Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

[clem456]

Exactly. That is why, except for the many avenues provided by or encouraged by the Church for those who suffer this condition, it is good to go outside of ourselves! Let’s think of others and stop focussing on ourselves so much!

I have heard similar comments, and am wondering how groups such as Courage, confessors, spiritual directors, Catholic psychologists, prayer group members and close friends do not let people with SSA talk. If they are guilt of this, it should be pointed out to them.

Well said.
Small scripture studies are an excellent way to support one another. People can grow to trust one another in these environments, and I have found this to be a good way to vent, to get real feedback on life’s problems from other Christian men. It’s amazing how often struggles that are borne together become more manageable. It is good to have friends that we can trust with anything, and frequently you discover that others deal with all the same things, albeit in different forms. We all need this from someone. It’s not something that can be found on the street-corner or at a rally.

 

[simpleas]

So, with individuals and groups with the homosexual inclination, there is the noisy out and proud kind, and there is an emerging thought or sentiment of those with the need to be out, but not proud. If this is correct, why don’t those in the latter group make their position more known to the out and proud group, that they are aligned with the teachings of the Catholic Church? Why are they seemingly focused on battles with Catholics?

As for the bisexuals who happen to be in what they claim as good marriages, with children, who accept their station in life, without intention to live dual lives or cross over to the other side, what is the point of being out, especially to those who do not have need to know and be burdened with their personal struggle? Such individuals clearly have and are already exercising their choice. This seems to feed into the current Oprah and FaceBook mentality that any and all private and intimate thoughts need to be broadcasted. As if there is need to come clean to the public watching television and on the Internet. They are already clean! They do have the option of telling others with whom they are acquainted or friends on need to know basis. What is the motivation beyond this option that is not based on self interest or selfishness?
,

For me personally the only people i have told about my ssa is here on CA. I am a practising catholic, I’ve got as far as my mid 30’s without acting on my desire to be with someone of the same sex, partly because i have been brought up catholic and have had a strong connection with the lord. I can’t say its getting any easier as i get older, to know i may never have a loving relationship with another human, to try and accept this is what my plan from God is, can be difficult. ssa is an emotional experience, not one any catholic would chose to live with if they had the choice between natural marriage, etc. Why some out n proud people need to show it off and stick it in peoples faces is not for me to judge, but I think most would not believe in the one true God or else they would not do this, i could be very wrong about that, but its just an opinion, people like me who remain quiet and try to get on with it, but would like to off load it some time with support from others who care on here can be a help. If that makes me selfish, then so be it.

 

[clem456]

For me personally the only people i have told about my ssa is here on CA. I am a practising catholic, I’ve got as far as my mid 30’s without acting on my desire to be with someone of the same sex, partly because i have been brought up catholic and have had a strong connection with the lord. I can’t say its getting any easier as i get older, to know i may never have a loving relationship with another human, to try and accept this is what my plan from God is, can be difficult. ssa is an emotional experience, not one any catholic would chose to live with if they had the choice between natural marriage, etc. Why some out n proud people need to show it off and stick it in peoples faces is not for me to judge, but I think most would not believe in the one true God or else they would not do this, i could be very wrong about that, but its just an opinion, people like me who remain quiet and try to get on with it, but would like to off load it some time with support from others who care on here can be a help. If that makes me selfish, then so be it.

I have only talked extensively about my struggles with lust to people I have come close to in two bible studies, and on this forum here with people who are likewise struggling.

That being said, it is probably part of my cross to carry, that God is calling me to discuss this at men’s retreats etc…which I have already done on a small scale. There is a time and a place for everything. The question I have to ask is…“Is what I do for the greater glory of God?”

 

[opus101]

I can’t say its getting any easier as i get older, to know i may never have a loving relationship with another human, to try and accept this is what my plan from God is, can be difficult.

Well, I can sympathize with you…I am a single heterosexual. As I grow older, it is actually becoming easier, in a way. I’ve had more time to reflect on the fact that our Lord was in fact single (not that He somehow wouldn’t have been), that the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph had a special kind of marriage, and that many people willingly choose to remain unmarried through single lay life, religious life and even consecrated lay life.

It’s also true that all marriages ultimately come to an end, and one or the other of the spouses is left alone.

Also, Our Lord Himself has told us that, in heaven, people are not married or given in marriage. Perhaps it is His will for us to be signs of the world to come.

Once, a pastor of mine told an amusing joke that I’ve always remembered: He said that someone told him that they felt bad for single people because there wasn’t a special day of the year dedicated to them, (maybe such as wedding anniversaries, Valentine’s Day, Mothers’ Day, Fathers’ Day, special Church recognition for number of years married, etc (even though for some of these one doesn’t have to be married). He responded that single people actually have two special days each year: Independence Day and Thanksgiving!!!

It’s not popular to say this, but even St. Paul recommended this life in a special way.

If you wish, you can count on me to be a friend!

… people like me who remain quiet and try to get on with it, but would like to off load it some time with support from others who care on here can be a help. If that makes me selfish, then so be it.

I don’t think the poster was referring to venues such as this, but was trying to point out that discretion needs to be used when airing things more publicly.

You don’t strike me as a selfish person.

 

[livingwordunity]

I read all of the links and found non of them to be “scary stuff”. Not one of them referred to homosexuals as being “demonic” themselves, although some mentioned the fact that demonic influence was involved (not in the orientation, but in the sinful actions). The first link, which showed the comments of a priest, was really not uncharitable, but certainly it was politically/religiously “incorrect”, and easy to misinterpret. He may have had no uncharitable motive at all.

The second link, with comments by Saint Catherine of Siena, was not uncharitable at all. It simply displayed her comments and the insights of the poster that, ultimately, he felt that it was not the fault of the demons, but of fallen man.

Although the news commentator (connected with the USCCB) may have been overzealous (translation: politically incorrect) in his article, there is nothing to show that his words were not true, and quite possibly, ultimately charitable.

Something that is deemed "uncharitable, “unloving”, or worse yet “hate speech” by lobbyists is often not so, not by a long shot.

Not one of the “scary” posts listed referred to individual persons as being “demonic”.

The motives of these posters has been misjudged.
Who are we to judge their motives ? A spin is being put on the words of others, and their words are being framed to mean something other than they actually do.

 

[The_Bucket]

So, with individuals and groups with the homosexual inclination, there is the noisy out and proud kind, and there is an emerging thought or sentiment of those with the need to be out, but not proud. If this is correct, why don’t those in the latter group make their position more known to the out and proud group, that they are aligned with the teachings of the Catholic Church? Why are they seemingly focused on battles with Catholics?

You will likely not find many people with homosexual inclinations to be aligned with the teachings of the Church. This is not me going on blast against them, it’s simply a fact. Then again, most heterosexual Catholics are also not aligned with the teachings of the Church on matters of sexuality so it’s really neither here nor there.

Those who are aligned with the Church are not fighting Catholics on anything except tone and messaging. Why? Probably because they understand that tone matters. Tone wins souls. It’s not just being “politically correct” or any of that hogwash, it’s an attempt to win souls. You have to meet people where they are to win them over. You’re not going to win anyone over with standoffish behavior, emotionless theological swordplay or direct confrontation.

As for the bisexuals who happen to be in what they claim as good marriages, with children, who accept their station in life, without intention to live dual lives or cross over to the other side, what is the point of being out, especially to those who do not have need to know and be burdened with their personal struggle? Such individuals clearly have and are already exercising their choice. This seems to feed into the current Oprah and FaceBook mentality that any and all private and intimate thoughts need to be broadcasted. As if there is need to come clean to the public watching television and on the Internet. They are already clean! They do have the option of telling others with whom they are acquainted or friends on need to know basis. What is the motivation beyond this option that is not based on self interest or selfishness?
,

See that’s the problem and it goes with what I was just saying above. Tone matters. Tone wins souls. You’re immediately prejudicial. Not about homosexual persons but about people who talk about their brokenness. How is it a burden to you to hear about someone who deals with same-sex attraction? Especially a random person on the Internet.

Private confession was not instituted in order to protect the masses from the burdens of other’s sins, it was to bring more people to the grace of God! Public confession has the tendency to bring the opportunity for shaming. Public confession probably kept people away from God’s grace out of fear. Private confession is a mercy to the penitent, not to the penitent’s community.

We are all in agreement that the best context is for these kinds of discussions are in smaller groups as opposed to randomly going up to people or shouting them in the middle of Mass… but we as a Church need to promote this issue. Does anyone know about Courage? I mean outside of CAF and other highly-active Catholics. Does your rank-and-file layperson know about Courage? Does your average pastor know how to deal with this issue? That’s the point that Pope Francis and others are making here. Meet the people where they are and leave the judgments where they belong. We are sons of the Church as well; certainly not to the level of the Holy Father but where do you see advocacy for a change in the doctrine? No. The Holy Father wants us to stop being squeamish about getting in there and mixing it up. That means ministering to the sick, to the poor, to the homeless, to the destitute and yes, to the grave sinner.

 

[kelvinf]

Respectfully, you don’t know me or my motivation for sharing news articles. Please stop assuming you do. I did not claim that “we do not condemn such attacks.” This is a definite mischaracterization.

I was saying in my own words what you said:

gracepoole:

I’m sharing this because I’ve read several posts lately in which people have claimed that gays and lesbians are purposely exaggerating and/or outright lying about the violence they might experience.
…
On more than one occasion, a fellow poster has claimed that homophobia and homosexual hate crimes are fictitious concepts used to dishonestly advance the LGBT cause. And on more than one occasion, I’ve asked that we all agree at least that while some may be mislabeled, true hate crimes against gays and lesbians do in fact occur. Whether we dispute the number and frequency is another matter. Even then, however, this kind of violence is brushed aside.

That is what you said.

gracepoole:

And I was present when another poster chastised you for referring to “the gays.” Unless you comfortably describe “the blacks,” for example, I would encourage you to drop the definite article. It’s unnecessary and it leads people to think you’re describing a non-human group is a pejorative way.

Good grief! This is a clear example of how you accuse people falsely. I did not say “the gays” on that thread, but rather:

kelvinf:

…
There are gays who are…

There are blacks who are…, there are whites who are… Is that not standard English?

When I said that, the poster who said he was a homosexual responded by saying:

…
Nota bene - referring to gay people as “gays” or “the gays” is offensive to them and their allies and so there’s no need to use them when there’s a number of non-offensive terms you can use.

For the record, this was my response:

kelvinf:

I have never ever heard that. So I decided to check on Wikipedia:

The label “gay” was originally used purely as an adjective (“he is a gay man” or “he is gay”). The term has been in use as a noun with the meaning “homosexual man” since the 1970s, as in “gays are opposed to that policy.” Although some dislike this usage, it is common, such as in the case of “LGBT” (“lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender”), and particularly in the names of various organizations such as Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) and Children Of Lesbians And Gays Everywhere (COLAGE). It is sometimes used as a singular noun, as in “he is a gay”, such as in its use to comic effect by the Little Britain character Dafydd Thomas.

So according to you, is it also offensive when Obama uses the word “gays”?

“My attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does in every institution and walk of life,”

Or is it only then offensive when a Catholic uses the term?

Again, for me, this is the first time I am hearing that. If the term were offensive, which does not seem to be the case as per my homework, I wouldn’t use it.
…

Read post #79 on this thread. The poster used “the gays”. In that context, it sounds pretty much like standard English.

This is what your comrade said on a thread you were on.

LaSainte:

Do you treat people who don’t go to church on Sunday with the same contempt, or is it just the gays?

Why didn’t you complain? You have just proven to everybody that you are bias! Period.

 

[opus101]

Those who are aligned with the Church are not fighting Catholics on anything except tone and messaging. Why? Probably because they understand that tone matters. Tone wins souls. It’s not just being “politically correct” or any of that hogwash, it’s an attempt to win souls. You have to meet people where they are to win them over. You’re not going to win anyone over with standoffish behavior, emotionless theological swordplay or direct confrontation.

This is unfair to the poster, who was objecting to the suggestion that there need to be more venues (of a more public nature) for dealing with this problem. All people were being taken into account, not just the person with SSA. That is an example of charity to, and concern for, all.

Exactly what is meant here by “standoffish behavior, emotionless theological swordplay” and “direct confrontation”? These were not my perceptions of what was said.

I’m starting to think that there are phantom accusations here for a purpose. The more the allegations are repeated, perhaps the more people will think there is substance to them.

Should a Catholic ever misstep in this manner (God forbid), that only shows that we are all sinners, and have to forebear one another.

We cannot arrest those who do not respond as we would like. Not all people are perfect in this manner, but many are very approachable. We cannot expect others to be perfect if we ourselves are not. And no one is.

You’re immediately prejudicial. Not about homosexual persons but about people who talk about their brokenness. How is it a burden to you to hear about someone who deals with same-sex attraction? Especially a random person on the Internet.

This is very unfair. It is quite evident that the poster was not referring to this venue! And the comment of “burdening” referred to innapropriate venues.

Does anyone know about Courage? I mean outside of CAF and other highly-active Catholics. Does your rank-and-file layperson know about Courage? Does your average pastor know how to deal with this issue? That’s the point that Pope Francis and others are making here. Meet the people where they are and leave the judgments where they belong. We are sons of the Church as well; certainly not to the level of the Holy Father but where do you see advocacy for a change in the doctrine? No. The Holy Father wants us to stop being squeamish about getting in there and mixing it up. That means ministering to the sick, to the poor, to the homeless, to the destitute and yes, to the grave sinner.

Most people will be familiar only with the groups that are relevant to themselves. Including you.
Our priests are trained to deal with this matter, but that doesn’t guarantee that all will do so perfectly. As far as “getting the word out”, I’m sure that many SSA people are directed by priests to Courage through the confessional and spiritual direction .

As for the rest of this post, I don’t think anyone disagrees, and find it curious that you think they do.

It’s important, as you said, to make sure that those with SSA know that there are numerous avenues for help in the Church. What have you done, yourself , to achieve this goal?
My only heartfelt plea is "PLEASE be considerate of the children, young people (even young adults), and anyone whose innocence or faith might be compromised through inappropriate exposure to things that they do not need to know about at this point in their lives.

 

[kelvinf]

Read post #79 on this thread. The poster used “the gays”. In that context, it sounds pretty much like standard English.

Sorry, not on this particular thread but this: Gays May Be Prosecuted at 2014 Olympics

 

[gracepoole]

I was saying in my own words what you said:

“On more than one occasion, a fellow poster has claimed that homophobia and homosexual hate crimes are fictitious concepts used to dishonestly advance the LGBT cause. And on more than one occasion, I’ve asked that we all agree at least that while some may be mislabeled, true hate crimes against gays and lesbians do in fact occur. Whether we dispute the number and frequency is another matter. Even then, however, this kind of violence is brushed aside.”

That is what you said.

Yes, that is what I said. And I was referring to those instances when 1) I’ve tried to get folks with uncharitable attitudes to agree that true hate crimes against gays and lesbians should be viewed as vile and disgusting, and 2) this kind of violence is still brushed aside in these instances. There’s no mystery here. That’s not an indictment of every Catholic.

Good grief! This is a clear example of how you accuse people falsely.

You wrote this earlier:

"A gay person on this forum once told me this:

Nota bene - referring to gay people as ‘gays’ or ‘the gays’ is offensive to them and their allies and so there’s no need to use them when there’s a number of non-offensive terms you can use."

So you didn’t refer to “the gays”? Why include this quote, then?

Why didn’t you complain? You have just proven to everybody that you are bias! Period.

If the other poster shows up here and brings her post into this thread, I’ll be happy to engage with it. I’m going to gently suggest that you dial it down a notch. Again, all I did was note that in my experience, I’ve heard from uncharitable Catholics regarding homosexuality. If others say they haven’t, great! I appreciate that you have taken such an interest in my posts that you apparently follow me from thread to thread. But as you have misrepresented my comments on more than one occasion now, perhaps there are others who merit your time and attention instead.

 

[livingwordunity]

Although now you’ve been given links to threads in which uncharitable posts were shared, so this statement isn’t entirely true any longer…right?

Even if a post is uncharitable it doesn’t prove a thing since for all we know the person could be a troll and not really a Catholic. We are all anonymous on here. Therefore, you are grasping at straws and making baseless accusations.

 

[gracepoole]

Even if a post is uncharitable it doesn’t prove a thing since for all we know the person could be a troll and not really a Catholic. We are all anonymous on here. Therefore, you are grasping at straws and making unfair accusations.

How can one grasp at straws when describing what she’s witnessed?

 

[livingwordunity]

How can one grasp at straws when describing what she’s witnessed?

Let’s say for the sake of argument that someone comes on here and posts something that is blatantly uncharitable, something that even a Westboro Baptist would say is uncharitable to homosexuals. How would you know that they are actually a Catholic and not a troll posing as a Catholic?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Let’s say for the sake of argument that someone comes on here and posts something that is blatantly uncharitable, something that even a Westboro Baptist would say is uncharitable to homosexuals. How would you know that they are actually a Catholic and not, for example, an atheist troll posing as a Catholic?

How do you know I’m not the Pope testing your faith?

 

[clem456]

How do you know I’m not the Pope testing your faith?

We know cause the Pope would choose a really impressive user name like Pontifexshepherdofsouls…
or something along those lines.

 

[livingwordunity]

How do you know I’m not the Pope testing your faith?

Yes. How would I know? I don’t see your point.

 

[gracepoole]

Let’s say for the sake of argument that someone comes on here and posts something that is blatantly uncharitable, something that even a Westboro Baptist would say is uncharitable to homosexuals. How would you know that they are actually a Catholic and not a troll posing as a Catholic?

Whatever helps you sleep better at night.

Of course, I have no reason to believe that those who post charitably about homosexuals and call themselves Catholic aren’t actually “trolls,” as you call them.

 

[livingwordunity]

Whatever helps you sleep better at night.

Of course, I have no reason to believe that those who post charitably about homosexuals and call themselves Catholic aren’t actually trolls.

The point is you are making an assumption based on something that you can’t know for sure. Therefore, your argument is like a house built on sand.

 

[opus101]

Even if a post is uncharitable it doesn’t prove a thing since for all we know the person could be a troll and not really a Catholic. We are all anonymous on here. Therefore, you are grasping at straws and making baseless accusations.

Speaking of trolls…I was just looking up info about them. Of interest to some may be “the ‘Concern’ troll”. (google and weep.)
There is also much info on passive-aggressive “playing the victim”.
Sigh.

 

[gracepoole]

The point is you are making an assumption based on something that you can’t know for sure. Therefore, your argument is like a house built on sand.

I’m not sure why this needs repeating – again – but I was describing personal experience. The only “argument” I offered is that I have witnessed uncharitable attitudes toward gays and lesbians and that these attitudes are unwelcoming. I acknowledged that I wasn’t inclined to invest the time in finding examples of the former, and I can’t imagine why any good Catholic would disagree with the latter. What is controversial here? Why is it so impossible to accept that while some (perhaps even many) Christians and Catholics are not uncharitable, there are those who are?