Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

[SuperLuigi]

Before your side breaks out the champagne and before my side gets our knickers too much in a bunch, why don’t we wait until an actual transcript comes out.

The secular media has been wrong about the Church, in general, and this Pope, specifically, too many times to accept this report at face value.

As Archbishop Chaput said a couple of years ago,

We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, or MSNBC for reliable news about religion. These news media simply don’t provide trustworthy information about religious faith—and sometimes they can’t provide it, either because of limited resources or because of their own editorial prejudices. These are secular operations focused on making a profit. They have very little sympathy for the Catholic faith, and quite a lot of aggressive skepticism toward any religious community that claims to preach and teach God’s truth.

I think his admonition would include ABC, as well.

I understand what the Archbishop is saying.

But, I don’t know that making a profit comes before promoting the secular liberal agenda that is embedded in the Democratic Party.

 

[EIF5A]

Basically, what I gather from this thread is that if I were to convert to the Catholic Church, I should just keep quiet about my SSA/gay orientation, as it might be perceived that I’m trying to focus only on myself and air my problems to the world. I guess it’s better to keep my struggles to myself instead of allowing my intrinsically disordered nature to cause a disturbance in the parish.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Ephesians 5:3…“Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones.”

Funny you should mention that passage; I was just looking at it. Later in the passage, Paul says, “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather refute them. For it is shameful/indecorous even to speak of those things which these men do secretly, but all these things are made apparent by the light.” The message here seems to be to talk about these things only so far as to make it clear what they are – and that reluctantly – but to nevertheless bring these things into the light, so that they might be known for what they are. If you want to refute the arguments of evildoers, you need ammunition. Those who know the sin know the harms of the sin better than those who have (fortunately) refrained from it.

But let’s go back to the passage you mention above. The phrase you translate as “must not be mentioned” is “onomazestho” in Greek, which means literally “let it not be named”. Notice that “greed” is mentioned on the list, although the book of Acts (and Jesus) talks in detail about the sin of greed. Clearly what is meant is that, in the church, greed should not either be (a) a stated motive for action (which was common in the ancient world), or (b) indulged in, even to the point of talking loosely or joking about it. The same goes for sexual immorality (porneia) and impurity (akatharsia).

There is no suggestion that people who are tempted to greed or sexual morality should not ever say *that *they are tempted in these ways.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Basically, what I gather from this thread is that if I were to convert to the Catholic Church, I should just keep quiet about my SSA/gay orientation, as it might be perceived that I’m trying to focus only on myself and air my problems to the world. I guess it’s better to keep my struggles to myself instead of allowing my intrinsically disordered nature to cause a disturbance in the parish.

 

[EIF5A]

OK, perhaps I might confess to my hypothetical priest and tell maybe a few people, but to prevent any sort of “scandal”, I’ll just stay under the radar.

Didn’t mean to sound all doom and gloom.

 

[Boundless]

I realize this, but I am still wondering what you want people to do about this!

I’m not asking for people to “control” how other people respond, but simply to realize and admit that the lack of charitable responses to this difficult cross is a problem, and to be a little more vigilant in discouraging that attitude or disapproving of it when they see it. Judgmental attitudes that treat the individual suffering this cross (or any other cross) as if he or she is toxic ought to be discouraged by all of us. Sometimes, and I’m not saying it’s your intention to come across this way, I get the sense that people think that those who respond so uncharitably to this issue are justified, so we should not as a community try to implore them to change their ways. We would do that for any other shortcoming; why not respond the same to a lack of charity?

We all wish to gain sympathy and support for our troubles, and often we do not. There is nothing that can be done about that except to legislate kindness and expect everyone to comply, like it or not.

It’s not about legislation; it’s about each of us who DO realize the importance of charity, support, and sympathy doing our individual parts, one person at a time, to build a culture and encourage others to build a culture (within the Church) where people within that culture realize that these charitable responses are smiled on and uncharitable responses are frowned upon. This is not about trying to force people to change how they feel; feelings are not necessarily something they can control. This is about trying to influence people to change how they respond, that they may not simply give into their reflexive need to condemn or judge.

I respectfully disagree, and think you are quite mistaken. This has nothing to do with judgementalism (as a private message just informed me), I am not referring to your sins, anyone else’s, or my own. This topic needs to be dealt with objectively, and you are making it difficult because you keep referring to yourself, and not speaking about the problem itself,as such. There is constant reference to “I” and the non-existent “we”, which makes others appear to be making specific, personal or group “judgements”. In the future, to have a fair discussion, it is not necessary to bring yourself into it. There are many ways to do that, one of them being the use of the “third person”.

Whether I say I, we, or the person with SSA (“third person”) my points remain the same, so I see no need for the formality of making sure we always use the third person.

There is nothing un-objective about anything I have said. I have mentioned “I” and “we” because this sin and people’s reaction to such temptations DOES affect “me” and the others who are part of the “we.” That’s simply an objective fact. To act otherwise would be denying that fact, rather than being more objective. But even with all of this, the arguments I have given stand on their own merits, even if I were a third party bystander who had no personal stake in this discussion.

You know well that I’ve not advocated a culture where no one is ever frank or open about their weaknesses. One of the big issues here is the well-being of others, most importantly, children (the forgotten and most vulnerable people involved).

Yes, and when I was talking about advocating a culture where no one is ever frank or open about their weaknesses, I was saying that this is the sort of culture one would be advocating IF one wanted to be consistent in saying that SSA people should not be so open. I know that you think the gravity of SSA makes it somehow different than other sins that evidently you think it’s okay to be open about, but I have not seen a proper demonstration for why that is. You mention the well-being of others, and I have pointed out the flaws with that particular argument in a previous post.

Ephesians 5:3…“Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones.”

Here’s another translation, in a broader context: "3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. "

That “must not even be mentioned” can also be rendered as “must not even be a hint of” shows that this is talking about the ACTIONS, not talking about merely SPEAKING of those actions, much less speaking of the mere temptation to those actions; it’s an instruction to aim for perfection, so that the community is so perfect that no one can even find a trace of these sins. This is pointing to an ideal that should be striven for, but the fact is that people fail at that ideal, or are tempted to fail at that ideal; this passage is in no way a gag order on discussing that, it’s an edification to try as hard as we can not to fall to these sins in the first place, nor even (favorably) SUGGEST falling to them (I see that Prodigal_Son has broken out the literal meaning of the Greek, but it seems that the overall context of the phrase, and his own description of it, fit with what I have said here).

 

[Boundless]

Basically, what I gather from this thread is that if I were to convert to the Catholic Church, I should just keep quiet about my SSA/gay orientation, as it might be perceived that I’m trying to focus only on myself and air my problems to the world. I guess it’s better to keep my struggles to myself instead of allowing my intrinsically disordered nature to cause a disturbance in the parish.

This is profoundly sad, my friend, mostly because I can see exactly why you’d feel that way after reading this thread. See, this is precisely the kind of impression I want our Catholic culture to avoid giving.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

OK, perhaps I might confess to my hypothetical priest and tell maybe a few people, but to prevent any sort of “scandal”, I’ll just stay under the radar.

As I understand it, no one in this thread is saying it is sinful to speak publicly about one’s SSA or call oneself a “celibate gay Catholic”; they are only saying it is imprudent and potentially harmful. I disagree. But, to be fair to them, I don’t *think *they would call it scandalous. (Scandal is a form of sin).

Of course, if any other posters would consider this sinful, I am sorry to have misrepresented them. I think that the distinction between “unwise” and “sinful” is obviously a matter of some importance.

Personally, I think it would be praiseworthy, so long as one does not ask for special treatment, and so long as one subscribes to traditional teachings about sexual morality.

 

[EIF5A]

This is profoundly sad, my friend, mostly because I can see exactly why you’d feel that way after reading this thread. See, this is precisely the kind of impression I want our Catholic culture to avoid giving.

I still haven’t figured out where the official Church teachings end and when individual zealousness begins.

Personally, I can take the looks and words of judgment. Only God knows my heart and intent, and I can ignore other things.

But there might be those who have just begun to look into Christianity who might be deterred.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I still haven’t figured out where the official Church teachings end and when individual zealousness begins.

I’d trust the pope ahead of people on this thread, personally.

 

[EIF5A]

Personally, I think it would be praiseworthy, so long as one does not ask for special treatment, and so long as one subscribes to traditional teachings about sexual morality.

The thing is, if you even talk about it, you’re asking for special treatment…apparently.

 

[Boundless]

I still haven’t figured out where the official Church teachings end and when individual zealousness begins.

If it helps, the Catechism says of those with homosexual inclinations that “they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” I hope that’s encouraging. It’s hard to practice what the Church preaches: Many here are concerned–and I am trying to charitably understand them–that being too willing to treat homosexuals as you would treat other sinners would be to accept homosexual actions as non-sinful or as somehow not grave. They are right to want to avoid those mistakes, but the problem is that there’s another pitfall on the other side of this delicate balance, which is to lack “respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” or if not to lack it oneself to stand idly by as if nothing’s wrong when others lack it.

It can easily happen, and I don’t think (and I pray not) that the people here on the other side of the debate are doing this on purpose. It’s just a hard balance to walk, I think, for those not in close contact to this cross or to someone who bears it. It’s essentially the opposite error of those who, in the name of compassion, attempt to justify the sin itself.

That’s really unfortunate, and the unfortunate impression that you’ve received is exactly what’s at risk.

 

[gracepoole]

The thing is, if you even talk about it, you’re asking for special treatment…apparently.

This forum really isn’t a good representation of the Church at times (in terms of both accuracy and charity). I agree with Prodigal_Son: Pope Francis knows what’s what.

 

[rlg94086]

I still haven’t figured out where the official Church teachings end and when individual zealousness begins.

Personally, I can take the looks and words of judgment. Only God knows my heart and intent, and I can ignore other things.

But there might be those who have just begun to look into Christianity who might be deterred.

The difficulty many Catholics have with people who identify themselves as “celibate gay Catholics,” is that they are identifying based on their personal concupiscence. We are all men and women made in the likeness of God, and we all struggle with disordered desires.

Imagine, if you will…
Hi, I’m a chaste masturbater Catholic.
Hi, I’m a dieting and exercising gluttonous Catholic.
Hi, I’m a chaste lustful adulterous Catholic.
Hi, I’m a sober alcoholic Catholic…okay, well we do get some of those.

Don’t get me wrong. There are times and places to share our concupiscence outside of the confessional. Usually, this would be in support groups; group discussions about our sinful natures; one on one with someone who has shared their personal struggles with you; even forums like these, where we can have anonymous discussions about such topics.

That said, I haven’t shared my sinful inclinations outside of support groups with like strugglers and one on one discussions.

 

[EIF5A]

The difficulty many Catholics have with people who identify themselves as “celibate gay Catholics,” is that they are identifying based on their personal concupiscence. We are all men and women made in the likeness of God, and we all struggle with disordered desires.

I doubt that’s how they introduce themselves when they first meet you. “Celibate gay Catholic” is not identity – it’s just a descriptive phrase.

 

[rlg94086]

I doubt that’s how they introduce themselves when they first meet you. “Celibate gay Catholic” is not identity – it’s just a descriptive phrase.

It’s a descriptive phrase used to identify oneself.

 

[EIF5A]

It’s a descriptive phrase used to identify oneself.

Not sure how to respond to that.

Celibate = not a sin. Gay (orientation itself) = not a sin. Catholic = not a sin.

So…why is that bad? It just tells the other person the reason for singleness.

I hear the same “you shouldn’t identify with your orientation” in Protestant circles.

I always just assumed Catholics are more spiritually nuanced in that the word gay is not some evil curse.

(Edit: I won’t be contributing any more to this conversation, but I’m still interested in other people’s responses. If my experience with Protestants has taught me anything, it’s generally futile to discuss this sort of thing online.)

 

[rlg94086]

Not sure how to respond to that.

Celibate = not a sin. Gay (orientation itself) = not a sin. Catholic = not a sin.

So…why is that bad? It just tells the other person the reason for singleness.

I hear the same “you shouldn’t identify with your orientation” in Protestant circles.

I always just assumed Catholics are more spiritually nuanced in that the word gay is not some evil curse.

It assumes that “orientation” is different than concupiscence. A disordered desire is a desire to sin. So, while having same-sex desire is not a sin, it is concupiscence. It is odd to identify oneself by their sinful “orientation.”

Now, if someone asks you if you plan to get married, and you are comfortable enough to share your concupiscence in your answer, that is fine with me, personally. However, you should know and expect a level of discomfort from other people. Again, there are people who struggle with pedophilia, adulterous lust, bestial desires, masturbation/pornography, etc. If they are successfully dealing with those sinful desires or “orientations” by living chaste lives (single or married), they generally don’t share their inclinations through casual conversation.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The difficulty many Catholics have with people who identify themselves as “celibate gay Catholics,” is that they are identifying based on their personal concupiscence. We are all men and women made in the likeness of God, and we all struggle with disordered desires.

Imagine, if you will…
Hi, I’m a chaste masturbater Catholic.
Hi, I’m a dieting and exercising gluttonous Catholic.
Hi, I’m a chaste lustful adulterous Catholic.
Hi, I’m a sober alcoholic Catholic…okay, well we do get some of those.

You can’t be lustful and adulterous without sinning. You can’t be a masturbator without sinning. You can’t be gluttonous without sinning. You *can *be gay without sinning. Especially if you specify that you are “celibate” and gay.

 

[rlg94086]

You can’t be lustful and adulterous without sinning. You can’t be a masturbator without sinning. You can’t be gluttonous without sinning. You *can *be gay without sinning. Especially if you specify that you are “celibate” and gay.

Nonsense. People have strong inclinations toward all of those sins. Their concupiscence is no less or more sinful than someone who is “gay,” but remaining chaste. A chaste pedophile is just as sinless and/or as much a sinner as you and I.