Who is obsessed with the Church's traditional stance on homosexuality and women in ministry?

[Kal2012]

The media and other people outside the church (for whatever reason).

I find that Liberals and “ex-Catholics” are the worst.

I have a friend who supports gay rights and she’s all over the fact that Pope Francis said “who am I to judge (gay people)”. As if ‘not judging people’ is something new in Catholic thinking.

It’s like the saying goes, a lot of people hate what they think is the Catholic church.

 

[TimothyH]

Commenting on the Holy Father and the media’s exchange on the pope’s way home, I think that Cardinal Dolan has hit the nail on the head.

But, as usual, the press predictably brought these weary issues up, and have given them more ink than any of the other noble themes that rang through Copacabana Beach. It’s not the Church that is obsessed with those topics, but the media!

I would say that not only the media, but many of us who are not part of the media are also fixated on these issues that the Church has already addressed throughout her 2,000 year history.

Original Statement

No truer words have been spoken Brother. CAF is rampant with homosexuality threads. I have even seen threads about transvestite vegans. It is an obsession as much here as it is on National Public Radio.

I wish some would spend as much time trying to understand marriage as taught by Blessed John Paul II in Theology of the Body as they do arguing and picking apart the intracacies of homosexuality. It’s like medical researchers only studying the cases where people died, what went wrong, instead of, once in a while, studying the cases where people lived to see what went right.

Meanwhile, the Catechism is brief, to the point, saatisfying, and is really beautiful teaching.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

I believe Benedict was referring to persons active in the lifestyle of homosexuality. "If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them?" As my main motto goes “Deum time, et mandata eius faciamus” and if a Priest who does just that but has a past history of homosexual acts or has SSA but his SSA IS UNDER CONTROL, then I don’t see a reason to judge them.

I have the bad habit of bringing up Saint Austin in this type of talks, and I am going to it again Saint Austin had a long history of sin, so many in his youth he could not remember them all. All unmarried persons, persons with SSA, Priests and Bishops are called to chastity. And as President Bush* said if one repents of his sinful past, we should be saying “Glory Hallelujah”

This quote referrers to what Pres. Bush said about funding faith based organizations for the purpose of battling drug addiction

Pope Benedict is definitely being misrepresented, not just misquoted. The term that he used was “deep seated”. I realize that this is not a term that is commonly used in daily conversation. But it behooves one who is reporting to find out what it means.

In our daily American parlance, it refers to one who identifies himself on the basis of his sexual preference rather than as a human being.

“I am gay” is not the same as “I’m John Doe and if you must know, yes I am homosexual.” The former is a very reductionist way of defining oneself. The latter is holistic and healthy. Pope Benedict was excluding the first, not the second.

 

[McCall1981]

The bold is mine.

I’m waiting for this too.

But I’m praying that they don’t realize it, but rather are so charmed by him that they will follow him down the right path. You know, kind of not realizing when you’re being transformed.

In relation to this, it is interesting that in the space of about two days Pope Francis was able to re-affirm Church teaching on homosexuality and abortion (citing the Catechism as stating these teachings “perfectly”) and also re-affirm that women’s ordination is an impossibility. Yet all the media can talk about is the “who am I to judge” comment and how great/liberal he is. So he does seem to be doing exactly what you’re saying here.

I wonder though. As you say, the media is “charmed” with him now. But aren’t they charmed with him precisely because they (wrongly) think he is changing Church teaching?

It makes it seem like his plan is to basically say “I’m going to speak in such a way that the media will get the impression that I’m changing Church teaching, while not technically contradicting teaching and not actually changing the teaching”.

This would seem to be a little duplicitous, but more importantly, isn’t giving the impression that you’re changing Church teaching wrong in and of itself? Isn’t intentionally giving this impression a form of denying those teachings (in a certain sense)?

For instance, Jesus said that we should give up our possesions to the poor and follow Him. What He didn’t do was give rich people the mistaken impression that they could keep their wealth, while actually wanting them to give it up.

If Br. JR or someone else could help me understand, I would really appreciate it.

 

[QuestingKnight]

A man with homosexual leanings going for the priesthood is like a man with murderous leanings wanting to be a cop. Their potential employers should screen them out and employ people who won’t be a time bomb waiting to go off. If only to forestall future complications.

Putting a homosexual in a seminary is like putting me in a convent and saying “Now, QK, think holy thoughts!”

Ridiculous.

But I have a sense that a certain type of fey young man who wants to please his mother, who is fascinated by the vestments, candles and deference and who thinks his timidity is a sign of holiness, might think he has a vocation. Especially if he has no intention or ability to attract a pretty young woman to marry and have children by. The priesthood could be a good job. He thinks.

The Church needs to a bit more selective and tell him otherwise. Always and everywhere. Just to keep the lawsuits down.

 

[Glad2behome]

Pope Benedict is definitely being misrepresented, not just misquoted. The term that he used was “deep seated”. I realize that this is not a term that is commonly used in daily conversation. But it behooves one who is reporting to find out what it means.

In our daily American parlance, it refers to one who identifies himself on the basis of his sexual preference rather than as a human being.

"I am gay" is not the same as “I’m John Doe and if you must know, yes I am homosexual.” The former is a very reductionist way of defining oneself. The latter is holistic and healthy. Pope Benedict was excluding the first, not the second.

That gets a triple

 

[JReducation]

In relation to this, it is interesting that in the space of about two days Pope Francis was able to re-affirm Church teaching on homosexuality and abortion (citing the Catechism as stating these teachings “perfectly”) and also re-affirm that women’s ordination is an impossibility. Yet all the media can talk about is the “who am I to judge” comment and how great/liberal he is. So he does seem to be doing exactly what you’re saying here.

I wonder though. As you say, the media is “charmed” with him now. But aren’t they charmed with him precisely because they (wrongly) think he is changing Church teaching?

It makes it seem like his plan is to basically say “I’m going to speak in such a way that the media will get the impression that I’m changing Church teaching, while not technically contradicting teaching and not actually changing the teaching”.

This would seem to be a little duplicitous, but more importantly, isn’t giving the impression that you’re changing Church teaching wrong in and of itself? Isn’t intentionally giving this impression a form of denying those teachings (in a certain sense)?

For instance, Jesus said that we should give up our possesions to the poor and follow Him. What He didn’t do was give rich people the mistaken impression that they could keep their wealth, while actually wanting them to give it up.

If Br. JR or someone else could help me understand, I would really appreciate it.

He’s shooting from the hip. As I keep saying and as the Holy Father has said at least five times this week. He is a Jesuit. This is how they speak. They will not change how they communicate, just because they’re popes. To a Jesuit, being pope is not all that and a bag of chips. Being pope is a ministry that the Jesuit does using the same systems and methods that he used when he was a parish priest, university professor, TV personality, etc. In fact, the pope mentioned this in the same interview.

He’s saying, “This is the story . . .” If they want to run with their version of it, that’s not his fault. It is not his intent to deceive them. It’s simply that Jesuits do not explain themselves. Jesuits were created to preach to and educate the elite, not the common man. Dominicans and Franciscans teach and educate the common man.

Pope Francis does a great deal more simplifying that what is typical for the Jesuit school. St. Ignatius would not expect that of his sons. We can’t expect it either.

He’ll say, “Whom am I to judge.” The press runs with that and omits what was said before and after.

By the way, I have seen a few online newspapers where the journalists are remembering the conversation and are now going, “Wait a minute . . . he didn’t say anything new. He just said it more nicely.”

 

[McCall1981]

He’s shooting from the hip. As I keep saying and as the Holy Father has said at least five times this week. He is a Jesuit. This is how they speak. They will not change how they communicate, just because they’re popes. To a Jesuit, being pope is not all that and a bag of chips. Being pope is a ministry that the Jesuit does using the same systems and methods that he used when he was a parish priest, university professor, TV personality, etc. In fact, the pope mentioned this in the same interview.

He’s saying, “This is the story . . .” If they want to run with their version of it, that’s not his fault. It is not his intent to deceive them. It’s simply that Jesuits do not explain themselves. Jesuits were created to preach to and educate the elite, not the common man. Dominicans and Franciscans teach and educate the common man.

Pope Francis does a great deal more simplifying that what is typical for the Jesuit school. St. Ignatius would not expect that of his sons. We can’t expect it either.

He’ll say, “Whom am I to judge.” The press runs with that and omits what was said before and after.

By the way, I have seen a few online newspapers where the journalists are remembering the conversation and are now going, "Wait a minute . . . he didn’t say anything new. He just said it more nicely."

I noticed this too. I saw a couple of articles on Yahoo and BBC that were both very surpisingly NOT sensationalized. They said he changed the tone but not the teaching. They did it with a shot at Pope Benedict and clearly had an agenda, but overall I was surprised at how level headed it was.

 

[McCall1981]

Saw another surprisingly positive AP article on yahoo. It takes a couple of shots at Benedict which makes me sad, but other than that it emphasizes that Francis is not changing doctrine, but is changing emphasis and tone, and really explains it pretty well.

For instance, in the first paragraph it tells how Francis cited the Catechism and even cites the Catechism itself in a positive way.

I really hope this is how the media sees and presents Francis to the world, and not as some crazy guy that’s “changing” all the Chruch’s “bad” teachings. It’s so painful to see him presented that way sometimes.

 

[kozlosap]

I’ve been listening to lots of Catholic radio in the past week and I’m very bemused by a common thread that extreme trads are talking about. The apologists are appalled that our Dear Pope Francis used the term “gay”. Maybe because he was such an active bishop in the real world, he is not afraid to use the term that 99.9% of first world population uses. Using that word in no way means that His Holiness is changing any Church teaching - he was just speaking as he would in a normal conversation. If his remarks made people feel they are more welcome in the RCC, then that’s an awesome thing. I read an article this morning that the first 100 days of his papacy can be described as a request for mercy and welcoming - how right that article was!

 

[OraLabora]

Good article by John Allen on the National Catholic Reporter (I know I know… but it’s worth reading Allen), on how the single defining word of Francis is mercy.

It’s not so much a change in tone as it is emphasizing a part of Church doctrine that all to often has not even been mentioned when discussing sin, especially sexual sin: the doctrine of mercy.. That God is providential and loving and that He loved us so much He sent His only Son to redeem us from our sins. I can’t stress enough that mercy is in fact part of Church doctrine. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t need the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Of course there’s a world of difference between a sinner bathing and delighting in his or her sin, and a sinner who pounds his chest and says to God: “here I am a miserable sinner; I keep trying but I keep falling, help me O Lord!”.

I think Francis’s comments are aimed at the latter, when he speaks of “people of good will”.

In any case I do find it refreshing that he reminds us of God’s mercy. Because without that half of the “sin” equation, we will never achieve Eternal Life.

 

[McCall1981]

Good article by John Allen on the National Catholic Reporter (I know I know… but it’s worth reading Allen), on how the single defining word of Francis is mercy.

It’s not so much a change in tone as it is emphasizing a part of Church doctrine that all to often has not even been mentioned when discussing sin, especially sexual sin: the doctrine of mercy.. That God is providential and loving and that He loved us so much He sent His only Son to redeem us from our sins. I can’t stress enough that mercy is in fact part of Church doctrine. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t need the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Of course there’s a world of difference between a sinner bathing and delighting in his or her sin, and a sinner who pounds his chest and says to God: “here I am a miserable sinner; I keep trying but I keep falling, help me O Lord!”.

I think Francis’s comments are aimed at the latter, when he speaks of “people of good will”.

In any case I do find it refreshing that he reminds us of God’s mercy. Because without that half of the “sin” equation, we will never achieve Eternal Life.

And this is the difficult thing. I totally agree with everything you said here about mercy. My fear is that people both inside and outside the Church will essentially take advantage of his emphasis on mercy to “bath and delight” in their sin with impunity. It’s a difficult thing to communicate true mercy, especially to those who are just waiting for the chance to abuse it and twist the message to deceive others like the media does

 

[OraLabora]

And this is the difficult thing. I totally agree with everything you said here about mercy. My fear is that people both inside and outside the Church will essentially take advantage of his emphasis on mercy to “bath and delight” in their sin with impunity. It’s a difficult thing to communicate true mercy, especially to those who are just waiting for the chance to abuse it and twist the message to deceive others like the media does

That’s true but the Church has to be also be careful that she does not crush hope through fear.

The risk of the media twisting the message is one she must take if she’s to be true to Christ’s Gospel. We were given free will and it’s inevitable that some will twist the message. The Church has to stand for Truth just the same, and must preach the entire Gospel message, not just selected parts.

 

[TimSpalding]

I believe Benedict was referring to persons active in the lifestyle of homosexuality.

This contravenes the clear words in Benedict’s book, namely “homosexual candidates cannot become priests because their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, from the intrinsic nature of priestly being.” The problem for Benedict isn’t merely the act, but the orientation itself. The orientation is “intrinsically” “incompatible with the priestly vocation.”

Look, I applaud Catholic doublethink here. Francis may not have changed Catholic doctrine—which is not actually identical with every word of the Catechism—but he’s clearly disagreed with things that Benedict said on the topic.

If you don’t see this–well, GREAT! But I can’t help but feeling it all a bit intellectually shabby. I have the feeling that Francis could declare himself to be a ham sandwich and many Catholics would assert that Benedict said exactly the same thing, and indeed that all Popes from St. Peter have believed themselves to be ham sandwhiches too.

 

[Baelor]

There is a current ban on homosexual priests for various and valid reasons.

It is empirically false that gay men intrinsically do not want to be fathers. The Church does not actually bar gay men from marriage.

Just as there are spiritual reasons for priestly celibacy, so too are there reasons for banning homosexuals from the priesthood. Either statute could be lifted because they are, at the moment, disciplinary.

 

[LovedMyAlydar]

If you feel the inclination towards something sinful (homosexuality) should you not avoid temptation of that sin? It would seem to me that since a homosexual man is attracted to men, being a priest would NOT be avoiding the temptation of sin would it? Since in a seminary you are living with men and out in the world many priests live with other priests, etc. Kind of like putting a rat in a cage with a hungry snake and then telling the snake not to eat the rat.

 

[tskrobacz]

Right or wrong the Church’s position, particularly on homosexuality, has prompted intense scientific exploration into genetics and epigenetics. As in the time of Galileo, it may come to pass that Science provides an answer that in some way modifies the Church’s position. Until then her stance provides Christians and non-Christians alike strong motivation to understand the mystery even the church acknowledges in the CCC:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

Recent advances in epigenetics appear to be on the verge of providing everyone a better understanding on this topic, including the Church - and in addition may also provide humanity with great incites into cancer, diabetes and other mysteries.

 

[Baelor]

If you feel the inclination towards something sinful (homosexuality) should you not avoid temptation of that sin? It would seem to me that since a homosexual man is attracted to men, being a priest would NOT be avoiding the temptation of sin would it? Since in a seminary you are living with men and out in the world many priests live with other priests, etc. Kind of like putting a rat in a cage with a hungry snake and then telling the snake not to eat the rat.

It is not the case that a seminary would be a site of temptation for all gay men.

 

[asd72]

Pope Benedict is definitely being misrepresented, not just misquoted. The term that he used was “deep seated”. I realize that this is not a term that is commonly used in daily conversation. But it behooves one who is reporting to find out what it means.

In our daily American parlance, it refers to one who identifies himself on the basis of his sexual preference rather than as a human being.

“I am gay” is not the same as “I’m John Doe and if you must know, yes I am homosexual.” The former is a very reductionist way of defining oneself. The latter is holistic and healthy. Pope Benedict was excluding the first, not the second.

Deep seated homosexual tendencies in this document is ongoing same sex attraction, as opposed to a transient phase. There are 3 exclusions from Priestly ordination in this area:

1. Those who practice homosexuality.
2. Those with deep seated homosexual tendencies.
3. Those who support the so called ‘gay lifestyle’.

It seems that ongoing same sex attraction, even if you don’t define yourself by your sexuality IS an impediment to Priestly ordination according to Benedict.

I don’t know what Pope Francis meant by his comment, perhaps it was directed to current gay Priests; that exclusions 1 and 3 are the main problems and he is not going to judge those with homosexual tendencies who are chaste. It is not ideal, but it is not a sin.

It doesn’t necessarily mean he disagrees with Benedict about the homosexual inclination
Itself being an impediment to Priesthood, he may just be meeting people where they are. the fact is, in the recent past, a lot of gay Priests have been ordained.

That’s how I am going to take his comment unless he expands on it. A pastoral comment to gay Priests. I am not taking it as disagreeing with Benedict unless he expands on what he said, it would be reading too much into it.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html