Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pepipop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature** a slave to the law of sin.
:banghead:**
 
Martin Luther was a long time Catholic too. Doesn’t mean much. I know many new Catholics who understand our teachings better than Malzberg.
 
fix said:
If that is the case he may not be homosexual at all. He simply may have had a passing phase as a youth.
Click to expand...
What if he is in no way attracted to women, but is still attracted to men, However, even though he still has those inclinations, but does not act on them, does not flaunt or express this tendency to others, and does not support “gay culture”? He would still be homosexual, and be able to be admitted into the priesthood in line with the Church instructions on this.

The instruction is not a clear-cut, blanket ban on homosexuals becoming priests.
 
57thDimension said:
From adolescents in the U.S.

Overall, 8.7% of the full sample reported a same-sex romantic attraction in the first and/or second in-home survey, 7.8% for female adolescents and 9.5% for males (gender difference significant with N = p 18,841). The attraction rates we observe are comparable to those reported for adults by Laumann et al. (1994, p. 297). Overall, 3.1% of the full sample report a same-sex romantic relationship, 3.4% for females and 2.9% for males. Far fewer (1.5%) of all respondents report same-sex sexual behavior (defined as touching under clothes, having intercourse, touching genitals, or reporting a sexual relationship): 1.4% for females and 1.6% for males.

Bearman, Peter S., and Hannah Brückner. “Opposite‐Sex Twins and Adolescent Same‐Sex Attraction.” American Journal of Sociology 107.5 (2002): 1179-1205.

From the general population in Australia:

And, according to: Smith, Anthony, et al. “Sex in Australia: sexual identity, sexual attraction and sexual experience among a representative sample of adults.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 27.2 (2003): 138-145, there are more people who have same-sex sexual experience than there are people who report same-sex attraction.

+Sebastian
Click to expand...
Thank you,

Do you have a link so I can read the article?

Pax,
Tarpeian
 
Brendan_64 said:
What if he is in no way attracted to women, but is still attracted to me, However, even though he still has those inclinations, but does not act on them, does not flaunt or express this tendency to others, and does not support “gay culture”? He would still be homosexual, and be able to be admitted into the priesthood in line with the Church instructions on this.

The instruction is not a clear-cut, blanket ban on homosexuals becoming priests.
Click to expand...
It would cut out most of the problems. It all depends on how the diocese implements the policy. But, why look for exceptions? The thrust of the document is very clear. I doubt the Pope expects the bishops to act like lawyers and find every possible loophole or possibility. The point is to take care of all involved not to fulfill some agenda or be perceived as politically correct. The call to the priesthood is not a right. Attraction to other men is a big red flag.
 
Glad2behome said:
Hello everyone 🙂

I know this topic has been discussed before, but I think I found a new and interesting video on the Holy Father’s comments on homosexuals.

youtube.com/watch?v=aMRY50gCHKw

If you don’t fell like watching the video, Mr. Malzberg seems that have a hard time understanding the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality and homosexual acts. In my opinion, this shows how many “conservatives” outside the Catholic Church don’t seem to understand the Church’s teaching on this. They can’t seem to understand one can have homosexual thoughts and feelings, but not act on them. 🤷 I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that? The same rules apply to sexual sin for everyone…

This fundamental understanding of The Church’s teaching comes from the (conservative) Protestant mindset. They pick and choose what they like about current truths, then claim they are orthodox. One example is a “conservative” Protestant ranting and raving about the evil of same-sex “marriage” then going up to fornicate with their spouse(and you should see the look on their face when I tell them it is possible to do so.)

Mr. Malzberg is claims to be a “long time catholic” and I have to say if he does understand the Church’s teaching on sexuality, then either received really bad Catechism or he is willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...
I was not impressed with either side of that discussion.
 
fix said:
The point is to take care of all involved not to fulfill some agenda or be perceived as politically correct. The call to the priesthood is not a right.
Click to expand...
I agree that the point is to take care of all involved, but I don’t believe that it is about being perceived as being ‘politically correct’. It is about treating an individual who is committing to live in chastity, and hence bot sinning in this regard, fairly and decently. The term ‘politically correct’ is too often thrown into the argument in order to try to discredit an opposing position without justification.
 
fix said:
Why not compare disorders and deviations? I hope you are not comparing heterosexuality with homosexuality. As to the 70s and 80s a huge homosexual problem in the seminaries has been reported and is now common knowledge.
Click to expand...
Look, in light of the “gay lobby” rumors, I totally get why someone with “deep seated” homosexual tendencies needs to be well-vetted. But it’s pretty clear that yes, you are conflating the two. That’s just wrong. And if you don’t believe me, I suggest you take a course in human sexuality. Or heck, just go to something like VIRTUS and see just how wrong you are. Most child abusers are heterosexual; namely because most people in general are heterosexual. Unless of course what our dioceses are telling us are wrong.

The “gay lobby” is a problem as Francis said. It is a totally separate issue from the child sexual abuse scandal.
 
originally posted by** Gladtobehome**
Click to expand...
Mr. Malzberg is claims to be a “long time catholic” and I have to say if he does understand the Church’s teaching on sexuality, then either received really bad Catechism or he is willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...
Look who has on “Bill Donohue” so at least he has invited someone on his show who knows his faith.

He may not know all the doctrine of his faith and even as a child not have heard much - bad catechesis Not uncommon. This is a radio show and he has to keep people interested. He may be playing a bid of a devil’s advocate.

It works as the truth gets out without seeming overbearing.

Looking for his debate with Jessie Ventura on this but can’t find it.
 
fix said:
I Can you imagine saying that a pedophile is not sinning by not acting on his inclination? Ok, so that person may be in a state of grace but is that the only factor we need to be concerned about? No, because the inclination evokes concern.
Click to expand...
See that’s where the clear-cut problem is… what makes the homosexual inclination more dangerous than the heterosexual one outside of the propensity for religious people who have homosexual tendencies to hide them? The problem is their living in the dark as opposed to living in the light.

Pope Francis was clear on the issue of “crimes” and we know exactly what crimes to which he is referring.

Aside from the issue of being in the seminary and surrounded by a bunch of other men, what makes a priest with homosexual inclinations less able to serve a flock than one who is heterosexual? Why is the homosexual man perceived as more likely to fall?

Pedophiles are potential predators and could lead to a situation where more are victimized. There are no “victims” in a case where a homosexual priest has sex with another man. Or when a heterosexual one has sex with a woman. There is sin and scandal to be sure, but no victims.

Again, outside of the issue of prudence due to the seminary being a “bubble” in which sin could flourish, much like college for your average guy quite honestly, what’s the problem?
 
eamonnroma said:
Even heterosexual ‘behaviour’ is not ok outside of marriage. Homosexual behaviour is not ok outside of marriage (which there cannot be). So where is the problem? Gay or hetero the important thing is chastity.
Click to expand...
True, but until the psychiatrists association caved in to political correctness, homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness. It’s not just a matter of sexual attraction, it is a condition that carries other baggage with it as well.
 
Brendan_64 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thre are a number of problems that often come with the territory of homosexuality. Pope Benedict pointed out some of this, including the ability to “father” a parish.

Catholic psychologists (I’m thinking in particular of the one who has often been a guest on Johnette Benkovic’s show, his name has slipped my mind) have pointed out many of the
psychological factors that influence the development of homosexuality, and have also spoken about some of the personality difficulties involved…it’s not just same-sex attraction and no other problems.

The Church, in her wisdom, has seen fit to state that those with SSA do not have a vocation to the priesthood. It is the Church who ultimately decides whether anyone, even heterosexuals, actually have an authentic calling.

This does not mean that people with SSA cannot be holy, cannot be great saints, cannot use their difficulties as opportunities to grow in sanctity, just like all who struggle with one problem or another. The goal is sainthood, not a particular office in the Church.
 
The_Bucket said:
People are capable of not acting on their impulses. Many heterosexual priests do not act on their attraction to women, why should it be that those with homosexual inclinations are automatically going to act on theirs? Fair enough that someone with a long history of being actively homosexual should be given great scrutiny, but what about someone who says “I’ve had homosexual attraction since puberty but I have not acted on those desires.” Just because his homosexual tendencies are deeply rooted he should be disqualified? Nonsense.
Click to expand...
Yes, he should be disqualified
. It’s not just a problem of deep-seated attraction. There are other psychological difficulties involved.
 
opus101 said:
Yes, he should be disqualified
. It’s not just a problem of deep-seated attraction. There are other psychological difficulties involved.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Sorry, I just can’t back someone up who thinks that the APA bent to “political pressure” in ceasing characterizing homosexuality as a mental illness. Could it be that it’s, you know, not a mental illness?

I’m not saying that homosexual acts are OK. I’m not even saying that everyone who claims to have been “born gay” is actually telling the truth. It’s more likely that some are, some are not but their environment twisted them and some where it’s a combination of both. But your contentions and a small portion of Church discipline seems to be predicated on a false understanding of human sexuality.

I say discipline, not doctrine. I’m free to believe that this discipline is faulty and should be changed to a certain degree.
 
BroomWagon said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
The passage from which you picked “go and sin no more” is a good one to use to flesh out the Pope’s comments. The passage highlights the call to move beyond judgementalism and condemnation, as the Pope expressed with “who am I to judge?”

Christianity is relational. Some of the recent Sunday readings point out that. Jesus Christ, A fully divine and fully human person, fulfills the law. Jesus emphasizes in these readings that relationships are the heart of Christian life. Union with God is a relationship, not just a dogma. This is reflected perfectly in the Trinity, Father Son and Holy Spirit. Divine Persons.
Lk 10
What must I do to inherit…?
Click to expand...
What is written?..
But who is my neighbor?
Jesus proceeds to flesh out the law in terms of loving care of an injured man.
and
Lk 11
Lord, how should we pray?
Our Father…
Click to expand...
then,
suppose one of you has a friend…
ask…knock…seek…
What father among you would hand his son…?
Click to expand...
Jesus turns the how to into a who.

In John 8, Jesus teaches us not to condemn one another, because he does not condemn us. In fact he appeals to the fallen humanity of each of us in his call for us to be merciful:
Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.
Click to expand...
In order for us to live in right relationship with one another, in Jesus Christ, it is necessary to know who we are. If we know who we are in the eyes of God, mercy and forgiveness can enter into our relationships. Who are we? This is what Christ asks us here. The answer is we are all sinners in need of forgiveness to an infinite degree, because God is infinitely good, and we are creatures. Nobody escapes this question, no matter how big the stone in our hands. It is asked of everybody.

It is interesting that Christ does not wave his hand and immediately dismiss the woman’s sin out of his infinite mercy, but he first appeals to the community to find common ground with this woman, precisely in their own sin. He lets them know they are all dead in the eyes of the law, but alive in the person of Christ, alive in his forgiveness along with this woman they want to condemn. Christ does not come to condemn, but rather to forgive and save. He expects the community to act this way. The Pope expresses this well with “Who am I to judge?” The Pope could be saying “I am a human being, I know who I am. Gay people are also persons, we can come to know Christ together, and turn away from sin.” He does not nit-pick degrees of sin, because he knows who he is, and who God is, and who is brothers and sisters are.
“Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
Click to expand...
11“No one, sir,” she said.
Click to expand...
“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
Click to expand...
Forgiveness between people, in Jesus Christ, because of Jesus Christ.
Forgiveness that calls a sinner to listen to Christ, whose sacrificial love gives them the strength to go and sin no more, not because he will fry them in hell, but because they want what he offers them.
What are we offering people in this discussion?
 
The_Bucket said:
:rolleyes:

Sorry, I just can’t back someone up who thinks that the APA bent to “political pressure” in ceasing characterizing homosexuality as a mental illness. Could it be that it’s, you know, not a mental illness?

I’m not saying that homosexual acts are OK. I’m not even saying that everyone who claims to have been “born gay” is actually telling the truth. It’s more likely that some are, some are not but their environment twisted them and some where it’s a combination of both. But your contentions and a small portion of Church discipline seems to be predicated on a false understanding of human sexuality.

I say discipline, not doctrine. I’m free to believe that this discipline is faulty and should be changed to a certain degree.
Click to expand...
For starters, there is still scientific evidence that narcissism is a strong trait among homosexuals:ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20063233
 
opus101 said:
True, but until the psychiatrists association caved in to political correctness, homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness. It’s not just a matter of sexual attraction, it is a condition that carries other baggage with it as well.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the scientific community “caved” to the idea that germs spread disease as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top