- This topic has 5 voices and 16 replies.
-
Posts
-
I was speaking specifically of Roman biographers. I know that I am supposed to take the bible as received wisdom but I have a little difficulty taking everything in it at face value. While I think it is true in essence, I can't help but believe some hyperbole crept in, especially in the Acts and Apostolic letters. many Roman writers are specific in acknowledgin that they are not objective. Plutarch positively revels in destroying the reputations of people he thinks were bad in his Lives. Pay particular attention to his lives of Brutus and the Gracchi to see what I mean.I should probably be excommunicated for even thinking such things, but then I never thought a sitting Pope would give homosexuals a pass and say we should accept them as they are either. I am rapidly beginning to re-evaluate my commitment to the Catholic faith but that is a topic for another thread entirely.
I should probably be excommunicated for even thinking such things, but then I never thought a sitting Pope would give homosexuals a pass and say we should accept them as they are either. I am rapidly beginning to re-evaluate my commitment to the Catholic faith but that is a topic for another thread entirely.
I'm guessing that you probably heard what he said filtered through the media, since what he said actually said didn't sound different from what we knew before. The media, on the other hand, has had a field day about it. But as you said...perhaps an issue for another thread.
I actually went out and found the actual interview and read that and then read the Vatican clarification. He was either misquoted or is stupid or both. It aint progressives and their ilk that make up the folks going to Church every Sunday. Those folks are part-time Catholics at best.But you are right, this belongs in a separate thread.
Start one. I think this is one the worst examples I've ever seen of the media taking something completely out of context.
Saw a really good piece by a Jesuit this morning trying to put the Pope's remarks into context. I still stand by my assertion that the Pope's remarks were idiotic. If nothing else because they are so easily spun by the Gay Lobby.
I don't think it's right to call the pope “idiotic” because of the way some partisan group can spin it. When the pope speaks, he does so wearing many different hats – theologian, statesman, diplomat, leader of the world's Catholics, etc. There's no way to please everyone, and the people who have the media in their pocket will have stories spun their way. We saw how militant Muslim's responded to some pretty tame words by Pope Benedict XVI with rioting years ago, which should be proof that partisan groups will do what they will. When it comes to certain figures of public prominence, it's best to ignore so-called “analysis” by the media and go straight to the source.
This Pope is no idiot that's for sure. He is a reformer and his words are just being scrutinized very closely because he is determined to set new precedents for the Catholic Church. I'm afraid he will make quite a few enemies through the course of his tenure.
Personally, I think it was stupid of him to allow himself o get enmeshed in the debate/discussion of homosexuality at all. The Chruch's position on such acts is clear and has been clear for a long time. His comments seem to indicate that he is at least philosophically willing to re-evaluate the Church's position in regards to homosexuality. I don't think he will but his comments were ambigouous and add uncertainty to an issue where the church needs to be consistent.I actually don't think he said anything out of line. I just don't think he should have gotten involved in the first place.
Personally, I think it was stupid of him to allow himself o get enmeshed in the debate/discussion of homosexuality at all. The Chruch's position on such acts is clear and has been clear for a long time.
And he verified this with the first question asked of him
Patricia Zorzan:Speaking on behalf of the Brazilians: society has changed, young people have changed, and in Brazil we have seen a great many young people. You did not speak about abortion, about same-sex marriage. In Brazil a law has been approved which widens the right to abortion and permits marriage between people of the same sex. Why did you not speak about this?Pope Francis:The Church has already spoken quite clearly on this. It was unnecessary to return to it, just as I didn’t speak about cheating, lying, or other matters on which the Church has a clear teaching!
As for the second question about the "gay lobby" in the Vatican or gays in general, he also took the church's stance on forgiveness of sin.As Jesus said (paraphrase): I did not come to save the righteious, but to save the sinners.So if a church doesn't accept the sinners, then what good is a church? In no way and no how did he say churches have to accept the sin of homosexuality. How the media even spun that to imply the same is utterly ridiculous. His comments weren't in any way ambiguous nor in anyway re-evaluating anything.
I just don't think he should have gotten involved in the first place.
Why not? Why should he avoid the topic? He's the Pope, that's his job. If a church member goes to a church leader with a sin problem, is the priest just supposed to avoid the subject? Absolutely not!
BTW, here's the transcript if anyone's interested.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-francesco_20130728_gmg-conferenza-stampa_en.html
Yes, I have read the transcript. I just think we are both hearing things a little differently. Perhaps, I see it negatively because I find myself having a hard time warming up to this pope as I did to Benedict XVI.
...I never thought a sitting Pope would give homosexuals a pass and say we should accept them as they are either. I am rapidly beginning to re-evaluate my commitment to the Catholic faith but that is a topic for another thread entirely.
I am not a Catholic, but until this recent pronouncement had great respect for the Catholic church because it was steadfast in its positions on things such as homosexuality.I have now lost a lot of respect for both this pope and the Catholic church over this.
I am not a Catholic, but until this recent pronouncement had great respect for the Catholic church because it was steadfast in its positions on things such as homosexuality.I have now lost a lot of respect for both this pope and the Catholic church over this.
You and me both, and I am Catholic born and raised. I can think of nothing else likely to drive conservative Catholics from the church than the kind of stuff pouring out of Francis's mouth and pen since his elevation to the Pontificate.
I finally got around to reading Pope Francis' remarks in that interview. I had heard references to his comments about “Who am I to judge?” and they sounded like a liberal talking point. Here is the larger context of his comments, in response to a direct question about the “gay lobby” (bold is mine):
Then, you spoke about the gay lobby. So much is written about the gay lobby. I still haven’t found anyone with an identity card in the Vatican with “gay” on it. They say there are some there. I believe that when you are dealing with such a person, you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good. If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in a beautiful way, saying ... wait a moment, how does it say it ... it says: “no one should marginalize these people for this, they must be integrated into society”. The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers and sisters to one another, and there is this one and there is that one. The problem is in making a lobby of this tendency: a lobby of misers, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of masons, so many lobbies. For me, this is the greater problem.
To me, reading the above was quite different than what I had heard in other sources. Daniel, there was no changes made in any positions of the Catholic Church in what the Pope said. Scout, what did he say that you disapproved of? To me, people in general (often in the media) fail to distinguish between being gay and engaging in gay behavior. The Catholic Church teaches that the latter is wrong, not the former. I am guessing that there were some analysts/media talking heads which wishfully thought that Pope Francis was making a statement that those who engage in gay behavior are not doing anything wrong. I think that was a wrongful presumption on their part because of the failure in making the distinction I mentioned above. Personally, while I am very much against the homosexual agenda which I think is being pushed on us in ever-more increasing ways, I am not against gay people per se. In fact, I may even feel more compassion to them if they are struggling with their sexuality in a way that is moral. I don't think anyone should be denigrated on account of one's naturally-born condition, as all are born with dignity as given by God. We cannot judge or condemn a person or a class of persons on account of their state, but we can judge or condemn actions which are objectively evil.
