Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

[bellasbane]

To be so self-absorbed to the point of giving one’s sexual attractions a defining power over one’s life, to the point of calling oneself “gay”, or feeling that one’s sexual orientation is of interest to anyone other than a spouse, is a sign of narcisistic self-centeredness that does not have the self-forgetfulness and sacrificial love necessary to the priesthood (or married life, for that matter). This also goes for heterosexuals who are self-absorbed and fixated on sex/sexual attractions to the point of not being able to properly relate to others in a manner of sacrificial Christian love. It’s a matter of priorities…self vs. God and others.

That’s not fair to gay people. Once the social stigma of being gay is gone, the preoccupation with one’s sexual identity will vanish as well. Back in the 70s, it took real courage to come out as gay, because there was a real possibility that you would be a victim of bullying or violence. Today in the United States, a gay person does not have to defend his/her gay identity as much - so they are defending their other identities: their identities as husbands & wives, and their identities as fathers & mothers.

 

[StuMondo]

catholicexchange.com/do-the-popes-remarks-undermine-celibacy/

Thoughts?

 

[opus101]

Whenever some people call themselves gay, they are simply using that as a shorthand for “I’m attracted to the same gender.”

If this ever was true, it no longer is. The term “gay” has been defined by the lobbyists themselves, and it’s popular definition is not what you are saying.

It has to do with simply not being afraid, anymore than, say, someone with temptations toward greed would be afraid of bringing that up if it was relevant, or confiding it to a friend or relative or prayer group without feeling like he would be rejected. It has to do with we Christians acting as a family in Christ, and thus being able to invite each other to share burdens and open up to us without fear that we will reject them.

So what do you propose as a remedy for this? Absolutely no one has control over how another person will respond to this information. But you must be aware that there are support groups for people in this situation, even retreats, spiritual direction, and most importantly, confession. What you are seeking already exists.

See, the problem is that we make far too many presumptions about the motives of those who would be more open about this. That’s what I see here: The presumption that every move a person with SSA makes is about being “self centered” or “obsessed with sexual self-definition” or whatever else. If being open about one’s SSA is self centered, then it would seem to me that the logical conclusion is that anyone who has ever openly acknowledged some other shortcoming or other must be self centered too.

You seem to equate homosexuality and sins and problems related to it with other types of sins that are not in the same category. I’m not minimizing other sins, but only trying to point out that homosexuality and heterosexual sodomy are sins that are in the same category as murder, oppressing the poor, and other serious acts against God. In the list of the Sins That Cry Out To God For Vengeance, it is second only to murder itself.

Imagine if someone said “I have a deep-seated desire to kill others/oppress the poor/cheat widows and orphans…I hope you don’t reject me because of this”. I’m sorry, but I think most people would say “I think you might need to see a priest and a psychiatrist. I’ll pray for you, but I’m afraid I can’t help you!”

 

[gam197]

catholicexchange.com/do-the-popes-remarks-undermine-celibacy/

Thoughts?

Because of this the church has tried to screen out homosexual persons from the priesthood. The all-male environment of seminaries and the ordained priesthood afford a safe-haven for homosexuals. Men with same-sex attraction, under the cover of celibacy, can easily “date” and engage in couple type activities without raising an eyebrow. For example, homosexual clergy can go out to dinner; certainly innocuous in itself. However, if a straight priest attempts this with a woman tongues will wag.

This may be something that priests witness but rarely speak about.

 

[opus101]

That’s the problem: It’s incredibly hard for men with SSA to find friends or a good prayer group whom they can feel securely confident wouldn’t then grow icy and distant if they knew about the SSA. Such friends do definitely exist, but a man with SSA really has to approach this with great risk of trial and error, such that for many such men they’re too afraid to take the risk. Whenever we talk of openness here, we’re just talking about the kind of atmosphere/practice that promotes a world where people who bear this cross are not SO afraid to open up about this that they fear even to “test the waters” with the friends and prayer groups that you rightly suggest are a better context for such openness.

Again, we have better things to do in the public square than talk about our attractions all day. But we would certainly like to know that we can open up and share our struggles and shortcomings with friends and certain subgroups and know we won’t be judged or rejected. Maybe reaching such a state doesn’t require for men with SSA to be publicly open, but it probably does require someone, SSA or not, to make public appeals for people to be loving and non-judgmental IF a friend or someone in your prayer group is open about this (or any other struggle, for that matter). Because that’s lacking, in our current situation.

I think statements like that of the Pope are a definite step in the right direction; because if others emulated his attitude in that statement, then we’d be much closer to making the above ideal a reality.

You speak of SSA as if it is something that the Lord is not able to heal, or as if it is something that, if not healed, cannot be sacrificed.

No matter what someone’s sexual orientation is, we are never to look at others as a means to our own gratification. If you avoid that, but still see men as attractive, then maybe you are just admiring the beauties of creation! Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo certainly appreciated every beatiful aspect of creation and the beauty of the human person, male and female…but this didn’t make them homosexuals.

 

[Boundless]

If this ever was true, it no longer is. The term “gay” has been defined by the lobbyists themselves, and it’s popular definition is not what you are saying.

That may not be its popular definition, but I’ve encountered many multiple devout Catholics who mean it the way I’m saying. And in fact, even on a popular scale, if most people find out you have same sex attractions, they’re going to define that as “gay,” further proving that a great many people DO find “gay” to be synonymous with “has same sex attractions” regardless of what a person does about those attractions.

You seem to equate homosexuality and sins and problems related to it with other types of sins that are not in the same category. I’m not minimizing other sins, but only trying to point out that homosexuality and heterosexual sodomy are sins that are in the same category as murder, oppressing the poor, and other serious acts against God. In the list of the Sins That Cry Out To God For Vengeance, it is second only to murder itself.

By this logic, lesbians and gay men who do other sexual things with each other but don’t practice sodomy get a get out of jail free card.

I’m not so sure that the “Sin of Sodom” was merely a type of sex, but being so consumed by and dominated by that sexual desire as to be willing to rape and humiliate one’s fellow man. We always seem to forget that the scriptures that show that the Sodomites were homosexual (or bisexual) are the very same scriptures that show that they wanted to RAPE the angels!

C’mon, any other interpretation severely interrupts the continuity with the other sins on that list! Murder is an action that FORCEFULLY ends a life. Oppressing widows and orphans FORCEFULLY keeps them under. Cheating a worker FORCEFULLY deprives him of his due pay. There’s a clear pattern here. It makes sense then that the “Sin of Sodom” that belongs on this list would be something equally (and obviously) forceful. Which the sin of Sodom was: They were rapists, gang rapists at that. Even walking through their city was dangerous, as you could be raped. Do you seriously think that part was irrelevant to their sin? Do you seriously think God thought the rape part was less grave than the fact that it happened to be MEN that they were willing to rape? Perhaps the homosexuality was PART of their sin, but so was rape. Without both of these combined, we do not have a complete picture of the sin of Sodom.

I’m not saying gay sexual activity is not a very grave matter, but I don’t think that, by itself, it’s so many orders of magnitude worse than other grave sins (especially sexual ones) as you suggest here.

Imagine if someone said “I have a deep-seated desire to kill others/oppress the poor/cheat widows and orphans…I hope you don’t reject me because of this”. I’m sorry, but I think most people would say “I think you might need to see a priest and a psychiatrist. I’ll pray for you, but I’m afraid I can’t help you!”

This is irrelevant in light of the above, but still, I’ll respond, so that even if you still hold to the “Sin of Sodomy is any gay act whatsoever” definition you can see that I am not holding a double standard: In all of those cases except possibly “deep-seated desire to kill” I would not shy away from the person. Even with the desire to kill, I wouldn’t try to shame the person or make him feel rejected (for a sin he clearly wants to resist), it’s just that he poses an immediate and lethal threat to me if, in the heat of the moment, he loses his wits and gives in, so I would at the very least have to avoid situation where he would have that opportunity for my own safety, etc. But certainly for the other things on that list, you bet I’d be willing to remain friends with such a person, to hear his woes, to be his confidante; yes, I’d charitably recommend that he seek a priest and some professional help, but that’s NOT mutually exclusive with remaining his loyal and charitable companion and Christian brother. That does NOT mean that I have to avoid him as if he might at any moment shoot me between the eyes. I may not want to work for the one tempted to cheat employees, and I may not want to vote for the one who is tempted to oppress widows and orphans, but the context of their temptations does not make them an immediate threat to me just from my being their loyal friend. It’s just the same for a person who struggles with SSA, unless “raping” people is also a deep seated part of his temptations.

 

[opus101]

Are homosexual/ SAA people to be treated with kindness and supported in their efforts to overcome their difficulties and strive to live the Christian life? Certainly!

Are there avenues provided by the Church toward that end? Most definitely!

Do all people react/respond in a way that is desired by the individual involved? Not always.

Some are uncomfortable because they do not care to discuss anything that is among the things that St. Paul said should not even be mentioned. Others are concerned because they do not suffer that particular condition themselves, and do not understand why it should be mentioned in its specificity rather than just under the title “lust”.

Others might be concerned that someone might be using it as a “crutch” or as an excuse, or as a means to gain applause and attention.

Some may be disconcerted if the person is married with children, but still contiues to highlight his “condition” to the detriment of others.

There will be as many different responses as there are people.

We all have crosses to carry, and others will not always react in a way that is personally pleasing to us. That is part of the cross, part of the sacrifice, in union with Christ. The most important thing by far is Christ Himself, in the sacrament of penance and Holy Communion. Nothing at all can heal better than these sacraments.

Outside of that, there are many avenues provided by the Church for healing and support.
We cannot expect others to respond perfectly, just as we ourselves are not perfect.

One more point: in truth, our brothers and sisters in Christ are not all worldly people or persons who have knowledge of things like this. Some have, only through God’s grace, maintained their innocence (miraculous as it might seem in this day and age), and really do not need to be exposed to certain sins except in the most general terms. So, while on the one hand, the person who suffers SAA might want to be more open, on the other hand he needs to be charitable toward others and consider the fact that, morallyspeaking, they do not need to have their innocence taken away.

 

[EIF5A]

The homosexual issue has nowhere near the deleterious effect on real lives that heterosexual lust does. That’s a much bigger issue and problem, just due to the sheer numbers. Heterosexual lust is talked about, pictured, shown in movies, waaaay more than the gay issue. It might not be in the political news as much as the gay issue, but, heterosexual lust is not stigmatized like gay lust, so it lends itself to political news. Sometimes we notice what we are predisposed to look for. (I think Satan is on to something there…)

Go to the most used web portal in the world, Yahoo. Look at the stories and the pop-up ads.
J-Lo’s new swimsuit. The Kardashians are pregnant. Six ways to please your lover. The ads have singles pop ups.

Tell me that regular old disordered lust between men and women is not the predominant issue of our day.

I think the excuse is these are not intrinsically disordered…which I guess makes it less terrible in the eyes of many.

 

[clem456]

I think the excuse is these are not intrinsically disordered…which I guess makes it less terrible in the eyes of many.

I guess. The root of lust of any kind is not in the body parts, it’s in the heart and will, per Jesus himself. And that doesn’t detract from the disordered nature of the homosexual act one bit. It puts in proper perspective.

but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her **has already committed **adultery with her in his heart.

“Has already committed”…and no body parts touched anyone else’s body parts.

On another note, the idea sodomy is one of the few sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance is not a doctrine, it is a ( t )radition. The catechism mentions this. Emphasizing this point does no good for dialogue with gay persons whatsoever.

 

[opus101]

I’m not saying gay sexual activity is not a very grave matter, but I don’t think that, by itself, it’s so many orders of magnitude worse than other grave sins (especially sexual ones) as you suggest here.

God should have consulted you first.

IMO, those who wish to overcome this sin need to look at it squarely and admit the truth about it. Those who have overcome, or are on the road to it, repent with a deep compunction that admits the true gravity of it all without making excuses (“but it’s not any worse than some of these other sins, etc”). A truly repentant person always includes himself, as St. Paul did, with those who were the worst of sinners…and this turns out to be their greatest joy, in the experience of God’s infinite mercy!

A truly remorseful person does not say “I’m sorry for my sins Lord, but look at so and so…my sins aren’t any worse than his, no siree!”

 

[opus101]

On another note, the idea sodomy is one of the few sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance is not a doctrine, it is a ( t )radition. The catechism mentions this. Emphasizing this point does no good for dialogue with gay persons whatsoever.

You are probably right. It takes away all of the glamour.

 

[clem456]

God should have consulted you first.

IMO, those who wish to overcome this sin need to look at it squarely and admit the truth about it. Those who have overcome, or are on the road to it, repent with a deep compunction that admits the true gravity of it all without making excuses (“but it’s not any worse than some of these other sins, etc”). A truly repentant person always includes himself, as St. Paul did, with those who were the worst of sinners…and this turns out to be their greatest joy, in the experience of God’s infinite mercy!

A truly remorseful person does not say “I’m sorry for my sins Lord, but look at so and so…my sins aren’t any worse than his, no siree!”

Missing the point.
The topic is looking to the Pope’s approach to this issue.
The Pope did not, in his comments the other day, emphasize the unique and grave sinfulness of homosexuality. He didn’t feel the need to evidently. The teaching is plain to see. As a pastor, he thought it wise to build a bridge.

What he did do, is interject his own humanity into the discussion; “Who am I…to judge”. Emphasizing that he is a person who is human, and is not qualified or willing to judge someone’s soul…per John Chapter 8 verses 1-11. The Pope does not pretend he knows how much repentance one has done.

 

[EIF5A]

God should have consulted you first.

IMO, those who wish to overcome this sin need to look at it squarely and admit the truth about it. Those who have overcome, or are on the road to it, repent with a deep compunction that admits the true gravity of it all without making excuses (“but it’s not any worse than some of these other sins, etc”). A truly repentant person always includes himself, as St. Paul did, with those who were the worst of sinners…and this turns out to be their greatest joy, in the experience of God’s infinite mercy!

A truly remorseful person does not say “I’m sorry for my sins Lord, but look at so and so…my sins aren’t any worse than his, no siree!”

That wasn’t what s/he was saying.

Is gay fornication a worse sin than straight adultery?

 

[bellasbane]

Missing the point.
The topic is looking to the Pope’s approach to this issue.
The Pope did not, in his comments the other day, emphasize the unique and grave sinfulness of homosexuality. He didn’t feel the need to evidently. The teaching is plain to see. As a pastor, he thought it wise to build a bridge.

What he did do, is interject his own humanity into the discussion; “Who am I…to judge”. Emphasizing that he is a person who is human, and is not qualified or willing to judge someone’s soul…per John Chapter 8 verses 1-11. The Pope does not pretend he knows how much repentance one has done.

Well said!

Good-luck trying to get folks to discuss mercy & humility. I guess its just not as much fun as righteous condemnation.

 

[livingwordunity]

gay men who do other sexual things with each other but don’t practice sodomy

Do you mean like if all they do is hold hands? What universe is that in?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

**You speak of SSA as if it is something that the Lord is not able to heal, or as if it is something that, if not healed, cannot be sacrificed. **

No matter what someone’s sexual orientation is, we are never to look at others as a means to our own gratification. If you avoid that, but still see men as attractive, then maybe you are just admiring the beauties of creation! Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo certainly appreciated every beatiful aspect of creation and the beauty of the human person, male and female…but this didn’t make them homosexuals.

This. ^^
,

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think you know well that I did not disagree with this point. If you read my posts you will see that I wasn’t talking about counseling , therapy or support groups.

Sorry for misunderstanding. The plainest interpretation of your words was the one I gave. But I do remember now that you had said other things earlier in the thread.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Do you mean like if all they do is hold hands? What universe is that in?

I think the point was that, if sodomy is defined as anal sex, then lots of gay people don’t do that. If sodomy includes oral sex as well, then there is nothing special about the sins of homosexuals, since this is quite as common among heterosexuals. Since Opus has said that sodomy is a “Sin That Cries Out To God For Vengeance”, I think it is worth looking at what exactly is meant by sodomy.

I expect we will find that, while homosexuals might be consigned to committing such sins, if they make the mistake of being sexually active, far more heterosexuals are committing the relevant sins. And then the rationale for treating those tempted toward heterosexual sexual sins differently from those tempted to homosexual sexual sins breaks down. Why? Because both groups are tempted toward the same act, which is sodomy. (And trust me if you don’t know this for yourself, heterosexuals are tempted toward “complete” acts of oral sex).

But suppose that by “sodomy”, we just mean anal sex. It follows that a large group of homosexuals are NOT tempted toward sodomy. In other words, it would turn out that the inclination to sodomy is not an essential characteristic of homosexuality.

Does this matter? Not much. Who cares how severe other people’s sins are? I know that I have committed sins that are extraordinarily severe – what difference does it make if these were with a woman instead of a man? I am worthy of death.

But the key difference with homosexuals versus heterosexuals is a matter of relationships, not sins. Both heterosexual and homosexual couples are liable to the same sins, but homosexual couples do not have any possibility of a sexual relationship free of these sins. Heterosexual couples do.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Is gay fornication a worse sin than straight adultery?

If you insist on asking a technical moral theology question, then the answer to that moral theology question is Yes. Fix has explained this, as have I. You learn those kinds of distinctions in a fuller catechesis than the sloppy one that has tended to be available in the recent past.

When you ask a question with an actual definitive answer, however, one should not be upset at the answer, because there are such answers in Catholic theology, as categories. Most of these threads end up challenging the theology, and then the questioner becoming offended that there’s an actual answer.

Also, for practical purposes, the poster InSearchofGrace has done quite a bit of research on the exceptionally binding qualities of homosexual relationships which can make them quite difficult to extricate oneself from. Therefore, the Church would be neglectful not to be concerned about homosexual behavior as merely “no different” from any other sexual sin. It is not “no different,” both from a moral standpoint and from its psychological power.

The Church, as the living organism of Christ, is in the business of liberating and healing, which is not accomplished by trivializing moral danger and psychological enslavement.

 

[One_point]

That wasn’t what s/he was saying.

Is gay fornication a worse sin than straight adultery?

Yes, it is a worse sin. Those who say it isn’t evidently have not given much time to studying catholic moral theology, nor the writings of catholic fathers, saints and doctors. Clearly, No one here can say that any specific gay fornicator is headed for a worse level of punishment in Hell than any specific heterosexual adulterer, if they both die unrepentant, because personal culpability depends on much more than the objective gravity of the sin in question. No one can even say if any of them will end up in hell at all! Yet, as far as I can tell, no one here disputes this. Personal culpability depends a whole lot on the personal freedom involved, the willfulness of that person in defying God’s rule over this world and more particularly, over him or herself as a creature of God, a rule which expresses itself in his design for the World that includes man. —The strength of the temptation, for example, the knowledge and understanding of the gravity of the sin in that person for another, all these affect willfulness and therefore culpability in any sin whatsoever, however objectively grave that sin may be in itself. This is exactly the judgment we are forbidden from making against others, and it is precisely the judgment that the Pope is refusing to make in his statements. It pretends to know people’s deepest intentions, level of understanding, force of temptations and other influences that may not even be within the grasp of that person suffering, let alone other people. Things like opportunities for escape or lack thereof, interior weaknesses of that person or the weaknesses of the flesh which we are here referring to by the label ‘dis-orders’, a lot of these things can fundamentally affect personal culpability or personal guilt, even where the action is objectively abhorrent.

Also, for those who deny this gradation among the grave sins, do you consider fornicating with your brother or sister to be equivalent to fornicating with your neighbour? After all, per this logic, both are mortal sin, so who cares, right? How about zoophilia/copulating with animals? Is it an equivalent sin to gay sex? Both are mortal sin, and therefore both must be equal, right? How about abortion and adultery? Aren’t both mortal sin? And isn’t that all that really matters in discussing differences in gravity of sins? Not so. There are differences in gravity among classes of sins, and there are differences in gravity within each of those classes of sin. If you think of God’s law as merely a series of commands to do or not to do things (a very Protestant thought), then you will miss this truth, of course. But if you remember that God’s law is not just arbitrary commands however divine their origins, but a particular design for the world intended for a certain purpose, you can see what we are saying. This is what natural law is, not just divine commandments separated from God’s will for his creation. If God’s desire/will for the world can be represented by a straight line drawn in the middle of a sheet of paper, and deviations from it by other lines drawn next to it on either side, some lines will curve out further from that central straight line than others. They are greater deviations from his design than others. It therefore makes little sense to say that all those deviations are equal. That can only come from a mind that thinks of God’s law as a series of commands that have not been tied to a common purpose in creation, a series of do’s and don’ts instead of a very purposeful and loving design for this world and creation. That s not catholic moral teaching at all, it’s actually more among the Protestants who believe in salvation by faith only, and once saved always saved.