Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

[McCall1981]

Thanks for the moral relativism commercial.

This

 

[Holly3278]

I am somewhat shocked at just how much the mainstream media is misrepresenting what he said. But then again, I’m not all that shocked. I mean, it is the mainstream media after all.

But then again, as most of us know already, there has been no change in Church teaching whatsoever. It is impossible for the Church’s teaching to suddenly become contradictory to what it already was, especially on an issue like this.

 

[clem456]

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.

If we all took this attitude there would be no Gospel. A mature faith speaks up and does not weigh the misunderstandings. It does not cower in fear of being misunderstood
And Francis is the Pope, we should give him some credit for wisdom and not suppose we know better than him.

You do know that homosexual inclination is disordered, right? Do you think that inclination is morally the same as heterosexual desire?
It is not about “hiding”. It is about prudence and propriety.

In light of the Pope’s actual statements, the more appropriate question for this discussion is: “Is the disordered inclination toward homosexuality morally the same as disordered heterosexual desire?”

From the CCC

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes

The catechism goes on about disordered heterosexual practices as well as homosexual. Although the homosexual act is intrinsically disordered, the idea that the gravity of sin resides solely in how the particular tools are used is erroneous and flies in the face of Church teaching and the Gospel.

Really, the propositions being made by some here require belief in two different Gods, one for us and one for those who’s sin is worse. As for me, I’ll accept the Pope’s pastoral guidance.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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.

Thanks, Mark.

This is the Church’s stated position. How does the Church show such concern? Only in the confessional? In groups like Courage, where gay people are stunted off together into their own ghetto, like lepers? Is there no hope for more light than this?

I have seen numerous people on these forums advocating that we help people with SSA live chaste and holy lives. The way to do this is for them to build relationships with godly heterosexual men and women, where these men and women know their temptations and love them anyway.

This was Jesus’s way with tax collectors, with prostitutes, with sinners. The Vatican says the Church “is really concerned” about people struggling against their homosexual attractions. We are the Church. Are WE concerned?

 

[Tigg]

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.

Yeah…I certainly agree! But if you’ve been following the past few pages you will now see that the world’s message regarding this topic is now so corrupted we are misinterpreting mystical theology to coincide with secular norms. lol!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Really, the propositions being made by some here require belief in two different Gods, one for us and one for those who’s sin is worse. As for me, I’ll accept the Pope’s pastoral guidance.

This.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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.

When it comes to eating disorders, or drug addiction, or gossip, or self-hated, people are not encouraged to “bear these temptations in patient silence”. Nor to complain. But to talk, and in talking to receive help.

I’m not sure how homosexuality is different.

 

[BroomWagon]

If we all took this attitude there would be no Gospel. A mature faith speaks up and does not weigh the misunderstandings. It does not cower in fear of being misunderstood
And Francis is the Pope, we should give him some credit for wisdom and not suppose we know better than him.

In light of the Pope’s actual statements, the more appropriate question for this discussion is: “Is the disordered inclination toward homosexuality morally the same as disordered heterosexual desire?”

From the CCC

The catechism goes on about disordered heterosexual practices as well as homosexual. Although the homosexual act is intrinsically disordered, the idea that the gravity of sin resides solely in how the particular tools are used is erroneous and flies in the face of Church teaching and the Gospel.

Really, the propositions being made by some here require belief in two different Gods, one for us and one for those who’s sin is worse. As for me, I’ll accept the Pope’s pastoral guidance.

Very fine post, well-worded much better than I could ever do.

 

[gam197]

I am truly upset and confused by the whole issue of homosexuality being acceptable by Christianity. The Bible clearly states that men should not lay with men and women should not lay with women.

I am also concerned with the Pope declaring that The Church should accept homosexual vs heterosexual priests. I thought that priests are married to The Church (God) thus they do not have sex with anyone, thus they are asexual. When did that change? Likewise, I am terribly upset with the thought of Christianity accepting gay marriage as a wholesome Godly marriage.

When did we start rewriting the Bible? No, the Pope cannot judge gays period. Only God can judge them, and He will when each one meets Him on judgement day.

God forgives such acts so we must be understanding of the gay nature, but we are obligated to teach gays the absolute and literal truth of what the Bible states about this subject. They must repent and sin no more.

Welcome to the forums!

Hope you got the answers you were looking for.

 

[BroomWagon]

So “one Vatican official close to the Pope” chides the media, but only “on condition of anonymity”. What was he afraid of? If the media is guilty of such a grave thing as misinterpreting the Pope on such a delicate topic, how come that there’s no official reaction from Vatican beyond this anonymous opinion?

Funny enough, the National Catholic Register story is itself misleading. “A Vatican official chided the mainstream media”, announces the author, but in a 1,500 words long story he offers only 2 short declarations from this unnamed official, who says 1) that the Pope “isn’t changing Church doctrine, but he is making a change of emphasis” (so the official acknowledges that the journalists who chose their headlines about the gay topic had a point); 2) that the Pope didn’t say that homosexual acts are not a sin (but I don’t remember any news story containing such a claim).

The Holy Father spoke with the press entourage in a comfortable setting for 80 minutes. I certainly know that I can not judge all he said.

There are a lot of grey areas here it seems and one would really have to go through everything, what we know is he didn’t contradict Catholic teaching, as some headlines have said “Shift in tone not in substance” and that I go along with.

Your post is well-stated.

I think for the most part the Press has been earnest on this. If one were out of line, I sort of see the Wall Street Journal as most likely in overstating what was said.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324354704578635401320888608.html

Only forcing me to see exactly what he was saying and then how that contradicts what the WSJ is saying.

 

[bpcatholic]

“Pope Francis Declares Homosexuality Obligatory For All Catholics, New York Times Reports”

eyeofthetiber.com/2013/07/29/pope-francis-declares-homosexuality-obligatory-for-all-catholics-new-york-times-reports/

 

[kag1982]

I heard no story that suggested that Francis was going to start performing gay marriages in St. Peter’s. However, it is a pretty stunning tone change and that was what was focused on. Additionally, it is pretty clear that Francis wants to spend his papacy focusing on social justice rather than on sexual morality.

 

[njlisa]

Anyone who knows his bible and catchecism very well will understand what Pope Francis said without needing further clarification.

However, it’s caused wide-ranged confusion, thanks to our beloved secular media, and also because of people who get hysterical at headlines and don’t wanna do their research.

This morning we’ve had people phoning in on radio programs complaining that the Pope has embraced homosexuality. Our local media has also copy-pasted whatever the international media reported.

Several comments on facebook as well from people being ‘disgusted’ by the Pope and ‘ashamed’ to be Catholics.

Funny enough, we’ve had some gay-friendly famous people on twitter feeling that Christmas came early. Richard Branson, an atheist if I’m not mistaken, quoted the Pope’s statement and added, “finally a Pope that is brave to talk sense.”

Maybe we need Pope Benedict back to tell things as they are.

Pope Francis is now our Holy Father and we must respect him as such.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I think I might start a blog subtitled “This is What Francis Said, This is What it Means” with Catechism and priest-explanator references. No sarcasm intended. I think it would be useful.

 

[Tigg]

“Pope Francis Declares Homosexuality Obligatory For All Catholics, New York Times Reports”

eyeofthetiber.com/2013/07/29/pope-francis-declares-homosexuality-obligatory-for-all-catholics-new-york-times-reports/

“Eye of the Tiber has become a leading source for Catholic satire to the astute, and legitimate Catholic news to the obtuse.” Ha! I’ll keep this link for sure!

 

[fix]

If we all took this attitude there would be no Gospel. A mature faith speaks up and does not weigh the misunderstandings. It does not cower in fear of being misunderstood
And Francis is the Pope, we should give him some credit for wisdom and not suppose we know better than him.

In light of the Pope’s actual statements, the more appropriate question for this discussion is: “Is the disordered inclination toward homosexuality morally the same as disordered heterosexual desire?”

From the CCC

The catechism goes on about disordered heterosexual practices as well as homosexual. Although the homosexual act is intrinsically disordered, the idea that the gravity of sin resides solely in how the particular tools are used is erroneous and flies in the face of Church teaching and the Gospel.

Really, the propositions being made by some here require belief in two different Gods, one for us and one for those who’s sin is worse. As for me, I’ll accept the Pope’s pastoral guidance.

As I pointed out lust is disordered not heterosexual inclination. That is not comparable to homosexual inclination which is disordered in every instance. What I see is an attempt to place both inclinations on the same plane when they are not.

The two gods are those who attempt to hijack the Pope’s words in an attempt to nuance the moral law.

The teaching has not changed and never will.

 

[vames]

In other words, it’s not the tendency, but the lifestyle and support of the lifestyle that is the problem.

But he didn’t actually say that; his only emphasis was on lobbies being bad. FINALLY I found a video that contains his uninterrupted answer in Italian and not only fragments:
youtube.com/watch?v=xHuV9eCcnlA

So he was asked about the gay lobby at the Vatican - which is universally understood as a big group of active homosexual men who want to promote their cause within the Church, not as a group of men merely struggling with SSA. His reply about not seeing any ID card with “gay” implied that we should refrain from labeling people, as long as we don’t know them (we don’t know if this group is that big and influential at the Vatican as some say; the Church can’t police the private life of each and every Vatican employee or citizen; we don’t know whether among these employees and citizens there are active homosexuals or men with SSA and how many they are).
And he left the ambiguity of the meaning of “gay” for a good part of his answer; he did specify “[homosexual] tendency” (tendenza) only when he said “The problem is not to have this tendency… The problem is to lobby for this tendency, or business lobbies, political lobbies…”

“Se scrive tanto della** lobby gay**. Io ancora non ho trovato nessuno che mi dia la cartella d’identità in Vaticano con ‘gay’. Dicono che ce ne sono. Credo che quando uno si trova con una persona così, deve distinguere il fatto di essere una persona gay dal fatto di fare una lobby, perché le lobby tutte non sono buone. Quello è lo cattivo. Se una persona è gay e cerca il Signore e ha buona volontà, chi sono io per giudicarla? Il Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica spiega tanto bello questo: non si devono emarginare a queste persone per questo, devono essere integrate in società. Il problema non e avere questa tendenza, no. Dobbiamo essere fratelli, perché questo è uno, ma se c’è un altro, un altro… Il problema è fare lobby di questa tendenza o lobby d’affari, lobby politici, dei masoni, tanti lobby. Questo è il problema piu grave per noi.”

 

[fix]

As for promoting it, you know very well that I am not advocating promoting homosexuality as morally acceptable. I am in support of recognizing that same-sex attraction is a temptation that many people have.

As for drawing attention to the situation of gay people who try to be chaste, clearly the Pope desires to do that. Looking at the lives of holy men and women who deal with temptation (e.g. Henry Nouwen) is a solution, not a problem. So I don’t see the Church discouraging this at all.

The Church does not encourage self identification as “gay”.

For some persons, revealing their homosexual tendencies to certain close friends, family members, a spiritual director, confessor, or members of a Church support group may provide some spiritual and emotional help and aid them in their growth in the Christian life. In the context of parish life, however, general public self- disclosures are not helpful and should not be encouraged.

Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care
Issued by USCCB, November 14, 2006. Copyright © 2006, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. All rights reserved.

 

[McCall1981]

I think I might start a blog subtitled “This is What Francis Said, This is What it Means” with Catechism and priest-explanator references. No sarcasm intended. I think it would be useful.

This would probably be extremely useful. I wish, however, that it wasn’t necessary.

I’m really struggling to understand why these kinds of misunderstandings keep happening so much.

I would assume that Pope Francis knows how these statements are going to be taken by the media, so he must have some motivation for saying them, but I am at a loss in understanding what that motivation is.

 

[opus101]

This is true, but my question is, why do statements like this keep happening, that are so very open to misunderstanding and misinterpretation? Why not just speak clearly? I can understand this kind of thing happening once in a while, no one speaks perfectly all the time, but why is this happening so often now?

Personally, I really think it is because there is a lack of common understanding about the meaning of words. What the Pope meant and what the press (and most of the world) heard are two different things, and it happens because both seem unaware of how the other party interprets certain words. I love Pope Francis and understood what he meant, but his words, if reported correctly, were not precise in terms of worldly definitions. “Gay” in the non-Catholic realm means someone who practices and supports homosexuality, it doesn’t mean someone who struggles with the tendencies/attractions.

This is why his words can be taken out of context. All they have to do is report a small part of what he said, and the damage is done. If they report the whole thing, then it becomes clear what he actually meant. His misstep as far as word choice had a negative impact because some chose to (deliberately?) run with the first part of his comments for their own agenda or the increased sales of newspapers!