We don’t want to push them away because then they are captured by the enemy. We want to embrace them with the love of Christ. And while we cannot and should not condone their actions, we should not and must not make them feel like they are not children of God.

And that includes allowing them to be priests and serve in leadership capacities in the church. Having a homosexual attraction is no different than having a heterosexual attraction when one is called to be celibate.

Let’s get this clear: Homosexual attraction has nothing to do with child sexual abuse. Nothing at all.

Francis affirmed the Church’s teaching on homosexual acts but called for greater forgiveness for people who stumble and fall. What’s wrong with that? He’s quite right to note that St. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and the earthly Church even after denying he ever knew Christ. I daresay that’s a pretty big sin.
Click to expand...
👍
 
He didn’t say it wasn’t wrong, he said it wasn’t his place to judge him. You can think something’s wrong, and not be a complete you-know-what about it.
 
The_Bucket said:
When taken in the full context, he’s exactly right. We don’t want to marginalize people with homosexual attraction. We don’t want to push them away because then they are captured by the enemy. We want to embrace them with the love of Christ. And while we cannot and should not condone their actions, we should not and must not make them feel like they are not children of God.

And that includes allowing them to be priests and serve in leadership capacities in the church. Having a homosexual attraction is no different than having a heterosexual attraction when one is called to be celibate.

Let’s get this clear: Homosexual attraction has nothing to do with child sexual abuse. Nothing at all.

Francis affirmed the Church’s teaching on homosexual acts but called for greater forgiveness for people who stumble and fall. What’s wrong with that? He’s quite right to note that St. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and the earthly Church even after denying he ever knew Christ. I daresay that’s a pretty big sin.
Click to expand...
I wan’t suggesting they were necessarily causally related, but a lot of the articles I’ve read, including CatholicEducation.org, said this was a factor.
 
Pope Francis: you are the bomb!

:extrahappy: :bowdown2: :extrahappy:

Thank you for affirming the dignity of all men, regardless of the temptations they struggle with. It is certainly true that being a gay priest poses a special set of challenges, but it is possible to carry that cross without abusing anyone.

There are tens of thousands of priests around the world today, who feel that the Church once again loves them, once again understands them, once again is willing to give them space to live in the light of Christ’s love. I’m not saying that the Church ever stopped loving priests who struggle with same-sex attraction. But Her ministers didn’t communicate that love bluntly and clearly, and so they allowed gay priests to feel like they needed to hide from their bishops, hide from their fellow priests.

This hiding watered the soil of their sin, and we can see the ugly fruits today. But blessed be God for all those gay priests who have not succumbed to temptation! Their Papa just told them that they are good and faithful servants, and showered his love upon them.
 
I don’t think anyone here is conflating it, but I think there are people in the hierarchy who have done so. Most people who abuse children are heterosexual for the simple statistical reason that most people are heterosexual. Child abuse is not about sex, just like rape is not really about sex. It’s about dominance. It’s about believing one is outside the rules of the universe. It’s about wanting what one wants whenever he wants it.

Plain and simply, it’s about indulging in evil.

Homosexual attraction is not evil by itself. Committing such acts are sinful but no more sinful than heterosexual fornication. I’m not downplaying it; I’m saying that sexual abuse is doubly worse because it’s not only sexually immoral it’s also violence towards another person. There are innocent victims at play there.

Basically I think that the “gay lobby” grew so influential that folks started conflating the issue of abuse and that lobby… and so B16 wanted to just stamp all immorality out. And hey, I’m all for that! But people can commit sins and be redeemed. Even priests can be redeemed if they step outside their vows and be given back responsibility.

That’s what Francis was saying. There’s a difference between sins of a more personal nature and crimes like sexual abuse. In the case of the former, we can forgive and forget. In the latter? Forgiveness by God but we can never forget.
 
KrazyKat said:
Pope Francis cannot condemn the sin of homosexual acts to a higher degree than other sins of a sexual nature; fornication and adultery. They, too, are an abomination !
Click to expand...
Sure he could. St Thomas explains it well.
 
The_Bucket said:
When taken in the full context, he’s exactly right. We don’t want to marginalize people with homosexual attraction. We don’t want to push them away because then they are captured by the enemy. We want to embrace them with the love of Christ. And while we cannot and should not condone their actions, we should not and must not make them feel like they are not children of God.

And that includes allowing them to be priests and serve in leadership capacities in the church. Having a homosexual attraction is no different than having a heterosexual attraction when one is called to be celibate.

Let’s get this clear: Homosexual attraction has nothing to do with child sexual abuse. Nothing at all.

Francis affirmed the Church’s teaching on homosexual acts but called for greater forgiveness for people who stumble and fall. What’s wrong with that? He’s quite right to note that St. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom and the earthly Church even after denying he ever knew Christ. I daresay that’s a pretty big sin.
Click to expand...
One inclination is correctly ordered and one is disordered. To put them on the same moral plane is very wrong.
 
Sarabande said:
Here is another story on this by The Washington Post, which is longer and a little more detailed.

news.yahoo.com/pope-says-wont-judge-gay-priests-111041448.html

Interesting how the headlines differ. This one says “Pope says he won’t judge gay priests,” whereas the other one says, “Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?” What I think is fair, though, is that both articles immediately placed his quote, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” which clarifies the Pope’s meaning. If they wanted to really twist things around, they would have placed that quote in the middle of the article, which most people tend not to read.
Click to expand...
I heard the same thing on CBS news this morning and nearly fell on the floor when they said our Pope said he wont Judge Gay Priests"
Which is why I am on line here at Catholic Answers,I need answers and understanding. For me I do not trust the content of the above comment ., but I did hear it with my own two ears.

I look forward to be better understanding of what he means.
 
The_Bucket said:
And that includes allowing them to be priests and serve in leadership capacities in the church. Having a homosexual attraction is no different than having a heterosexual attraction when one is called to be celibate…
Click to expand...
It does when one is considering the priesthood.

The priesthood, at it’s nature’ is sacrificial. It involves sacrifice.

When a heterosexual priest gives up the Natural Good of marriage for the sake of the priesthood, that is a sacrifice. Something Good is given up to in exchange for a life of service to others.

In the case of a homosexual priest, there is no Natural Good given up in choosing to be celibate, there is not the level of sacrifice that is entailed with the heterosexual priest.

There really IS a difference in celibacy in a heterosexual priest and a homosexual one. One gives up a Natural Good in order to serve, the other is doing what they are called to do anyway.
 
fix said:
One inclination is correctly ordered and one is disordered. To put them on the same moral plane is very wrong.
Click to expand...
A disorder has nothing to do with morality in a vacuum. That’s what I’m talking about here. We can act properly or improperly on our inclinations. I daresay there are far more people acting immorally on heterosexual inclinations than there are acting immorally on homosexual inclinations… simply because more people are heterosexual.

That’s my point. Homo or heterosexual attraction is irrelevant when it comes to someone who takes vows of celibacy or otherwise lives according to the doctrine of the Church and the will of God. There is no moral distinction between an unmarried layperson who refrains from sexual activity regardless of whether he or she is inclined to attraction towards the same or opposite sex. Both are living good, holy, upright and Christian lives.
 
So sorry for posting this in that it was already posted in the Catholic News forum.
 
markomalley said:
Before your side breaks out the champagne and before my side gets our knickers too much in a bunch, why don’t we wait until an actual transcript comes out.
Click to expand...
The left wing must accept the pope is Catholic. The truth of the moral teachings will never change. Never.

We cannot make off the cuff remarks into Church teaching or doctrine.
 
Brendan said:
It does when one is considering the priesthood.

The priesthood, at it’s nature’ is sacrificial. It involves sacrifice.

When a heterosexual priest gives up the Natural Good of marriage for the sake of the priesthood, that is a sacrifice. Something Good is given up to in exchange for a life of service to others.

In the case of a homosexual priest, there is no Natural Good given up in choosing to be celibate, there is not the level of sacrifice that is entailed with the heterosexual priest.

There really IS a difference in celibacy in a heterosexual priest and a homosexual one. One gives up a Natural Good in order to serve, the other is doing what they are called to do anyway.
Click to expand...
That’s ridiculous. We’re all sacrificing to do what we’re called to do. And who is to say that a priest is giving up anything? What makes you think he would find a mate? That’s all speculative.

Living a Christian life is a sacrifice in and of itself. We sacrifice our own wills for God’s will. You can’t sit there and put one priest over another one based on the scenario you put forth.
 
The_Bucket said:
A disorder has nothing to do with morality in a vacuum. That’s what I’m talking about here. We can act properly or improperly on our inclinations. I daresay there are far more people acting immorally on heterosexual inclinations than there are acting immorally on homosexual inclinations… simply because more people are heterosexual.

That’s my point. Homo or heterosexual attraction is irrelevant when it comes to someone who takes vows of celibacy or otherwise lives according to the doctrine of the Church and the will of God. There is no moral distinction between an unmarried layperson who refrains from sexual activity regardless of whether he or she is inclined to attraction towards the same or opposite sex. Both are living good, holy, upright and Christian lives.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of disorders that may disqualify one from the priesthood and many other avenues as well. To make heterosexuality equivalent to a disorder is quite wrong. Not only theologically, but morally.

In an era when so much time and energy is given to normalizing what is deviant it is inexcusable to play this game where heterosexuality is the same as homosexuality.

As Brendan as pointed out giving up a moral good like heterosexual married acts is not the same as avoiding a disordered inclination.
 
The_Bucket said:
That’s ridiculous. We’re all sacrificing to do what we’re called to do. And who is to say that a priest is giving up anything? What makes you think he would find a mate? That’s all speculative.

Living a Christian life is a sacrifice in and of itself. We sacrifice our own wills for God’s will. You can’t sit there and put one priest over another one based on the scenario you put forth.
Click to expand...
You are turning theological truths into a game where everything is interchangeable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top