Pope Francis allows priests to bless same-sex couples (not marriage)

[Left Coast]

People are seeking a change in Catholic teaching precisely because they know darn well what the Church teaches regarding sexual morality. This is not a question of ignorance. They know. Everyone knows.

About gayness? Probably, though some may not know the gravity of the sin in Catholic teaching. About contraception or something like divorce and remarriage? I'd bet many Westerners don't know.

But the progressive fraction in the Church will release one long winded document after another pretending that it's all so much more complicated than it really is.

At this point, I just want them to be honest. I want the progressive clergy (empowered by Francis) to just say it up front. They reject Catholic teaching on issues of sexuality. I want this pontificate to cease its doublespeak and be up front with what it actually believes. If it's liberal mainline Protestantism in all but name, then fine, so be it.

I do think some Catholics want that. I don't think Francis is one of them.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It would not be an "irregular situation" at all if celibacy were involved.

I honestly don't see the point of this but to muddy the waters about the teachings of sex outside of marriage. It's either wrong and can never be approved of or not. One could already approach a priest for a blessing as an individual. A blessing as a couple with no call to renounce sin seems impossible given the gravity of the Church's teachings about sex outside of marriage, and ends up being confusing and possibly scandalous. James Martin blessing the gay married couple being an example of scandal, as those men are obviously not committed to the Church's teachings on the matter. The wordy theological reasonings they are coming up for it don't clear up confusion about it.

 

[Muffled]

I have a very tough time with the idea that life -- supposedly a "gift from God" -- ought to be suffered through in misery. Not much of a gift, in my opinion. You see, for someone not oriented like you, "easily" means giving up all notion of human love and sexuality for one's entire lifetime. Priests may think that's a good idea, but I can guarantee you, the vast, vast majority of humanity doesn't.

I believe I had enough of both. What I gave up was lust and sex with a person that leads to the death of the soul. I believe you are actually choosing death over life.

 

[Muffled]

I have a very tough time with the idea that life -- supposedly a "gift from God" -- ought to be suffered through in misery. Not much of a gift, in my opinion. You see, for someone not oriented like you, "easily" means giving up all notion of human love and sexuality for one's entire lifetime. Priests may think that's a good idea, but I can guarantee you, the vast, vast majority of humanity doesn't.

I believe I had enough of both. What I gave up was lust and sex with a person that leads to the death of the soul. I believe you are actually choosing death over life.

"Judge ye not..."-- Jesus.

I believe that only counts for people. God is still the judge and He is in me.

 

[Muffled]

Well, he sure spent a lot of time talking about it and doing it. Maybe he forgot. Or was that a guise to get people together? I hope not.

I believe He had an obligation to set the record straight. He did that in the Qu'ran as well. People have a tendency to get off track and the Muslims are no exception. That is why having the Holy Spirit works so well because He can continue to set the record straight.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I believe that only counts for people. God is still the judge and He is in me.

Which makes you judge. Wretched bit of reasoning, that. How do you know your willingness to judge has not driven Him from you in disgust?

 

[metis]

I believe that only counts for people. God is still the judge and He is in me.

What about me?

 

[Glaurung]

PF simply hasn't been that explicit which is one reason why the conservative bishops are not pleased. His repeated stance is to let God do the judging.

Christianity is explicit about its standard though.

Also, a reminder that gay marriage is based on love, and I don't think love should be discouraged. It seems that there's too little of it nowadays.

To love someone is to will their good for their own sake. To persist in mortal sin is to reject the good for yourself and your partner.

About gayness? Probably, though some may not know the gravity of the sin in Catholic teaching. About contraception or something like divorce and remarriage? I'd bet many Westerners don't know.

About sexual sin in general.

I do think some Catholics want that. I don't think Francis is one of them.

In regard to the direction of the Church. I think the next conclave is going to be very interesting.

My bet is on a figure closer to John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I think the cardinals (even the liberal learning ones) know that another liberal pontificate would risk serious schism. You can't alienate Africa and the Eastern Rites to appease a bunch of boomer Germans. Which is what the current pontificate has done.

 

[Glaurung]

I honestly don't see the point of this but to muddy the waters about the teachings of sex outside of marriage.

My guess is that it's a concession to the western European bishops who have been pushing for formal blessings for same sex couples for a few years now. FS is an attempt to prevent the German bishops from going completely off the rails into actual schism.

How far Rome can go to appease the Germans without alienating Catholic Africa (who are already outraged over this as it is) is yet to be seen. Francis is in a genuine bind here, but it's a bind he himself helped to create by his long emboldening of progressive dissent. A future pope may have to just let the German speaking world go into schism because everyone knows they're not going to stop with informal blessings.

 

[metis]

Christianity is explicit about its standard though...

To love someone is to will their good for their own sake. To persist in mortal sin is to reject the good for yourself and your partner.

I thoroughly reject that approach, including its judgementalism. Love should be encouraged, not discouraged imo.

 

[Glaurung]

I thoroughly reject that approach, including its judgementalism. Love should be encouraged, not discouraged imo.

And I reject liberal Christianity as a bankrupt pseudo-religion. Judgment is a core teaching of the Christian faith.

 

[metis]

And I reject liberal Christianity as a bankrupt pseudo-religion. Judgment is a core teaching of the Christian faith.

Your choice, but I believe Jesus taught us to "love one another" and not be so judgmental. Also, the scriptures do also reflect cultural mores and folkways.

 

[oldbadger]

ROME (AP) — Pope Francis formally approved letting Catholic priests bless same-sex couples, the Vatican announced Monday, a radical shift in policy that aimed at making the church more inclusive while maintaining its strict ban on gay marriage.

But while the Vatican statement was heralded by some as a step toward breaking down discrimination in the Catholic Church, some LGBTQ+ advocates warned it underscored the church’s idea that gay couples remain inferior to heterosexual partnerships.

The document from the Vatican’s doctrine office elaborates on a letter Francis sent to two conservative cardinals that was published in October. In that preliminary response, Francis suggested such blessings could be offered under some circumstances if the blessings weren’t confused with the ritual of marriage.

My comment: Baby steps, but they're still steps. Your comments?

It's positive step. I have heard reports that the Church of England is moving in that direction as well.

I can understand how sickness could have spread through a community and destroyed it thousands of years ago, even in the time of Jesus the laws concerning food and sexual safety would have been seriously important, but times have changed and so must the churches..... or they will slowly lose their congregations.

All to the good.

 

[Estro Felino]

It would have been abnormal, if they hadn't done that.
I mean...this TV program made an episode called Sodom and Gomorrah in the Vatican.
I think that not only there are no heterosexual priests or nearly,...but they also like playing...apparently...
gay bathhouses...hot rendez-vous...

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

My point was that fraud, that is, defrauding your own neighbor to get richer and richer is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
So it's unforgivable.
Do you agree?

I’m not God’s lawyer.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

We know that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin.

Way too many concubines in the Bible for this to be true.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

My bet is on a figure closer to John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I think the cardinals (even the liberal learning ones) know that another liberal pontificate would risk serious schism. You can't alienate Africa and the Eastern Rites to appease a bunch of boomer Germans. Which is what the current pontificate has done.

Can’t the pope just excommunicate the people who annoy him? He is the boss, not them. Edit: I find it peculiar that you believe that the church is trying to suck up to Germans when it is abundantly clear that you want him to suck up to Africans.

 

[Muffled]

Which makes you judge. Wretched bit of reasoning, that. How do you know your willingness to judge has not driven Him from you in disgust?

I believe I know Him well enough to know when He is working in me. I have learned not to judge because I don't know everything as God does.

 

[Muffled]

What about me?

I believe I have not found God in you on RF.

 

[Muffled]

I’m not God’s lawyer.

I believe He doesn't need one. If He needs a liar he can contact the devil. As for defense he is omnipotent so who will execute Him without His allowing it?