Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

[Prodigal_Son]

Imagine a married man constantly talking about his attraction to other women. He says he accepts Church teaching and does not give in, but constantly talks about it. He then accuses others of lacking charity for not constantly affirming his denial of temptation. He claims the Church needs to do more to address his disordered desire but does not want anyone to point out it is disordered.

I am glad that you are able to see the speck in my eye so clearly, fix.

 

[The_Bucket]

I will be blunt and use blunt language because I think Francis’ message warrants it.

Christ brought His message to whom? First He went to the Jewish leaders. Most of them rejected Him and His message. A select few listened and fewer still followed. Then He went to the rest of the Jewish people. Some listened, but most ridiculed Him, especially when He asked them to eat His body and drink His blood.

So after He was rejected by His people, he took the message to:

• Traitors. Tax collectors who stole from the Jewish people.
• Actual enemies of Israel in the form of the Samaritans,
• The ritually unclean and the poor. Remember, these people were considered great sinners. After all, if God didn’t bless you with wealth in this life then obviously you did something to deserve that. The notion of the Lord blessing you in the life to come was foreign to most.
• Hookers. Yes, I’ll use the term. Hookers. The lowest of the low. Jesus, God Incarnate, came into the world and preached to and dined with hookers and didn’t speak a word of condemnation towards them. Not one.

If Christ did not speak a word of condemnation towards hookers, traitors and the enemies of God’s Chosen People, why should we speak a word of judgment towards homosexuals? As Francis repeatedly noted, the world is aware that the Church does not approve of homosexual acts. I don’t think the world is aware the the Church teaches that we do not judge them either and the God is always calling everyone, even the worst of the worst, to Himself.

Whether that’s the Church’s fault or the media’s or a combination of both is irrelevant. Francis is doing what he knows will get attention. Positive attention for the Church. The media will distort what it will, but getting positive attention might entice a soul or two who was on the fence to approach someone about joining or rejoining the faith. And at the cost of what? The doctrine will not bend. The people must bend, but the doctrine never will.

I look at it like this. Does God’s teaching ever change? No. Does my sin ever stop being sin? No. But does God ever tire from forgiving my sin? Also, no. He rejoices instead. No matter how many times we act as the prodigal son and demand that we do things OUR WAY and not God’s way… He is always waiting to catch sight of us on the horizon and welcoming us home.

 

[bellasbane]

I will be blunt and use blunt language because I think Francis’ message warrants it.

Christ brought His message to whom? First He went to the Jewish leaders. Most of them rejected Him and His message. A select few listened and fewer still followed. Then He went to the rest of the Jewish people. Some listened, but most ridiculed Him, especially when He asked them to eat His body and drink His blood.

So after He was rejected by His people, he took the message to:

• Traitors. Tax collectors who stole from the Jewish people.
• Actual enemies of Israel in the form of the Samaritans,
• The ritually unclean and the poor. Remember, these people were considered great sinners. After all, if God didn’t bless you with wealth in this life then obviously you did something to deserve that. The notion of the Lord blessing you in the life to come was foreign to most.
• Hookers. Yes, I’ll use the term. Hookers. The lowest of the low. Jesus, God Incarnate, came into the world and preached to and dined with hookers and didn’t speak a word of condemnation towards them. Not one.

If Christ did not speak a word of condemnation towards hookers, traitors and the enemies of God’s Chosen People, why should we speak a word of judgment towards homosexuals? As Francis repeatedly noted, the world is aware that the Church does not approve of homosexual acts. I don’t think the world is aware the the Church teaches that we do not judge them either and the God is always calling everyone, even the worst of the worst, to Himself.

Whether that’s the Church’s fault or the media’s or a combination of both is irrelevant. Francis is doing what he knows will get attention. Positive attention for the Church. The media will distort what it will, but getting positive attention might entice a soul or two who was on the fence to approach someone about joining or rejoining the faith. And at the cost of what? The doctrine will not bend. The people must bend, but the doctrine never will.

I look at it like this. Does God’s teaching ever change? No. Does my sin ever stop being sin? No. But does God ever tire from forgiving my sin? Also, no. He rejoices instead. No matter how many times we act as the prodigal son and demand that we do things OUR WAY and not God’s way… He is always waiting to catch sight of us on the horizon and welcoming us home.

Great post!

 

[BroomWagon]

• Hookers. Yes, I’ll use the term. Hookers. The lowest of the low. Jesus, God Incarnate, came into the world and preached to and dined with hookers and didn’t speak a word of condemnation towards them. Not one.

If Christ did not speak a word of condemnation towards hookers, traitors and the enemies of God’s Chosen People, why should we speak a word of judgment towards homosexuals?

All the same, In John 8:11, Jesus says to “go and sin no more”. This is hardly a statement that lacks any condemnation.

 

[fix]

I am glad that you are able to see the speck in my eye so clearly, fix.

No need to see your eyes one only needs to read posts.

 

[fix]

The Holy Father said he was a loyal son of the Church and he very much is. He agrees with all the Church teaches:

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not…

Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual…

 

[Elizabeth502]

Thanks for posting that, fix. The Holy Father is apparently more clear about the deceptive spin, both outside and inside the Church, than many others are.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The Holy Father said he was a loyal son of the Church and he very much is. He agrees with all the Church teaches:

From the same document:

From this multi-faceted approach there are numerous advantages to be gained, not the least of which is the realization that a homosexual person, as every human being, deeply needs to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously.

The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

Note that the term “homosexual person” is used, and the term “homosexual” is rejected. In keeping with this, Francis refers to “gay person” but does not call anyone “a gay”. Francis is using the word as an adjective, not as a description of a person’s identity.

The document also says:

An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.

That is a very admirable goal!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No need to see your eyes one only needs to read posts.

Matthew 7.

 

[Jeanne1184]

OK, you’re contradicting yourself, since earlier you said, “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.”

Therein lies the crux of the problem. There isn’t anything ‘Naturally Good’ about hetero-sex either - if it’s ‘natural’, it’s of the animal nature. If the Holy Spirit directs one to procreate, the act can be made Holy, I’ve no doubt. But how many ask?

When God made children of Promise, His method was not to go a-humpin’ like animals to accomplish the blessed event. The usual single-mindedness of sex does not include God thoughts (unless one entertains blasphemy, that is).

“I am the owner of my shoulders, the tenant of my hips.” - Malcolm de Chazal

Until the **heterosexual **community at large gains clarity on their own enslavement to sex, they will continue to castigate others. Remove the plank from our own eyes…

Paul didn’t make celibacy a commandment for the obvious reason that to do so would guarantee heightened sexual sin - “Never say ‘No’ to the pharaoh.” He also knew that it requires the aid of the Holy Spirit to get and remain Chaste.

In the Book of Adam and Eve, it states that only Adam was, by God, unburdened completely of the sexual spirit. The rest of us must make use of the Gift of God through Jesus Christ to rise above this obsession - the Holy Spirit. His Grace is sufficient, from my experience.

We hear often that the path to Christ’s Kingdom is narrow and that few will find it, but so few actually believe He really means it.

The Holy Spirit helps immeasurably in our committment to become Chaste (and can’t be done to Christ’s standards without the Holy Spirit because we must Understand). However, the Holy Spirit will not come to Indwell until a person has become convinced of the Holiness of Chastity and the committment to remain so without reservation. To make room for The One, the Other must go - and keep watch at the gates of the flesh thereafter.

There is so much in the NT that we have no hope of Understanding, let alone Experiecing without this first step of Chastity in thought, word and deed. That if we Die to the flesh while still living, we need not fear the second death (the body) where we will be judged under the Law, and where Christ says we will have much to bear when the true content of our hearts are shown to us. If we aren’t willing to face it here, with the Holy Spirit, then we’ll face it alone on the other side.

Gospel of Thomas(84) Jesus said, “When you see your likeness, you rejoice. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!”

1 Peter 4:1-11 ESV

Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same way of thinking, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for human passions but for the will of God. **For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry. With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you; but they will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.

((**And Paul thought the Gentiles were fully run-amok back then…guess we are still headed for the ‘fullness of the Gentiles’ to bring about the End, whatever that may look like - the ‘fullness of sin’; everything hidden in our depraved hearts, revealed. But when we aren’t self-governed by morals (from the outside) or the Holy Spirit (from the inside), we pass laws to make it legal and side-step our conscience - and go merrily along to damnation.))

Galatians 5:24 ESV - And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Romans 12:1 ESV - I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.

“The honest cries of breaking hearts
Are better than a Hallelujah.” (Lyrics, Amy Grant)

I am watching Pope Frances closely as there are several things that make him appear as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Most disturbing is that Islam and the RCC worship the same God. If so, the RCC has been the greatest farce of ‘following Christ’ that has ever been pulled off. Or else he doesn’t speak for all of us. A one-world religion without Christ?

 

[clem456]

All the same, In John 8:11, Jesus says to “go and sin no more”. This is hardly a statement that lacks any condemnation.

A puzzling interpretation…

In context of the actual passage, and the Pope’s statement:

2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap,in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stoneat her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

 

[BroomWagon]

A puzzling interpretation…

In context of the actual passage, and the Pope’s statement:

I don’t appreciate your asserting my interpretation is puzzling. Yes, we know what verse that comes from in the Bible.

Jesus does NOT say “Go now and leave”, he says “Go now and leave your life of sin”, now if you want to say he is condoning the lifestyle, so be it. It certainly is not that. He definitely says not to continue sinning. That in itself is His value judgement.

 

[clem456]

I don’t appreciate your asserting my interpretation is puzzling. Yes, we know what verse that comes from in the Bible.

Jesus does NOT say “Go now and leave”, he says “Go now and leave your life of sin”, now if you want to say he is condoning the lifestyle, so be it. It certainly is not that. He definitely says not to continue sinning. That in itself is His value judgement.

Geez.
It is puzzling because you saw condemnation in the words of Jesus when in fact the sentence begins with “Neither do I condemn you”.
I’m sorry, that is puzzling.

 

[BroomWagon]

A puzzling interpretation…

In context of the actual passage, and the Pope’s statement:

Furthermore, it’s interesting that someone asserts Jesus did not say one word against Tax Collectors, Thieves (if thieves was mentioned, I forget), etc.

But the same probably can not be said for what St. Paul wrote. Hence, we need to take all of the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 6:9

9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,

10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

Hence, using selected parts of the Bible, seems to collapse.

 

[BroomWagon]

Geez.
It is puzzling because you saw condemnation in the words of Jesus when in fact the sentence begins with “Neither do I condemn you”.
I’m sorry, that is puzzling.

It’s puzzling that you ignore the rest of the statement where Jesus says to “go and Sin no more”…

I believe the original wording said Jesus did not say “one word” negative to these people. Hence on this matter, I don’t think the “one word” thesis holds up.

 

[clem456]

It’s puzzling that you ignore the rest of the statement where Jesus says to “go and Sin no more”.

No. Let me help you by reposting the simple reply I made:

A puzzling interpretation…

In context of the actual passage, and the Pope’s statement:

Quote:
2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap,in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stoneat her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

 

[fix]

Thanks for posting that, fix. The Holy Father is apparently more clear about the deceptive spin, both outside and inside the Church, than many others are.

The document is very insightful. It covers most over the controversial issues associated with the topic. It deals with the pastoral issues which are mostly raised in these fora regardless of the circumstances .

 

[BroomWagon]

No. Let me help you by reposting the simple reply I made:

Let me help you, refer to the original post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11045985&postcount=466

Even if I buy your argument which I don’t, I don’t select only what Jesus said from the New Testament but the Bible in whole and the New Testament in whole. It’s pretty difficult to say Paul was not condemning certain lifestyles or practices.

I Corinthians 6

9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,

10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

Hence, this discussion is now academic if one is associating it with Catholicism.

According to the train of thought you seem to be pushing, only if it is “explicitly” laid out in the words “condemn” is it actual condemnation. Jesus said “to sin no more”. That certainly is a judgement and seems to condemn such behavior. This is a semantics game.

Jesus obviously calls some behaviors sinning, that is condemnation in itself.

 

[Tarpeian]

A simple question of charity…

Since no one on this thread is defending homosexual actions, I wonder why people are continually emphasizing how they are exceptionally sinful.

Christ Jesus gives to all of us the power to be sinless, despite any temptations we have. So we don’t need to discuss how severe the SIN is, because there are hundreds of thousands of people in America who have never committed ANY homosexual acts, and yet experience same-sex ATTRACTION.

Why must they be reminded that the sins they do not commit (despite being tempted) are more severe than other sins? Did they choose their temptations?

(Perhaps there is someone else you’re addressing, someone who insists that homosexual actions aren’t seriously sinful because of their object? Or who on this thread is saying that?)

I’m just not feelin’ the love in this thread. :nope:

Hello Prodigal,

When you have the time could you cite me a source or souces for this statement? “There are hundreds of thousands of people in America who have never committed ANY homosexual acts, and yet experience same-sex ATTRACTION.” Have there been studies in this area? I’m interested in reading this data, and how it was collected, and what were the conclusions drawn.

I hope you’re lack of “feelin’ the love” does not deter you from continuing to contribute to the discussion.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[Brendan_64]

"Brendan 64:

Exactly. A person’s sexual orientation is not in itself sinful. There is absolutely no reason why the Church cannot have homosexual priests, to pretend that we don’t already is to be blind to reality. There is no reason whatsoever why a homosexual man cannot be just as good a priest as a heterosexual man.

Each and every one of us has temptations that we struggle to avoid acting on.The Church has spoken on this topic and says differently.

The Church has spoken on this topic and says differently.

So are you saying that the Church has stated that homosexuals cannot be priests?

Or are you saying that the Church has stated that a person’s sexual orientation is in itself sinful? I don’t mean disordered, or something that may lead someone into sin, but in itself sinful.

Show me where the Church has said this?