Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

[Prodigal_Son]

*Patricia Zorzan:
Speaking on behalf of the Brazilians. Society has changed, young people have changed, and we see many young people in Brazil. You have not talked about abortion, marriage between same sex. In Brazil have passed a law extending abortion rights and allowed marriage between same sex. Why has not talked about this?

Papa Francesco:
The Church has already expressed this perfectly. It was not necessary to go back, as I have not even talked about the fraud, deceit or other things which the Church has a clear doctrine!

Patricia Zorzan:
But it is a matter of interest to young people …

Papa Francesco:
Yes, but there was no need to talk about this, but the positive things that open the way to the boys. Is not it? In addition, young people know exactly what is the position of the Church!

Patricia Zorzan:
What is the position of his Holiness, can you tell?

Papa Francesco:
That of the Church. I am the son of the Church!*

Some people are so obstinate and annoying. He’s the Pope. He can’t err in faith and morals. His belief on gay marriage is the same as what is written in the Catechism. Same with abortion.

I wish he’d say “stop asking me stupid questions, lady.”

Huh? This just seems way off topic. No one here is supporting gay marriage.

 

[Mark121359]

Source the program please, so we can all wax glowingly about the “Catholic illiterates” you are referencing.
Thanks for the productive post.

Fr. Charles P. Connor is a Church Historian. Fr. Pacwa is no slouch either! The relevant comments are in the 5-7 minute mark. The "Catholic illiterates comment is at about the 6:30 mark. But the entire program was excellent
youtube.com/watch?v=urff5rqhd3o

Peace, Mark

 

[Elizabeth502]

Mark,I believe it was EWTN Live on May 15, 2013, if memory serves me correctly. I don’t have a podcast of it, but if you do, you could provide it to our resident skeptic.

I see you just beat me to it in the cross-posting. Good job.

 

[clem456]

Fr. Charles P. Connor is a Church Historian. Fr. Pacwa is no slouch either! The relevant comments are in the 5-7 minute mark. The "Catholic illiterates comment is at about the 6:30 mark. But the entire program was excellent
youtube.com/watch?v=urff5rqhd3o

Peace, Mark

Right, he’s talking about the Dutch Catechism from the years 1967 through 1992.
1992 is 20 years gone. Excuse me, 21 years.
I would just encourage you Mark, don’t identify yourself with this “Catholic illiteracy” label. He has a point in the context he is speaking about, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for you.
Do you?
Fear not.
…

 

[Mark121359]

Mark,I believe it was EWTN Live on May 15, 2013, if memory serves me correctly. I don’t have a podcast of it, but if you do, you could provide it to our resident skeptic.

I see you just beat me to it in the cross-posting. Good job.

You are absolutely correct. And I’ll tell you something else. It’s going to take one sly dog to dispute what you say on here about Church matters or teachings…because you my friend, knows yer stuff!

Peace, Mark

 

[Elizabeth502]

Doctrines of the Church never change, clem. That’s one essential way we differ from Protestantism. The Church’s doctrines on moral theology and degrees of disorder and sin both precede “21 years ago” and continue today. It is not possible to change Church doctrine, because it derives from absolute and unchanging Truth. What Fr. Connors is referring to (I didn’t to listen to youtube because I heard the whole program live) is the devolution of catechesis, which was formerly built on a complete catechism and which now cannot be counted on to be that. Even when orthodox catechetical materials are provided to parishes and Catholic schools, these are often discarded in place of some faddish program. Further, the absenteeism from ongoing CCD is significant, after First Communion especially. In addition, the catechesis revolving around Confirmation is often weak to an extreme, and by design: it typically prefers “activity” to instruction, with an emphasis on the social and “fun.” I actually had to go to a different diocese to get my children Confirmed with adequate catechesis; that’s how bad things are in many dioceses and parishes. Finally, in our diocese there is almost no adult catechesis, though our region is intellectually sophisticated and with enormous theological resources. When Catholics stop their already weak and dumbed-down catechesis in their teenage years, they enter the adult word with a stunted version of Catholicism (both its theology and its spirituality) and are ill-equipped, as a whole, to filter the secular worldview from the religious. I would have been, too, had I been so unlucky to have encountered that.

 

[opus101]

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.

And what brings you to this conclusion? The fact that confession, counseling, spiritual direction, prayer groups, support groups and close friends are not enough for you? At what other church will you find these things? Where else would you go to recieve this kind of help?

 

[opus101]

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?

To be completely honest with you, I have never met a single Catholic who would give an uncharitable response or who would treat people with SSA as if they were toxic. Even if their tolerance was not due to their faith, it would at least be because they have been completely inculturated and conditioned to respond in a friendly matter. Most people don’t even know where it fits in Catholic moral theology, so they would not even come close to rejecting you.

 

[rlg94086]

In the most polite way possible, I’m told I shouldn’t mention my orientation because that’s mentioning sin. Basically, live quietly and invisibly. Your troubles are your cross, and just deal with it and don’t bring it up.

Nothing in Church teaching forbids me from describing myself as gay as long as I don’t live in the lifestyle.

Ah…so politely told. That is not the way you were presenting it. As I explained before, you should expect discomfort when you discuss your personal cross. Imagine how someone who struggles with pedophilic desires would be greeted, if he openly shared his struggles.

The difference, it seems, is that you think your particular failing or “orientation” is more noble than others. The polite non-acceptance of the nobility of your concupiscence is wounding your personal pride.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR WARNING

Attacking our Catechism is banned on this thread and in this forum

Attacking Vatican II is banned in on this thread and in this forum

Going off topic on this thread is banned

Attacking anyone for any reason is banned in this forum

 

[gracepoole]

To be completely honest with you, I have never met a single Catholic who would give an uncharitable response or who would treat people with SSA as if they were toxic. Even if their tolerance was not due to their faith, it would at least be because they have been completely inculturated and conditioned to respond in a friendly matter. Most people don’t even know where it fits in Catholic moral theology, so they would not even come close to rejecting you.

On several occasions over the past year, I’ve read posts by others here at CAF who described gays and lesbians as “demonic.” It may be that these posters meant to describe gays and lesbians who engage in homosexual acts and not those with “SSA” (a term I’ve seriously never heard anywhere but here) – but this kind of hyperbolic language stings and it’s definitely not welcoming.

 

[opus101]

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.

It makes it very difficult for others to talk about the issue objectively when someone who has the condition is part of the conversation and continually refers to himself. That makes it easy for some to be falsely accused of “judgementalism” by those who cannot distinguish between objective facts and subjective culpability…the fact that you personalize everything makes it seem that comments are directed toward you and your situation.

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.

You were completely unsuccessful in pointing out flaws in that argument.
And you are well aware that I have repeatedly pointed out that there are many venues to be open about this condition.

 

[rlg94086]

On several occasions over the past year, I’ve read posts by others here at CAF who described gays and lesbians as “demonic.” It may be that these posters meant to describe gays and lesbians who engage in homosexual acts and not those with “SSA” (a term I’ve seriously never heard anywhere but here) – but this kind of hyperbolic language stings and it’s definitely not welcoming.

Agreed.

 

[opus101]

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

Definitely agree.

 

[opus101]

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.

 

[opus101]

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.

So you want our Catholic culture to avoid offering confession? You want our Catholic culture to prohibit people with SSA from attending support groups and prayer groups? You want Catholics with SSA to be barred from spiritual direction, sacraments and psychological counseling? Because it’s the preponderance and legitimacy of such things that we’ve been talking about on this thread. How is it that this gives a bad impression?

 

[opus101]

The subject of the thread is Pope Francis’s emphasis on not judging gay people. It has become a thread where those who overpersonalize the topic end up baiting others to make it appear that they are being harsh and judgemental.

In one of my posts I tried to state why we should be able to speak objectively without getting personal, and lo and behold I was reported for making a personal attack!!!

So, I will completely stick to the subject (as before), and try to ignore the baiting.

It is quite evident that no one on this thread has ever suggested even once that there is no place for those with homosexual temptations to air their difficulties. It has never been stated, even once, that any homosexual individual, even one who does not practice it but only has the temptations, is going to hell or is personally worse off than anybody else.

It has also been pointed out that information of this nature is not for everyone to hear, and that it causes confusion among the faithful about the objective truth of the condition, especially as it relates to other sexual sins and the intrinsic disordered nature of it all.
It has been pointed out as well that exposure to certain sins can harm the innocence of young people.

There have been many reasons given for using circumspection and prudence in this regard, all of which have been rejected by some as not being arguments that they deem to be good ones.

Suffice it to say that we have to agree to disagree.

I will hold with Pope Francis: “Who am I to judge?” and “I am a daughter of the Church.”

 

[fili_dei]

And what brings you to this conclusion? The fact that confession, counseling, spiritual direction, prayer groups, support groups and close friends are not enough for you? At what other church will you find these things? Where else would you go to recieve this kind of help?

I think Pope Francis’s comment was as much about the need to focus on our own interior life and that by focusing on the sins of others we distract ourselves from our own interior life - cf St Faustina’s Divine Mercy diaries paragraph 1716-1718.

I think the media are trying to turn his comments as a toleration if not approval of gay relationships and in doing so repeat the mistake of transposing a lobbying model on the church without understanding the nature of the deposit of faith.

Keeping the above point in mind, and as part of the practice of rhetorics as a means of personal understanding, I questioned whether the identification by sexual orientation (outside of the sacrament of confession and support groups) may be a barrier to overcoming that cross, but also feed into the broader legitimisation of gay relationships, in much the same way portrayal of co-habitation in media, advertising etc inculturates this practice.

I examined the letter to bishops on the pastoral care of homosexual persons for guidance on this issue: doctrinafidei.va/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

I noted the following points:
i/ Paragraph 3 notes the difference between tendency and acts (paragraph 3) but whilst the former is not a sin, they are both ordered to an intrinsic moral evil:
'In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

ii/ Paragraph 15 covers what makes a good pastoral program and warns against being silent or countering church teaching for the sake of pastoral care:
“[n]o authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin”

“we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.”

An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.

iii/ Paragraph 16 comments on the notion of sexual orientation identity:
'The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

 

[opus101]

I think Pope Francis’s comment was as much about the need to focus on our own interior life and that by focusing on the sins of others we distract ourselves from our own interior life - cf St Faustina’s Divine Mercy diaries paragraph 1716-1718.

I think the media are trying to turn his comments as a toleration if not approval of gay relationships and in doing so repeat the mistake of transposing a lobbying model on the church without understanding the nature of the deposit of faith.

Keeping the above point in mind, and as part of the practice of rhetorics as a means of personal understanding, I questioned whether the identification by sexual orientation (outside of the sacrament of confession and support groups) may be a barrier to overcoming that cross, but also feed into the broader legitimisation of gay relationships, in much the same way portrayal of co-habitation in media, advertising etc inculturates this practice.

I examined the letter to bishops on the pastoral care of homosexual persons for guidance on this issue: doctrinafidei.va/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

I noted the following points:
i/ Paragraph 3 notes the difference between tendency and acts (paragraph 3) but whilst the former is not a sin, they are both ordered to an intrinsic moral evil:
'In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

ii/ Paragraph 15 covers what makes a good pastoral program and warns against being silent or countering church teaching for the sake of pastoral care:
“[n]o authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin”

“we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.”

An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.

iii/ Paragraph 16 comments on the notion of sexual orientation identity:
'The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

fili dei, thank you so much for such an informative post! It was of great interest to me that the Vatican document stated that, although the inclination is not a sin, it is a strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and is not to be considered “neutral”. I especially appreciated the fact that the Church refuses to reduce the human person to an “identity” defined by sexual attractions, in this case homosexual.

It seems that some would like others to believe that it is a “neutral” condition, and that it’s perfectly fine to refer to themselves or others as “gay” Catholics.

This document is in direct contradiction to that mindset.

 

[opus101]

.

Keeping the above point in mind, and as part of the practice of rhetorics as a means of personal understanding, I questioned whether the identification by sexual orientation (outside of the sacrament of confession and support groups) may be a barrier to overcoming that cross, but also feed into the broader legitimisation of gay relationships, in much the same way portrayal of co-habitation in media, advertising etc inculturates this practice.

You hit the nail right on the head.