Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

[fix]

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.

Politically incorrect but theologically accurate.

 

[fix]

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!

Note how those with agendas took off on it immediately. They see and read into his words all manner of silliness in an attempt to redirect things.

 

[BroomWagon]

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.

Motivation? Could cause some interest? In a way, it does seem he evangelized as another poster has already alluded to.

 

[opus101]

Note how those with agendas took off on it immediately. They see and read into his words all manner of silliness in an attempt to redirect things.

Yes! And it really makes one wonder about the Religion editors. The news Media hire experts to clarify such things for the purpose of accurate reporting. Where were they? And why do they have such a gross ignorance of Catholic nuance on the subject? Clearly the press’s take on this was blatantly ignorant. If they knew the degree of their publicly revealed stupidity they would be very embarrassed.

That is, if it wasn’t intentional.

 

[McCall1981]

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!

Note how those with agendas took off on it immediately. They see and read into his words all manner of silliness in an attempt to redirect things.

I understand this, and agree with both of you. What I don’t understand is that, given that this is the situation, why would Pope Francis continue to choose to make these kinds of statements?

I have to think that either: A) he doesn’t realize how these statements are going to be taken, or B) he knows how they will be taken, and chooses to say them anyway because he thinks there will be some good that will come of it.

For option A, I don’t think he could be that naieve, so it must be B. But what is the good that comes from these statements?

I want to understand because I feel so frustrated each time it seems like he plays right into the media’s hands and damage is done to the Church’s message. What’s his purpose here that I’m not seeing?

 

[Mike_tn]

The passage you quote mentions that they should be “without crime”. But obviously this is not saying without wrongdoing in the past, since Paul himself would be disqualified for that standard. Similarly, Francis speaks of “youthful sins”.

Note that, by your standards, it would appear that Augustine could not be a priest.

Prodigal, thanks for your time taken to reply. Next I want to be clear that I speak in terms of what the news article says only. If I asked our pope directly to clarify I may get a significantly different wording from him. I don’t know.

Second regrading the past of a priestly candidate. I have to disagree with you that the person’s past is no matter. Sure, you are right, Paul killed Christians. But he was both extraordinarily graced and chose to work with that grace and even more than was expected of him, way above and beyond to get past it. He didn’t even accept donations but worked with his hands and preached and was nearly killed for it multiple times. Christians were afraid of him for a while. With Augustine perhaps we can find a similar scenario as with Paul. These men demonstrated extraordinary evidence of conversion both as a safeguard against relapse and as an act of love because they had been forgiven much. Moving forward to today. I do not know the percent of already ordained gay priests in the USA, no one does probably, lets say it’s 25%. If so, then more than 25% of the US priests should be insanely heroic for God like Paul & Augustine were. Everyone in the nation would know such men by face and name. Where are they? If these homosexual and ordained men are worthy, men who have been forgiven much and raised to the highest ranks in the planet, should they not have a holy and heroic exposure in the world as loud as Paul’s? The rank and file Catholics would flock to such men and the rest would run away or send soldiers after such holy priests. You can’t miss a guy like that.

Do not think that a future priest is not to be “judged” to a higher standard by both man and God. If the Church let all the average Joe Catholics with a PhD in philosophy whimsically become a priest you can guess the chaos. By the way, “judge” has multiple definitions, it can mean “discern” also. It’s a slippery word and causes much wasted time in argument because people don’t establish what they mean from the outset.

Titus goes on to say that a candidate for holy orders must be the husband of one wife. That was an acceptable situation at that time, no longer so by valid modern western Church discipline, never-the-less, it is a reference to the man’s sexual past. Long past. Now, to play the advocate against myself. Paul had strong Jewish roots and he loved his lists. Could the Church bend this list of rules that Paul gives? Sure it could. But the candidate would have to give reason to believe that it was right to bend the ordinary litmus test for a man about to be ordained.

Again I do not know if the pope would definitely allow a homosexually professed man to be ordained but the news article strongly suggested that was what was said. No pope, no Vatican II pope, and none before Vatican II, was weak on this topic. They all said that the general rule to follow is that a homosexual cannot be ordained. And for good reason.

 

[bpcatholic]

“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!

“We are proud to have recently been nominated for Best Catholic News Satire, narrowly losing out to the National Catholic Reporter.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

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.

Precisely. (Some people simply do not know that yet, apparently . (or, prefer to disregard that permanent doctrine.)

 

[fix]

I understand this, and agree with both of you. What I don’t understand is that, given that this is the situation, why would Pope Francis continue to choose to make these kinds of statements?

I have to think that either: A) he doesn’t realize how these statements are going to be taken, or B) he knows how they will be taken, and chooses to say them anyway because he thinks there will be some good that will come of it.

For option A, I don’t think he could be that naieve, so it must be B. But what is the good that comes from these statements?

I want to understand because I feel so frustrated each time it seems like he plays right into the media’s hands and damage is done to the Church’s message. What’s his purpose here that I’m not seeing?

Look at some of the posts in this very thread. I would agree with what you seem to be trying to get across, but I would also say that no matter what the Pope says some folks will spin it any way they can.

There are groups salivating to pounce on any word they can to say…See finally the Church understands. They so much want the green light to do what they want. The funny thing is then can do it now. They want the approbation from the Church to ease their conscience though.

 

[The_Bucket]

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.

Disordered is not the same as sinful. That’s the problem here. It simply means “not properly ordered.” Trying to place them on different planes is actually the problem here. Because you’re implying that homosexual attraction in and of itself is wrong. You can say “disordered” all you want but people read between the lines.

Lust is the sin. Lust be it in the form of fantasy, pornography, masturbation or having illicit sexual contact with another person. Whether the lust is aimed at members of the same or opposite sex is irrelevant. The folks attempting to place it on an equal plane are actually correct.

No one is disputing that homosexual attraction is disordered. It’s also not wrong in the sense that it’s not sinful.

If your point is that heterosexual attraction can eventually lead to something good and holy, that being married sexual congress, and homosexual attraction cannot… well of course. Everyone here understands that and I’ve seen no one in this thread saying otherwise. In fact, those who have same-sex attraction have repeatedly said it is a burden, a temptation and are offering suggestions as to how the Church could best minister to members of Her flock who are similarly tempted.

I understand that the media and secular culture have a different message. But don’t let your feelings towards them bleed into those who are in-line with the teachings of the Faith but are simply trying to offer helpful tips as to how to best reach souls who feel disaffected and cast out.

 

[livingwordunity]

Can you show any stories where the media is misinterpreting the Pontiff’s words??

Take a look at the linked articles by the National Catholic Register writer to NYT, LAT, WSJ, and WaPo headlines.

ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/pope-approved-gay-marriage-or-something?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2013-07-30%2002:58:01
,

Excellent article!

 

[fix]

Disordered is not the same as sinful. That’s the problem here. It simply means “not properly ordered.” Trying to place them on different planes is actually the problem here. Because you’re implying that homosexual attraction in and of itself is wrong. You can say “disordered” all you want but people read between the lines.

It does not have to be sinful to be disordered. Specifically it is not ordered toward the good. That is not true of heterosexuality. They are not the same. This is plain and evident.

Lust is the sin. Lust be it in the form of fantasy, pornography, masturbation or having illicit sexual contact with another person. Whether the lust is aimed at members of the same or opposite sex is irrelevant. The folks attempting to place it on an equal plane are actually correct.

This is not Catholic moral theology you display here. Not all Lust is of the same gravity. St. Thomas explains this well.

No one is disputing that homosexual attraction is disordered. It’s also not wrong in the sense that it’s not sinful.

That distinction does not mean it is of the same moral weight as heterosexuality which is why the last Pope said the inclination itself may evoke moral concern.

If your point is that heterosexual attraction can eventually lead to something good and holy, that being married sexual congress, and homosexual attraction cannot… well of course. Everyone here understands that and I’ve seen no one in this thread saying otherwise. In fact, those who have same-sex attraction have repeatedly said it is a burden, a temptation and are offering suggestions as to how the Church could best minister to members of Her flock who are similarly tempted.

Why compare it to heterosexuality?

I understand that the media and secular culture have a different message. But don’t let your feelings towards them bleed into those who are in-line with the teachings of the Faith but are simply trying to offer helpful tips as to how to best reach souls who feel disaffected and cast out.

The line is blurred many times as we can see from posts here in this thread.

 

[The_Bucket]

I want to understand because I feel so frustrated each time it seems like he plays right into the media’s hands and damage is done to the Church’s message. What’s his purpose here that I’m not seeing?

It’s a risk/reward thing. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not an unintelligent man. He is quite aware that he now lives in a fishbowl and every word he speaks will be twisted, dissected and blasted out to the entire world. From what I can tell… he just does not care. He thinks that being measured, cautious, deliberate and quiet has played a major role in the faithful losing their way and so he’s tossing that model and going with his own.

I can’t blame him. The flock is scattered. What should he do? Play it safe and reassure those who remain in the flock that nothing, not even the tone of the Church’s message will change… or will he get dirty, seek out those who have gone astray and use their language to pull them back in? He’s opted for the latter. It’s scary, it’s disconcerting to those of us who prefer very deliberate and carefully worded messages coming from Rome, but it might actually be effective.

He is a smarter man than I and he is the Holy Father. I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[clem456]

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.

You see what you want to see.
Lust is disordered, in every instance, always, forever. That’s the clear and consistent teaching of the Church. You and others are obsessed with sodomy as specially subject to God’s wrath over and above all the other disordered sexual practices. This is wrong, and it’s not just treatment of SSA persons. And this is what the Pope expressed the other day. One disordered action or desire does not cast one into immorality any more than another. Most of us have sexual sin, homo or hetero. And as I challenged the other poster, if you have specific theology that says homosexual inclinations or actions will send you to hell more hastily than disordered heterosexual, please post it.

This attitude is scandalous. It drives people away from the Church who might otherwise approach confession, or try to understand Church teaching on homosexuality. That is not a process you should be involved in.

Disordered sexuality is primarily a condition of the heart, not which body parts go where, per the words of Christ himself.

 

[Boundless]

I don’t know if anyone’s already posted this, but I thought we could use a little bit of humor! eyeofthetiber.com/2013/07/29/pope-francis-declares-homosexuality-obligatory-for-all-catholics-new-york-times-reports/

 

[McCall1981]

It’s a risk/reward thing. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not an unintelligent man. He is quite aware that he now lives in a fishbowl and every word he speaks will be twisted, dissected and blasted out to the entire world. From what I can tell… he just does not care. He thinks that being measured, cautious, deliberate and quiet has played a major role in the faithful losing their way and so he’s tossing that model and going with his own.

I can’t blame him. The flock is scattered. What should he do? Play it safe and reassure those who remain in the flock that nothing, not even the tone of the Church’s message will change… or will he get dirty, seek out those who have gone astray and use their language to pull them back in? He’s opted for the latter. It’s scary, it’s disconcerting to those of us who prefer very deliberate and carefully worded messages coming from Rome, but it might actually be effective.

He is a smarter man than I and he is the Holy Father. I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks, if this is what he’s doing, then I think this is kind of the answer I was looking for.

I don’t agree with this “strategy”, but at least it makes sense why someone would try it.

 

[grotto]

I edited my post. Please read it again. Here it is:

He spoke off the cuff. You are trying to make a mountain out of a mow hill. Catholics are not required to adhere to anything the Pope says off the cuff. We are only required to follow official teachings. The media’s sensationalism of it is what is causing confusion.

---

Words can cause such problems! I’m sure you didn’t mean to say an effort was made to make a mountain out of a “mow” hill! I think you meant to say a “mole” hill! I continued reading all the posts:yawn: and concluded that we should not judge the moles but instead get out the lawn mower and get to work!:

 

[The_Bucket]

It does not have to be sinful to be disordered. Specifically it is not ordered toward the good. That is not true of heterosexuality. They are not the same. This is plain and evident.

What’s the point of repeating that message though? We know what the Church’s teaching is. Blasting “HOMOSEXUAL ATTRACTION IS DISORDERED” is not going to, you know, bring homosexuals back to the faith. Francis is trying to meet people where they are. You know who else did that? Jesus.

This is not Catholic moral theology you display here. Not all Lust is of the same gravity. St. Thomas explains this well.

St. Thomas Aquinas was a brilliant man. He is quite right to carry the title of doctor of the Church. He was also wrong on a number of matters.

That distinction does not mean it is of the same moral weight as heterosexuality which is why the last Pope said the inclination itself may evoke moral concern.

B16 said it might evoke moral concern because of a) a misunderstanding of what leads to child sexual abuse and b) a proper understanding that putting a person with homosexual inclinations into close community with a bunch of other men might not be a great idea. It would be like placing a 22-year-old heterosexual man in community with a bunch of young women. Yes, that might be cause for moral concern.

Why compare it to heterosexuality?

Why discuss human sexuality at all? You have people in this thread who are married with children and have same-sex attraction. It’s an issue very much in the fore of the cultural mainstream. Asserting the Church’s position as clearly as possible while also providing a pastoral approach to helping those with homosexual inclinations is a pretty important thing. If you don’t think so, go look at all the young-to-middle aged people who either simply ignore the Church’s teaching on this issue or abandon Her altogether.

We need to get out in front of it and we need to do it yesterday. Jesus didn’t feel the need to tell prostitutes “well you know, what you’re doing is wrong.” No. He said that prostitutes and tax collectors were getting into the kingdom before allegedly good Jews. What hope that must have given those great sinners and what scandal that caused in His time! Imagine if the Holy Father said “there are surely homosexuals getting into heaven before people who worship in the extraordinary form and observe three-hour Eucharistic fasts.” I think this forum would literally implode.

 

[fix]

Precisely. (Some people simply do not know that yet, apparently . (or, prefer to disregard that permanent doctrine.)

The odd thing is those that defend they “gay” ideology to any degree seem to want it both ways. They want to claim it is “equal” to every other sexual sin and at the same time they want it to be special and deserving of more attention.

 

[clem456]

Precisely. (Some people simply do not know that yet, apparently . (or, prefer to disregard that permanent doctrine.)

Are you going to backup the assertions you made earlier or not? I requested that you provide solid theology that demonstrates the comparative gravity of sodomy, fornication, adultery, etc etc etc. in Catholic Church teaching.

Can you do that or not? You should, as you have pointed out that other posters are incorrect on various items. You should provide solid backup if you are going to position yourself as arbiter of theology here, in light of a Pope’s statement.