• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Pope Francis: "Who am I to judge gay people?"

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ComputerMKII

Banned
ROME (Reuters) - Pope Francis, in some of the most compassionate words from any pontiff on gays, said they should not be judged or marginalized and should be integrated into society, but he reaffirmed Church teaching that homosexual acts are a sin.

In a broad-ranging 80-minute conversation with journalists on the plane bringing him back from a week-long visit to Brazil, Francis also said the Roman Catholic Church's ban on women priests was definitive, although he would like them to have more leadership roles in administration and pastoral activities.

Francis defended gays from discrimination in what was his first news conference since being elected pontiff in March, but also referred to the Catholic Church's universal Catechism, which says that while homosexual orientation is not sinful homosexual acts are.

"If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?" the pope said.

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says they should not be marginalized because of this (orientation) but that they must be integrated into society," he said, speaking in Italian.

"The problem is not having this orientation. We must be brothers. The problem is lobbying by this orientation, or lobbies of greedy people, political lobbies, Masonic lobbies, so many lobbies. This is the worse problem," he said.

Francis was answering a question about reports of a "gay lobby" in the Vatican.

"You see a lot written about the gay lobby. I still have not seen anyone in the Vatican with an identity card saying they are gay," he joked.

Addressing the issue of women priests, the pope said, "The Church has spoken and says 'no' ... that door is closed." It was the first time he had spoken in public on the subject.

"We cannot limit the role of women in the Church to altar girls or the president of a charity, there must be more ...," he said in answer to a question during a remarkably frank conversation with Vatican journalists.

"But with regards to the ordination of women, the Church has spoken and says no. Pope John Paul said so with a formula that was definitive. That door is closed," he said referring to a document by the late pontiff which said the ban was part of the infallible teaching of the Church.

The Church teaches that it cannot ordain women because Jesus willingly chose only men as his apostles. Advocates of a female priesthood say he was acting according to the customs of his times.

Many in the Church, even those who oppose a female priesthood, say women should be given leadership roles in the Church and the Vatican administration.

Francis arrived back in Rome on Monday after a triumphant week-long tour of Brazil which climaxed with a huge gathering on Rio de Janeiro's famed Copacabana beach for a world Catholic youth festival which organizers estimated to have attracted more than 3 million people.
Click to expand...
http://news.yahoo.com/pope-says-gays-must-not-judged-marginalized-110838664.html
 
A

archnemesis

Member
This means nothing as long as the church insists that homosexuality is a sin. Condemning people to celibacy is not compassionate or caring.
 
Liamario

Liamario

Banned
Let's not kid around here Frank. You are judging people. How do you know if someone is committing a sin without judging them? Sure, your bible judges them, but you are using the bible to apply that judgement. It's not like the bible goes around and puts a spotlight on those who have sinned.
 
N

nubbe

Member
Isn't the whole point of being God on earth to judge people?

6OqPoEa.png
 
I

iamshadowlark

Banned
archnemesis said:
This means nothing as long as the church insists that homosexuality is a sin. Condemning people to celibacy is not compassionate or caring.
Click to expand...
I would disagree. If you think somebody's action would send them to "hell", recommending that they refrain from those actions would be caring.
 
C

ComputerMKII

Banned
Kurita said:
"Who am I to judge them as long as they don't have sex and are catholic"
Click to expand...
Well, parts of being a Catholic is to follow a certain set of rules. There are always things you can do and things you can't. Things you can or cannot eat, and sexual practices you can or cannot do. If you declare such rules null and void, why would the religion even exist anymore?

Homosexuals who want to engage in homosexual acts it would only be coherent for them to leave the Catholic church.
 
M

markot

Banned
He didnt really say anything new there at all... there is so much 'room' in what he said to interpret it one way or another (Irony!)

And the idea that women cant be priests is so stupid.

Jesus was a carpenter, but I dont see them building patios between sermons.
 
S

Sho_Nuff82

Member
iamshadowlark said:
I would disagree. If you think somebody's action would send them to "hell", recommending that they refrain from those actions would be caring.
Click to expand...

I love this line of thinking. "I'm voting to ban gay marriage because I care!"

Edit: the Catholic church is never going to change. I'd recommend that all gays renounce the church universally.
 
K

KorrZ

Member
I appreciate Pope Francis' more open approach, even if the core belief is still the same. Anyone expecting that core belief to change, in any of our lifetimes isn't thinking. They can't just pick and choose which rules to follow without making the whole thing meaningless.
 
X

xenist

Member
archnemesis said:
This means nothing as long as the church insists that homosexuality is a sin. Condemning people to celibacy is not compassionate or caring.
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

"We still love you! Unless you don't spend your lives repressing yourselves at the cost of your soul and the souls of your loved ones. Then you are going to hell."

It's the chickenshit way of dealing with homosexuality without having to deal with homosexuals.
 
C

ComputerMKII

Banned
KorrZ said:
I appreciate Pope Francis' more open approach, even if the core belief is still the same. Anyone expecting that core belief to change, in any of our lifetimes isn't thinking. They can't just pick and choose which rules to follow without making the whole thing meaningless.
Click to expand...
It's not going to change and people are still going to be mad because the opposing sides have a different point of view. Supporters of a 'modernization' of the church want it to 'get with the times' but, to a Catholic, the church and its teachings are eternal. They're supported by millenia's worth of lives of saints and believers, and they expect to remain when you, me or any current lawmaker will be long dead.

tl;dr Reformists are thinking short-term while the church is thinking very long-term. The debate will never be settled.
 
W

watershed

Banned
It sounds nice but women are still restricted and discriminated against and homosexual acts are still considered sinful. So, it's a gentler coat of paint on the same old policies and beliefs.
 
N

NuffDREW4two

Member
archnemesis said:
This means nothing as long as the church insists that homosexuality is a sin. Condemning people to celibacy is not compassionate or caring.
Click to expand...
I believe he said that homosexuality is not a sin, but that homosexual sex was and you were probably inferring this anyways. Thin line considering we are sexual beings and that sex is a major component of how people connect with their SOs.

I completely agree with you follow-up point. It's one thing to choose celibacy, but something else to expect others to do so or face condemnation as you've said. The Roman Catholic Church should really reconsider allowing female priests and allowing their priests to marry, but that's a whole different topic altogether.
 
C

ComputerMKII

Banned
Crayons said:
Isn't it already like that? Not universally, but I'm pretty sure gay people are the least religious group you can find anywhere.
Click to expand...

I've heard of people identifying themselves as gay jews or gay muslims but in my opinion they're heretics or at the very least not coherent. Same thing with gay catholics.
 
T

Tertullian

Member
People seem to get confused a lot by what the term "judging" means for Christians. Saying "such and such concrete action is immoral" is not judging. If a traditional Muslim women said "it is immoral for a woman to show her hair in public," that would not be judgmental. Her position may be wrong; it may even be dangerous and damaging. But it is not judging.

Judging, rather, means presuming to know how culpable someone else is for an immoral action, or presuming to mete out punishment for others' immoral actions. Like what a judge does in a trial.

Think of the story of the woman caught in adultery. Bunch of guys caught a woman committing adultery and are going to literally throw big rocks at her until she dies. Jesus comes up and says, "Sure, stone her, but let him who is without sin cast the first stone." All the people drop their rocks and go away because they've all sinned. Jesus goes up to the woman and asks if no one has condemned her. She says no one has. He says to go and sin no more.

Notice what is never questioned anywhere in the story: that adultery is immoral. Jesus never says that it is judgmental to think that adultery is immoral; in fact, when he tells the woman to sin no more, he explicitly confirms that adultery is immoral. The problem with the crowd was not that they thought adultery was immoral. The problem was that they presumed to judge the woman's culpability for her sin (there may have been mitigating circumstances), and presumed to personally mete out punishment for her sin. But they were absolutely right to believe that adultery is immoral. That assumption is never questioned or challenged in the story.

So in Christianity, saying "gay sex is always immoral" is not judgmental. It may be incorrect; it may be extremely dangerous and damaging. But is is not judging. Judging would be to say, "gay sex is always immoral, you had gay sex, I presume to know how culpable you are for your sin, and I condemn you for it."

So you have to distinguish. If a Christian says to you "homosexual acts are wrong," you might say to him "I think your position is irrational and harmful." But it wouldn't be correct to say "you're being judgmental, and Christians aren't supposed to judge." In Christianity that isn't judging, any more than saying that any concrete action is immoral is judging.
 
B

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
He's moving that 'tolerance' slider as far as he can, which is commendable. But there's a limit to it, set by doctrine.

Ultimately, the religion as written contains bigotry, even if all people involved have the noblest intentions...
 
K

KorrZ

Member
Computer said:
It's not going to change and people are still going to be mad because the opposing sides have a different point of view. Supporters of a 'modernization' of the church want it to 'get with the times' but, to a Catholic, the church and its teachings are eternal. They're supported by millenia's worth of lives of saints and believers, and they expect to remain when you, me or any current lawmaker will be long dead.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I'd imagine that the majority of people who are expecting the Church to "modernize" already aren't members of the Catholic Church or even religious in general. A devout Catholic is never going to change his/her core beliefs, and expecting otherwise is just unrealistic.
 
M

markot

Banned
Tertullian said:
People seem to get confused a lot by what the term "judging" means for Christians. Saying "such and such concrete action is immoral" is not judging. If a traditional Muslim women said "it is immoral for a woman to show her hair in public," that would not be judgmental. Her position may be wrong; it may even be dangerous and damaging. But it is not judging.

Judging, rather, means presuming to know how culpable someone else is for an immoral action, or presuming to mete out punishment for others' immoral actions. Like what a judge does in a trial.

Think of the story of the woman caught in adultery. Bunch of guys caught a woman committing adultery and are going to literally throw big rocks at her until she dies. Jesus comes up and says, "Sure, stone her, but let him who is without sin cast the first stone." All the people drop their rocks and go away because they've all sinned. Jesus goes up to the woman and asks if no one has condemned her. She says no one has. He says to go and sin no more.

Notice what is never questioned anywhere in the story: that adultery is immoral. Jesus never says that it is judgmental to think that adultery is immoral; in fact, when he tells the woman to sin no more, he explicitly confirms that adultery is immoral. The problem with the crowd was not that they thought adultery was immoral. The problem was that they presumed to judge the woman's culpability for her sin (there may have been mitigating circumstances), and presumed to personally mete out punishment for her sin. But they were absolutely right to believe that adultery is immoral. That assumption is never questioned or challenged in the story.

So in Christianity, saying "gay sex is always immoral" is not judgmental. It may be incorrect; it may be extremely dangerous and damaging. But is is not judging. Judging would be to say, "gay sex is always immoral, you had gay sex, I presume to know how culpable you are for your sin, and I condemn you for it."

So you have to distinguish. If a Christian says to you "homosexual acts are wrong," you might say to him "I think your position is irrational and harmful." But it wouldn't be correct to say "you're being judgmental, and Christians aren't supposed to judge." In Christianity that isn't judging, any more than saying that any concrete action is immoral is judging.
Click to expand...

When you cast a vote against gay marriage you are judging. When you cross the street to avoid a person you are judging. When you look down on someone cause of what they wear or how they act, you are judging.

Judging isnt just the physical act of attempting to stone someone.
 
P

Polari

Member
Doesn't mean anything. It's simply the Church's way of giving the impression that they're moving with the times while actually being all "lol not really".
 
T

Tertullian

Member
markot said:
When you cast a vote against gay marriage you are judging. When you cross the street to avoid a person you are judging. When you look down on someone cause of what they wear or how they act, you are judging.

Judging isnt just the physical act of attempting to stone someone.
Click to expand...

Your second two examples are correct, and I meant to convey that with my post. "Looking down on someone cause of what they wear or how they act" in particular is certainly judging, under the heading of "presuming to know how culpable someone else is."
 
I

Irminsul

Member
Computer said:
It's not going to change and people are still going to be mad because the opposing sides have a different point of view. Supporters of a 'modernization' of the church want it to 'get with the times' but, to a Catholic, the church and its teachings are eternal. They're supported by millenia's worth of lives of saints and believers, and they expect to remain when you, me or any current lawmaker will be long dead.
Click to expand...

So I guess the Vatican Councils never happened? Because, actually, there's nothing eternal about the Catholic Church. Even the Earth revolves around the Sun since the early 1990ies I believe.
 
R

Raist

Banned
Computer said:
It's not going to change and people are still going to be mad because the opposing sides have a different point of view. Supporters of a 'modernization' of the church want it to 'get with the times' but, to a Catholic, the church and its teachings are eternal. They're supported by millenia's worth of lives of saints and believers, and they expect to remain when you, me or any current lawmaker will be long dead.

tl;dr Reformists are thinking short-term while the church is thinking very long-term. The debate will never be settled.
Click to expand...

The bible tells you what kind of slaves you can have and how to treat them. I don't think even the catholic church still thinks slavery is A-OK. They're just lagging a couple of hundred years behind, so I guess they'll fully accept homosexuality in 2215 (50 years or so after women can be ordinated).
 
M

Mii

Banned
Problem: There is homosexual sex in the world (also read as: There is sex that exists purely for pleasure)
Francis Solution: Gays should be priests

Versus Benedict:
TPM said:
His predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, signed a document in 2005 that said men with deep-rooted homosexual tendencies should not be priests.
Click to expand...


At least its a tiny step forward. I don't think some in this thread are giving the Pope credit on this being more than an empty statement.

The problem is they need to recognize there is no 'problem', but hopefully that will come with time.

More from TPM:

TPM said:
Francis was responding to reports that a trusted aide was involved in an alleged gay tryst a decade ago. He said he investigated the allegations according to canon law and found nothing to back them up. But he took journalists to task for reporting on the matter, saying the allegations concerned matters of sin, not crimes like sexually abusing children.

And when someone sins and confesses, he said, God not only forgives but forgets.

“We don’t have the right to not forget,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
G

Gintamen

Member
Woman couldn't stand on their own feet during those times, maybe it's time to actually overthink that problem.

It's not like the church is promoting "fun sex" for the heterosexuals either aside from procreation, but ...
 
B

Brinbe

Member
I'm not exactly commending him for these comments, but compared to many of his more conservative compatriots, the Church could be doing a lot worse.
 
C

ComputerMKII

Banned
Raist said:
The bible tells you what kind of slaves you can have and how to treat them. I don't think even the catholic church still thinks slavery is A-OK. They're just lagging a couple of hundred years behind, so I guess they'll fully accept homosexuality in 2215 (50 years or so after women can be ordinated).
Click to expand...
Slavery goes against Jesus Christ's teachings (which is why Pope John VIII condemned it in the year 837).
 
Sorc3r3r

Sorc3r3r

Member
Same positions, none of them will ever change, instead the whole Tradition,Magisterium,Scriptura would be trashed, and with those the whole Chatolic Church.
 
G

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
Same shit, different messenger.

You're fine if you 'seek God' (i.e. don't exercise your sexuality).
 
A

Aureon

Please do not let me serve on a jury. I am actually a crazy person.
Actually, good sir, you're supposed to be the link between God and humanity.
You should be able to judge gays by asking your God what's up with them, like why are people gay if he doesn't want gay people, and then tell us God's ideas on them.

That's your role, technically.

Luckily i'm an atheist, shrug.
 
T

thefro

Member
Agreed that there's nothing new here, just said nicer than what Benedict would say.

I think we'll see married priests before female priests, as the Eastern Catholic Churches are already allowed to do that. John Paul getting reversed probably isn't going to happen by a Cardinal appointed by him.

As far as homosexual sex not being a sin anymore, that would require a pretty radical change of doctrine.
- Firstly, I'm pretty sure that's mentioned in Exodus somewhere that it's a sin... that says a lot of other stuff that the Catholic Church doesn't believe in anymore (multiple wives, abortion *not* being equivalent to murder, etc) since we're in a new convenant since Jesus came. So that's not insurmountable but a difficulty to overcome (particularly when you combine that with their other traditions over the past 2000 years)
- The Catholic Church would need to start sanctioning gay marriage, since otherwise it'd be adultery.
- They'd need to change their position on natural law theory to make it logically make sense as to why homosexual acts are allowed even though people can't reproduce with them. Right now they basically say sex = for making babies, which is why they are opposed to birth control, condoms, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
POPE FRANCIS WARNS LARGE HADRON COLLIDER COULD ‘OPEN GATES OF HELL’
2 3 4
168
16K
bender replied
  • Locked
Pope Francis Says the Ban on Women Priests Will Last Forever
2 3
135
11K
Alcoremortis replied
  • Locked
Pope Francis sets up commission to study question of women deacons
17
2K
Pau replied
  • Locked
Pope Francis: Church Should Apologize To Gays And Other Marginalized Groups
2
61
8K
Vigilant Walrus replied
  • Locked
Kentucky family court judge will not hear adoptions involving gays
25
3K
GYODX replied
Top Bottom