Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

[fix]

Nope, some level of openness about temptation. Everybody knows that teenagers want to fornicate. When the Church tells teens not to fornicate, they don’t tell them to feel ashamed about the thought of sex. They just say, “Don’t do it.”

I’m saying to treat homosexuals the same way.

You do know that homosexual inclination is disordered, right? Do you think that inclination is morally the same as heterosexual desire?

I’m talking about openness with friends, with members of the Church, about my cross, which includes same-sex attraction. (Of course, it includes other things, too). This openness, personally, has helped me to live a chaste life. When I was hiding, it was MUCH more difficult to be chaste.

It is not about “hiding”. It is about prudence and propriety.

 

[JamesCollins]

His comments were not helpful because they fed into a mainstream media narrative the media is pushing. He didn’t say anything that was incorrect, but sometimes it is better to say as little as possible.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

That is such a misrepresentation of what he said, since you yourself are referring to the Akin article which Mr. Bay posted.

Even before any more complete explanation comes out (if it does), we know two facts about the interview:

(1) It was about gay clergy.

(2) The Pope in no way prioritized “greed” over any other evil. The evil was specifically called out as lobbying. The “this” toward the end of that paragraph refers to lobbying, not to some wished-for priority on the part of laypeople eagerly listening for what he is not saying. It’s also very important to understand how someone in another language speaks, and how different that is from English, but even in English, the “this” very clearly refers to lobbies of all sorts.

 

[Elizabeth502]

His comments were not helpful because they fed into a mainstream media narrative the media is pushing. He didn’t say anything that was incorrect, but sometimes it is better to say as little as possible.

 

[opus101]

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?
   
   Even if some use the word in the latter sense, among those who practice and promote that lifestyle, it means the former. Also, the media uses the term gay to denote someone who either practices that lifestyle or at least accepts it.
   
   Huge misunderstandings like this will not cease to exist unless there is a common defintion of terms. The news media’s consultative “experts” on the Catholic faith need to inform the writers that the Catholic Church makes a distinction between homosexual lifestyles and same-sex attraction.
   
   My own question is "Is the media really that ignorant of Church teaching on homosexuality? What happened to their religion experts who are hired in order to catch these blatant mistakes? OR…are these actually deliberate mistakes?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

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?
   
   Even if some use the word in the latter sense, among those who practice and promote that lifestyle, it means the former. Also, the media uses the term gay to denote someone who either practices that lifestyle or at least accepts it.
   
   Huge misunderstandings like this will not cease to exist unless there is a common defintion of terms. The news media’s consultative “experts” on the Catholic faith need to inform the writers that the Catholic Church makes a distinction between homosexual lifestyles and same-sex attraction.
   
   My own question is "Is the media really that ignorant of Church teaching on homosexuality? What happened to their religion experts who are hired in order to catch these blatant mistakes? OR…are these actually deliberate mistakes?

Good questions!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You do know that homosexual inclination is disordered, right? Do you think that inclination is morally the same as heterosexual desire?

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.

All sinful inclinations are 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.

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. 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.

 

[Tigg]

Nope, some level of openness about temptation. Everybody knows that teenagers want to fornicate.

This is quite a judgment upon our youth! As if sexual sins are first and foremost the only things they struggle with!

When the Church tells teens not to fornicate, they don’t tell them to feel ashamed about the thought of sex. They just say, “Don’t do it.”

I’m saying to treat homosexuals the same way.

This is extreme simplification. A direct command to not do something can be a red flag in the face of teens. We, instead, try to bring them into a fuller understanding of God’s love and the reasons why certain actions are harmful to themselves.

And there is more than one kind of guilt. There should not be condemnation, but sorrow for something we have done we know is wrong is a conviction from the Holy Spirit speaking through the conscience.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

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.

All sinful inclinations are 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.

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. 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.

As long as you aren’t trying to force people to accept the idea that same sex attractions aren’t disordered, I guess it’s okay to talk about, although I think it probably makes you more aware of your disorder the more you talk about it.

I think iIt would be better to focus on your attributes rather than your sins. Ask for forgiveness and go on with your life. Everyone has a cross to bear. Better one bears it in patient silence, than complain about it all the time.

 

[livingwordunity]

His comments were not helpful because they fed into a mainstream media narrative the media is pushing. He didn’t say anything that was incorrect, but sometimes it is better to say as little as possible.

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.

 

[Tigg]

My apologies if this has already been posted…

I have been musing to myself for a while now about what is going on in Francis’ mind when he does something odd. Were I able to ask directly, I would show him how, say, The New York Times (aka Hell’s Bible) covers him, and ask “Holy Father, is this what you want?”

Come to think of it, I would also show him the NSR (Nat’l Schismatic Reporter) and ask the same question. NSR’s editors choose to highlight the Pope’s answer about homosexuals, as if that where the most important thing their constituency needed to know about. Note, for example, that they did not lead with Francis’ strong statement that the door is closed on the matter of ordination of women as priests. They did not lead with the issue of curial reform, which is far more important, and more interesting, than a pretty standard response about homosexuals.

Just watch. The MSM and homosexuals will now have a conga line because of what Francis said about one issue and the rest will get lost.

wdtprs.com/blog/2013/07/the-pope-on-the-plane/

 

[PeopleB4Things]

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).

 

[_Abyssinia]

Misinterpreting Francis (3380)

NEWS ANALYSIS: A Vatican official chided the mainstream media for its conflation of the Holy Father’s remarks on homosexuality.

by EDWARD PENTIN 07/30/2013 Comments (7)
CNA/Alan Holdren

– CNA/Alan Holdren

…

Not Changing Doctrine

But large media outlets, such as the BBC, often accused of promoting same-sex rights, were quick to report the story in accordance with their own biases. The BBC splashed this headline across its news site: “Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?” Others followed suit, misleadingly implying that the Holy Father “doesn’t judge gay people.”

“[The Pope] is not saying homosexual acts are not a sin, and he obviously isn’t changing Church doctrine, but he is making a change of emphasis,” one Vatican official close to the Pope told the Register on condition of anonymity.

“The problem is the headlines,” he added, “and confusion over the meaning of the word ‘gay.’”

The Holy Father’s words on homosexuality “don’t represent a Copernican revolution or a subversion,” affirmed Vito Mancuso, professor of theological history at the University of Padua, in comments to the Italian AKI news agency. “But they do have an innovative dimension in the style in which they were delivered and in the general desire for clarity and renewal that the Pope is proposing — a fundamental trait of this early period of his pontificate.”

He added, “If we look closely, these words don’t contain anything that Benedict XVI would not have written,” but he said that Pope Francis has, as John XXIII had, a flair for communicating a “benevolent humanity, humble and witty at the same time, which makes his words immediately seem innovative, revolutionary, different, even when they are not.”

Msgr. Ricca

The Vatican official said it was “great that [the Pope] has been placing an emphasis on mercy” — something the Holy Father also reiterated during the press conference — and is showing the Church’s “total compassion” for all.

But some believe there might have been “confusion” over this topic and that of Msgr. Battista Ricca, who was also referenced during the impromptu in-flight interview.

Pope Francis recently appointed Msgr. Ricca as prelate of the Vatican Bank, but, according to recent reports, he was allegedly embroiled in homosexual scandals more than 10 years ago.

During the press conference, the Holy Father stated, “I did what canon law said must be done. I ordered an ‘investigation brevia,’ and this investigation found nothing.”

He also warned against seeking to “out the sins of somebody’s youth and publish them.”

“We’re not talking about crimes, which are something else,” he said. “But one can sin and then convert, and the Lord both forgives and forgets.” This is important, he said, “because those who want the Lord to forget their sins should forget those of others.”

But his comments about forgiving and forgetting past sins have made some question whether they are consistent with a 2005 Vatican document that said men who had deep-rooted homosexual tendencies should not be ordained as priests.

According to the “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations With Regard to Persons With Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders,” the Church, “while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture.’”

“Part of the problem is: What does ‘deep-seated’ mean?” commented the Vatican official, adding that the word “gay” — the word the Pope used — often suggests someone who is a practicing homosexual and part of the “gay culture.”

But he stressed the Pope “isn’t reaching out to [active homosexual persons] in the same way. He will confess them, but tell them to sin no more. He’s not saying [homosexual acts] are not a sin.”

…

 

[Seamus_L]

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.

 

[novusCatholic]

Misinterpreting Francis

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis’ comments on homosexuality during a press conference on the papal plane back from World Youth Day in Rio were largely misreported by the mainstream press, according to a Vatican official and a Church expert.

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/misinterpreting-francis/#ixzz2aXxPsmbR

 

[BroomWagon]

I see his statements as a beneficial and helpful outreach.

For the Pope.

This is very moving.

 

[markomalley]

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.

All sinful inclinations are 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.

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. 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.

Just because it is objectively disordered does not mean that it can’t be discussed, but the Church does a disservice to everybody if She was to say that it is not an issue.

The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda.

CDF, 1986

 

[foolishmortal]

I think he should talk more generally and condemn, by his office (so it doesn’t come off self-righteously), acts and entertained fantasies of lust, but not the people, though doing that, without contrition and living a life of honestly fighting those perversions will most certainly damn you, because you don’t really want what God has to offer. That would cover all people, homosexual or not, who indulge in all that. Problem solved.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The perspective of having the glass half-full in this whole media debacle is 1) that some people out there are probably reading Catechism paragraphs they otherwise never would have (no thanks to the media, but to Catholics who have spread the corrections throughout the web; and 2) anyone who wants to form an argument that the media’s reporting on the Church is totally incompetent continues to get ammunition from that media with regularity.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I think he should talk more generally and condemn, by his office (so it doesn’t come off self-righteously), acts and entertained fantasies of lust, but not the people, though doing that, without contrition and living a life of honestly fighting those perversions will most certainly damn you, because you don’t really want what God has to offer. That would cover all people, homosexual or not, who indulge in all that. Problem solved.

Good thought.