Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

[BroomWagon]

You’re misinterpreting this whole thing and overreacting by leaps and bounds. No one is making the claims that you are reading into all of this.

The Church is not rejecting anyone, nor is anyone else doing so. These difficulties that are experienced by some are occasion for sanctity. Not being admitted to the priesthood is not a “rejection” by the Church…it is simply a sure sign that one’s role in the Church is in another area.

I’m a female, and can’t be a priest either. Is that rejection by the Church? Of course not! I have a different role.

The main thing is that we all become saints. We all have struggles. Some of our particular struggles cause us to be more suited to one state in life more than another.

Good statement, maybe you mean “we are all meant to become Saints.”

Age, School Records, Economics, a lot plays into becoming a Priest and not only that, in the end, I’ll bet some men are turned away for one reason or another who would have faithfully and effectively served the Church and Jesus Christ.

 

[Lord_Keynes]

Sorry for joining in this thread so belatedly!

In my point of view, the Pope is just regurgitating Catholic Social Teaching in a more explicitly charitable(???) style.

Obviously the liberal/“progressive” media is trying to spin this off as a “a great success for progressiveness of the Catholic Church,” which I just find as bs…and really don’t to worry all that much about, either.

 

[Glad2behome]

You’re misinterpreting this whole thing and overreacting by leaps and bounds. No one is making the claims that you are reading into all of this.

The Church is not rejecting anyone, nor is anyone else doing so. These difficulties that are experienced by some are occasion for sanctity. Not being admitted to the priesthood is not a “rejection” by the Church…it is simply a sure sign that one’s role in the Church is in another area.

I’m a female, and can’t be a priest either. Is that rejection by the Church? Of course not! I have a different role.

The main thing is that we all become saints. We all have struggles. Some of our particular struggles cause us to be more suited to one state in life than another.

As far as St. Augustine is concerned, you are not saying anything different than what we’ve been saying, and what the Church has said…there is a possibility of a vocation to the priesthood for someone who has had past problems in this area as long as he has totally broken with it and has remained so for three years prior to application for the seminary. This may have changed recently in view of the abuse crisis, I’m not sure. But either way, it is not a reflection on the Christian dignity of those who have converted from a life of sin. We all sin. Christ came to save sinners. Amen. Alleluia.

Your right, but when you when I hear the word “statistics” and making a prediction biased on them, I get mad. And yes, it is for personal reasons. I have to make this about me, but as I said before, I been treated differently becasue of circumstances that I did not choose. I believe that one with SSA or heterosexuals with problems with lust , that is faithful to the Church, It’s Magisterium, have not participated in the “Gay lifestyle*” or any other lifestyle that is centered fornication for either some time, then I believe that they should not be disqualified from the Priesthood. Some of are greatest Priests have been past sinners.

Maybe you and I know different type of people, becasue the people I know with SSA, their struggles are somewhat similar to those with heterosexual’s with lust, and that is that their temptations incline them to engage in deviant sexual acts with another adults, not minors.

Either way, most of the people that I know with SSA have not interest in joining the Priesthood, but the tone is used in this thread is that if they are not cured(which I believe is Miracle of God and Our Lady rather than by therapy) of their SSA, then they should be ready to enter the gates of Hell.

 

[Daphnexyz]

Interesting take, I think. He does seem to have a different set of emphases, which I find refreshing…

huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/31/pope-francis-reforms-not-welcomed_n_3683738.html?ref=topbar

 

[Glad2behome]

Your right, but when you when I hear the word “statistics” and making a prediction biased on them, I get mad. And yes, it is for personal reasons. I have to make this about me, but as I said before, I been treated differently becasue of circumstances that I did not choose. I believe that one with SSA or heterosexuals with problems with lust , that is faithful to the Church, It’s Magisterium, have not participated in the “Gay lifestyle*” or any other lifestyle that is centered fornication for either some time, then I believe that they should not be disqualified from the Priesthood. Some of are greatest Priests have been past sinners.

Maybe you and I know different type of people, becasue the people I know with SSA, their struggles are somewhat similar to those with heterosexual’s with lust, and that is that their temptations incline them to engage in deviant sexual acts with another adults, not minors.

Either way, most of the people that I know with SSA have not interest in joining the Priesthood, but the tone is used in this thread is that if they are not cured(which I believe is Miracle of God and Our Lady rather than by therapy) of their SSA, then they should be ready to enter the gates of Hell.

Sorry, I mean I can’t make this about me. Sorry, about more poor typing skills. Anyway, the reason the why I get mad at statistics is becasue of the situation I was born with, people have used statistics to treat me as that “special” person. That is why I have a strong dislike for statistics. When I read the history of statistics, in my opinion, they are used for mostly evil

 

[Jeanne1184]

No complaints here, I just don’t ever think I’ve seen the “Gospel of Thomas”, I assume the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas quoted in this manner.

gospelofthomasfullyinterpreted.com/logia-81-to-90

Interesting.

Also, not sure how one can be presumptuous about what St. Paul said about “celibacy”

I used the GoT on earlychristianwritings.com/index.html but thanks for your link as I’ve never seen the GoT with interpretations included - and there are still some that baffle me, for sure. It will be interesting to see what Insights others may have received.

Many verses support Paul’s ‘strong bias’ to celibacy/Chastity and it being spiritually advantageous in the extreme.

1Cor7:1 - Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. ((Not a RULE, but ‘it is good’))

1Cor7:6-8: But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7.For I wish that all men were even as I myself. 8…It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry.

1Cor7:25 - Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy…

1Cor7:28: But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you. 29…the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none. (reads, to me, as celibacy within marriage)

1Cor7:35: And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction. (After section stating that married folks are not single-minded to the Lord but concerned with pleasing each other and the world.)

The other part that supports what I said is Paul’s own understanding of how the Law incites sin. That a ‘command’ (even though God didn’t give him one) would cause greater problems, so he stayed just this side of doing so.

I should have had included supporting verses for that statement in the original. Sorry.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Good statement, maybe you mean “we are all meant to become Saints.”

The main thing is that we all become saints

future tense; subjunctive mood.

“will” or “do” understood before “become.”

 

[livingwordunity]

Sorry for joining in this thread so belatedly!

In my point of view, the Pope is just regurgitating Catholic Social Teaching in a more explicitly charitable(???) style.

Obviously the liberal/“progressive” media is trying to spin this off as a “a great success for progressiveness of the Catholic Church,” which I just find as bs…and really don’t to worry all that much about, either.

I think the media with their abortion, divorce, and “gay” agenda is trying to go for the low-hanging fruit which are the fallen away and poorly catechized Catholics.

 

[57thDimension]

No way to know for sure? Well, statistics can say anything.

How do you define the word ‘statistics’?

According to statistics, I would be dead by know becasue I was born a bastard to a mentally ill and drug addicted mother and I also being a minority.

Are you saying there was a statistic stating that there was a 100% chance of you being dead (by some point)?

And you still have not answered my question. Should have the early Church rejected St. Austin becasue of his past and his struggle with lust? Yes or No?

What do you mean by this? How do you define the “early Church”? What do you mean by “reject”? And what exactly would this rejection look like, and how would it have been carried out?

+Sebastian

 

[Glad2behome]

How do you define the word ‘statistics’?

Are you saying there was a statistic stating that there was a 100% chance of you being dead (by some point)?

What do you mean by this? How do you define the “early Church”? What do you mean by “reject”? And what exactly would this rejection look like, and how would it have been carried out?

+Sebastian

To answer your first question, I believe Dictionary.com has a perfect example of how I personally define “statistics”: dictionary.reference.com/browse/statistics

To answer your second question: No, I never said that there was a 100% chance of anything. Here is a boat load of information of minority children born into single parent households: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9391714

More lovely “statistics” regarding children born to drug addicted parents:
hopenetworks.org/addiction/Children%20of%20Addicts.htm

I’m just saying that using “statistics” rarely work, becasue we are all individual children of God.

To answer your third question, I mean by not granting the office of Bishop becasue of his past, and I did not use the right term. Saint Augustine was the time of the Patristic Era, not the “Early Church”

 

[BroomWagon]

future tense; subjunctive mood.

“will” or “do” understood before “become.”

Okay, grammar noted. I’m still not sure if “everyone becomes a saint” not meaning to misinterpret any of these posts or points made.

 

[jonathan_hili]

He is a firm upholder of the faith and morals of the Church but, like Blessed John XXIII, is embracing all so that all might embrace Christ. This is a beautiful thing.

 

[Tigg]

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.

Good point! One portion you quoted is “Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women.” Since priests often do marriage counseling how exactly can the homosexual ones be really efficacious?

 

[Tigg]

While they ought never be rejected,
While they ought never be rejected,
While they ought never be rejected,

How many people with SSA temptations reading this thread would feel rejected by us. Most? All?

Do you think the message given by our holy father is one of rejection or love?
Why is it different than the message given off by this thread?

I’m just not feelin’ the love in this thread.

Do you think correction is rejection? It is a spiritual work of mercy. Why must we always confuse sentiment with true charity?

 

[Tigg]

I think that many people - myself included - have a problem because this particular temptation to sin is now days understood to be somehow different from other temptations and that this is OK. Because I don’t see organised “tempted to steal” groups of people, or “tempted to cheat on their spouse” groups. They don’t insist on getting special treatment in terms of continual public announcements from the church that it is OK to feel tempted to steal or cheat as long as they don’t actually do it. Yet we have those who are attracted to the same sex in the church who want to proclaim their temptation to the world and a compassionate hug because it is OK to be tempted like that.

I don’t know what to think anymore. Actually, no, I do know. I am sick and tired of it, because these people march to the tune of the secular music whether they want to admit it or not.

Why can’t we Catholics be discreet about our various temptations to sin, seek help when we need it and stop scandalising the faithful with our need to come out and be loud and proud and to stress the temptation to our sin as a kind of identity?

You nailed it with this! The pope said “the worse problem is lobbying by this orientation.” I will be blunt because what I often discern by those afflicted with SSA is that they are lobbying, in a sense, for their cause when they talk about being open, or coming into the light or sharing their affliction with anyone who will listen. I understand it is acceptance from society that they desire (and they confuse this with love) but what they do not understand is that this is precisely the goal of the gay lobby. “I am gay and we are here and you are all bigots who oppose us.” Everyone wants to be accepted for who they are, but to place the emphasis of one’s state of being upon a purely sexual inclination is to reject the other human characteristics that comprise the totality. It seems to me an obsession.

Coming into the light is to acknowledge the “thorn in the flesh” and fall before the feet of Jesus with a plea to integrate our entire being and use our affliction as a means to become holy.

 

[markomalley]

The National Catholic Reporter’s Jamie Manson wore an interesting op-ed on Francis’ presser: When does our hope for Francis become denial?

Mind you, I agree with none of her positions, but the insight into left wing thinking is interesting.

 

[The_Bucket]

I feel bad that the author there thinks that the Church needs to conform to the world, not vice versa, and that she has a misplaced faith that the Holy Spirit is somehow going to push the one True Church towards the world as opposed towards God. Very sad indeed.

So what do I take away from that piece? I’m heartened. I’m heartened that so-called “progressive Catholics” are listening to Francis and like his approach. I’m gladdened that they are more apt to listen to him and maybe examine their own hearts a bit more.

The crisis in the Church is that we’re driving too many “conservatives” or traditionalists into the arms of sedevacantist groups. It’s that too many people are listening to the “wisdom” of the world and turning their backs on the Church. Francis is at least cracking to door open to them. Not by changing any teachings but by simply relating to people where they are.

That’s excellent news in my book.

 

[clem456]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gilliam View Post
While they ought never be rejected,
While they ought never be rejected,
While they ought never be rejected,

How many people with SSA temptations reading this thread would feel rejected by us. Most? All?

Do you think the message given by our holy father is one of rejection or love?
Why is it different than the message given off by this thread?

Quote:
I’m just not feelin’ the love in this thread.

Do you think correction is rejection? It is a spiritual work of mercy. Why must we always confuse sentiment with true charity?

Just for the record, those are two different posters you quoted.

Indeed, why do we confuse sentiment and love? The poster Gilliam is asking about the pastoral approach taken by the Pope, and whether it is one of rejection or love. To love is to will the good of the other, not to heap sentiments on someone. A good Catholic approach should invite those we are speaking to into the fold, not give them a sense of rejection. That’s not a matter of sentiment.

 

[opus101]

I think that many people - myself included - have a problem because this particular temptation to sin is now days understood to be somehow different from other temptations and that this is OK. Because I don’t see organised “tempted to steal” groups of people, or “tempted to cheat on their spouse” groups. They don’t insist on getting special treatment in terms of continual public announcements from the church that it is OK to feel tempted to steal or cheat as long as they don’t actually do it. Yet we have those who are attracted to the same sex in the church who want to proclaim their temptation to the world and a compassionate hug because it is OK to be tempted like that.

I don’t know what to think anymore. Actually, no, I do know. I am sick and tired of it, because these people march to the tune of the secular music whether they want to admit it or not.

Why can’t we Catholics be discreet about our various temptations to sin, seek help when we need it and stop scandalising the faithful with our need to come out and be loud and proud and to stress the temptation to our sin as a kind of identity?

 

[eamonnroma]

The Bucket referred to ‘hookers’ as being the lowest of the low. This is somewhat judgemental. I know of politicians whom I would refer to as the lowest of the low.