The Pope on women and gays

[JoStories]

In an interview on a plane from Armenia to Rome, the Pope made some very interesting remarks, not the least of which was that the RCC should ask forgiveness from the gay community for their past treatment and said the same of women. Do you agree with him on these provocative and forward thinking statements? Why or why not. the link for the full article is here.....

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/06/...orgiveness-from-gays-for-past-treat/21419341/

 

[oldbadger]

In an interview on a plane from Armenia to Rome, the Pope made some very interesting remarks, not the least of which was that the RCC should ask forgiveness from the gay community for their past treatment and said the same of women. Do you agree with him on these provocative and forward thinking statements? Why or why not. the link for the full article is here.....

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/06/...orgiveness-from-gays-for-past-treat/21419341/

Hello Jo!
Far from being provocative, I think that the Pope's statements were more of an apology to the whole World for the treatment that has been dished out to LGBTQIA folks over the centuries.

The 613 OT laws were all beautifully delivered, either by God or by miracle to masnkind, since I can't believe that any man could have figured out such perfect laws for the protection, strengthening and safety of the Israelites.

There is not one single law that does not fulfil the above paragraph!

But......... that was in tghe fasr distant past, when medicine could not save from epidemics, mass infections, plagues etc. And so to save from the transmission of deseases the rules had to be deadly strict. Although many of those laws should still apply, laws that are ignored by many fundamental Christians, the laws about homosexuality and even polyamory can be relaxed now, laws that many fundamentalist Christians cling to in self righteous indignation, as they ignore more pertinent ones for this time.

The Pope was brave, righteous, loving, and up-to-date with his apology.
May he be heard!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wonder if he considers his own prior actions and words to be apology-worthy:

In place of any changes to church doctrine on sexuality, the Pope’s report says that gay people should receive “assistance” to bring them back to normality, and affirms there are “absolutely no grounds” for considering recognition of “homosexual unions”.

The Catholic leader wrote: “In discussing the dignity and mission of the family, the Synod Fathers observed that, as for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.

Elsewhere, he rallied against “pressure” from outside influences calling for an end to homophobia.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/04/08/pope-francis-the-catholic-church-will-never-accept-gay-unions/

Since he hasn't apologized yet for his support of same-sex marriage (and same-sex civil union) bans, "conversion therapy", and homophobic remarks coming from the church, I'm guessing that those aren't the sorts of things he thinks the Church ought to apologize for.

I'm still on the fence as to whether the media is super-keen to take the Pope's offhand remarks out of context, or if he's just a gigantic hypocrite.

 

[JoStories]

Hello Jo!
Far from being provocative, I think that the Pope's statements were more of an apology to the whole World for the treatment that has been dished out to LGBTQIA folks over the centuries.

The 613 OT laws were all beautifully delivered, either by God or by miracle to masnkind, since I can't believe that any man could have figured out such perfect laws for the protection, strengthening and safety of the Israelites.

There is not one single law that does not fulfil the above paragraph!

But......... that was in tghe fasr distant past, when medicine could not save from epidemics, mass infections, plagues etc. And so to save from the transmission of deseases the rules had to be deadly strict. Although many of those laws should still apply, laws that are ignored by many fundamental Christians, the laws about homosexuality and even polyamory can be relaxed now, laws that many fundamentalist Christians cling to in self righteous indignation, as they ignore more pertinent ones for this time.

The Pope was brave, righteous, loving, and up-to-date with his apology.
May he be heard!

Agreed. I actually very much like this pope and find him to be a very much needed change from the prior pope whom no one seemed to like. His forced retirement was an obvious testament to how poorly he was received by the Catholic community. This one, OTOH, seems to be a man of peace and caring to everyone, no matter who they are. I really think he is what the RCC needed in this time.

 

[JoStories]

I wonder if he considers his own prior actions and words to be apology-worthy:



http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/04/08/pope-francis-the-catholic-church-will-never-accept-gay-unions/

Since he hasn't apologized yet for his support of same-sex marriage (and same-sex civil union) bans, "conversion therapy", and homophobic remarks coming from the church, I'm guessing that those aren't the sorts of things he thinks the Church ought yo apologize for.

I'm still on the fence as to whether the media is super-keen to take the Pope's offhand remarks out of context, or if he's just a gigantic hypocrite.

I can understand your reticence with this pope but I still think he is a refreshing change and IMO, people can and do change, even views that can be as volatile as this. I am not a Christian so I don't adhere to the dogma of the Bible however, that being said, as the pope, don't you think, in light of the Church's position on the Bible that he would have to say that SSM is not allowable? It would seem to me that while he may be seen as a hypocrite, that, instead, he is merely asking the world to treat gays better and not necessarily condoning that gays are in the right where RCC sits. What is more interesting, at least to me, is his stance on women which, IMO, is in direction contradiction to Paulian dogma. And I simply have always loathed Paul and his works. Christ, OTOH, while in no way do I believe he was divine, I do think either he or someone like him was a good teacher of things that are still beautiful today.

 

[metis]

The Pope has differentiated between church teachings versus how those who may violate church teachings should be treated. IOW, it's the "hate the sin, not the sinner" approach.

 

[ronandcarol]

The Pope on women and gays.
I believe that all we owe the LGBT community is the love of Christ. They are part of God's creation and deserve the same love and respect that we would expect from others. That said we don't have to agree with what they stand for or for what they are or who they love. It is their business, we should pray for them. The same way we should pray for any other groups or labels. They don't deserve to be senselessly slaughtered, they need to be prayed for.

ronandcarol

 

[Demonslayer]

It would seem to me that while he may be seen as a hypocrite, that, instead, he is merely asking the world to treat gays better and not necessarily condoning that gays are in the right where RCC sits.

This is what bothers me about these grand statements by Pope Francis.

It's all "oh yeah we should be nicer to gay people" but then he continues to be the head of an organization that refuses to accept gay people as "normal."

It's patronizing. "Be nice to that abomination over there." What kind of message is that? I suppose it's better than the alternative of "Don't be nice to that abomination over there," but as long as the church has and officially anti-gay doctrine including the discrediting and denial of gay marriage, anything the Pope says just smells like damage control to me. Let's make it look like the Catholic Church is evolving, even though no actual changes are being made.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In an interview on a plane from Armenia to Rome, the Pope made some very interesting remarks, not the least of which was that the RCC should ask forgiveness from the gay community for their past treatment and said the same of women. Do you agree with him on these provocative and forward thinking statements? Why or why not. the link for the full article is here.....

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/06/...orgiveness-from-gays-for-past-treat/21419341/

I think it's fascinating that this Pope actually seems to not only be Christ-like, but that he also is aware of the mistreatment of many groups at the hands of the Church and seems to be stepping up and accepting responsibility over it by saying the Church should apologize to homosexuals and women, that it's no one's place except god's to judge people, and even that atheists aren't a bunch of Hell bound, God-hating heathens.
That only thing that would make him better is if he was accepting and cool with transsexuals.

 

[Demonslayer]

That said we don't have to agree with what they stand for or for what they are or who they love.

Aaaaaand, there it is. We don't have to agree with "what they stand for."

What is that, exactly? What is this horrible thing that gay people "stand for?" Being seen as equal and as normal as the rest of us? Being allowed to marry whomever they love without reproach or disapproval?

Well I don't agree with what the Catholic Church "stands for" which is the continued marginalization of gay people which leads to depression and suicide for thousands of gay children every year.

 

[Demonslayer]

That only thing that would make him better is if he was accepting and cool with transsexuals.

He could fire all the child molesters too. Cardinal Bernard Law still holds a cushy position in a beautiful basilica in Italy, while the thousands of children who were molested knowingly under his watch still suffer without justice.

Why won't Pope Progressive finally release the names and fire them all?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He could fire all the child molesters too. Cardinal Bernard Law still holds a cushy position in a beautiful basilica in Italy, while the thousands of children who were molested knowingly under his watch still suffer without justice.

Why won't Pope Progressive finally release the names and fire them all?

That too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can understand your reticence with this pope but I still think he is a refreshing change and IMO, people can and do change, even views that can be as volatile as this.

Since April? The article I linked to was based on a report put out by the Pope in April 2016.

I am not a Christian so I don't adhere to the dogma of the Bible however, that being said, as the pope, don't you think, in light of the Church's position on the Bible that he would have to say that SSM is not allowable?

Maybe if we're just talking about marriages within the Church, but he's also opposed to secular governments offering same-sex civil unions to non-Catholics.

It would seem to me that while he may be seen as a hypocrite, that, instead, he is merely asking the world to treat gays better and not necessarily condoning that gays are in the right where RCC sits.

In what way is he actually asking that gay people be treated better? Please be specific.

What is more interesting, at least to me, is his stance on women which, IMO, is in direction contradiction to Paulian dogma.

What piece of dogma that has been traditionally accepted by the Church is rejected by Francis?

In terms of dogma, Francis is no different from Benedict, the Pope that everyone liked to compare to Emperor Palpatine. The only difference between the two of them is that Francis is better looking and a more charismatic speaker. That's it. Francis is "The Emperor" without the bags under his eyes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

and even that atheists aren't a bunch of Hell bound, God-hating heathens.

That quote was taken way out of context by the media. If you read the whole thing, it's clear that when he said that atheists can be saved, the method of saving atheists involves them accepting Christ, being baptized, and joining the Catholic Church.

The message was never "atheists don't need religion"; it was "it's not too late for atheists to become religious."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That quote was taken way out of context by the media. If you read the whole thing, it's clear that when he said that atheists can be saved, the method of saving atheists involves them accepting Christ, being baptized, and joining the Catholic Church.

The message was never "atheists don't need religion"; it was "it's not too late for atheists to become religious."

I know the media took it out of context, and I didn't even bring up that out of context message. That the Pope put atheists in a more positive light, saying that they too are the children of god, that is a completely different thing from how the Church often talks about atheists, which portrays them as hell bound, god-hating heathens who are inherently immoral. It gets so bad at times that even just the word "atheist" is used by some as a derogatory remark to attack someone's character.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

It's all "oh yeah we should be nicer to gay people" but then he continues to be the head of an organization that refuses to accept gay people as "normal." It's patronizing. "Be nice to that abomination over there." What kind of message is that? I suppose it's better than the alternative of "Don't be nice to that abomination over there," but as long as the church has and officially anti-gay doctrine including the discrediting and denial of gay marriage, anything the Pope says just smells like damage control to me. Let's make it look like the Catholic Church is evolving, even though no actual changes are being made.

Let's face the facts. Founded religions like Christianity come with doctrine in the form of scriptures. If you don't accept them, you just have to find another religion. I might as well say that Catholics today may not persecute Pagans any more, but they won't worship our gods: they're humbugs!

It's very difficult for a Christian to reject biblical teachings, because once they start, where does it end? 57 varieties of Protestantism, some much nastier than anything that's gone before - that's where.

The solution is to say that if the scriptures violate our moral senses (and not just on sexuality), then maybe they're not as divine as we thought. Maybe Christianity (and Judaism, and Islam) are just one big mistake. But how many could bring themselves to do that? In a way I have to admire the Catholics for consistency and honesty, even if in a bad cause.

 

[Acim]

Let's face the facts. Founded religions like Christianity come with doctrine in the form of scriptures. If you don't accept them, you just have to find another religion. I might as well say that Catholics today may not persecute Pagans any more, but they won't worship our gods: they're humbugs!

It's very difficult for a Christian to reject biblical teachings, because once they start, where does it end? 57 varieties of Protestantism, some much nastier than anything that's gone before - that's where.

The solution is to say that if the scriptures violate our moral senses (and not just on sexuality), then maybe they're not as divine as we thought. Maybe Christianity (and Judaism, and Islam) are just one big mistake. But how many could bring themselves to do that? In a way I have to admire the Catholics for consistency and honesty, even if in a bad cause.

As a Christian, I don't find it challenging to reject certain biblical teachings. I find it reasonable to do so. To think critically, and to filter understandings through what is discernible as greater principles (i.e. Love God foremost, Love Neighbor as Self). Putting something like homosexuality or role of women as principled concerns that somehow relegate greater principles to secondary considerations, I find, akin to blasphemy. Virtually ceasing to act Christian in hopes of gaining something from this world (likely feeble power, underwhelming authority).

The idea of "one big mistake" only makes sense to me, if the perception is scripture is inerrant, and cannot be second guessed without some sort of divine damnation occurring. The idea of divine damnation humors me.

 

[kepha31]

That quote was taken way out of context by the media. If you read the whole thing, it's clear that when he said that atheists can be saved, the method of saving atheists involves them accepting Christ, being baptized, and joining the Catholic Church.

The message was never "atheists don't need religion"; it was "it's not too late for atheists to become religious."

That's totally false.

"...This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 847)​

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

In an interview on a plane from Armenia to Rome, the Pope made some very interesting remarks, not the least of which was that the RCC should ask forgiveness from the gay community for their past treatment and said the same of women. Do you agree with him on these provocative and forward thinking statements? Why or why not. the link for the full article is here.....

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/06/...orgiveness-from-gays-for-past-treat/21419341/

The Pope, regarding the treatment of homosexuals, hasn't said anything that is not already in the Catechism.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

I wonder if he considers his own prior actions and words to be apology-worthy:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/04/08/pope-francis-the-catholic-church-will-never-accept-gay-unions/

Since he hasn't apologized yet for his support of same-sex marriage (and same-sex civil union) bans, "conversion therapy", and homophobic remarks coming from the church, I'm guessing that those aren't the sorts of things he thinks the Church ought to apologize for.

I'm still on the fence as to whether the media is super-keen to take the Pope's offhand remarks out of context, or if he's just a gigantic hypocrite.

The Church has never used "conversion therapy", has never made a homophobic remark. Same sex "marriage" is impossible; the Church will never give in to moral faddism. The Pope has no control over the laws that governments pass, and he keeps his distance even from Italy that recently passed objectionable laws.

Agreed. I actually very much like this pope and find him to be a very much needed change from the prior pope whom no one seemed to like. His forced retirement was an obvious testament to how poorly he was received by the Catholic community. This one, OTOH, seems to be a man of peace and caring to everyone, no matter who they are. I really think he is what the RCC needed in this time.

Pope Benedict retired because he was too old and tired to do the demanding job effectively. Being coerced, forced or manipulated is just anti-Catholic media hype.

This is what bothers me about these grand statements by Pope Francis.

It's all "oh yeah we should be nicer to gay people" but then he continues to be the head of an organization that refuses to accept gay people as "normal."

It's patronizing. "Be nice to that abomination over there." What kind of message is that?

One you made up.

I suppose it's better than the alternative of "Don't be nice to that abomination over there," but as long as the church has and officially anti-gay doctrine including the discrediting and denial of gay marriage, anything the Pope says just smells like damage control to me. Let's make it look like the Catholic Church is evolving, even though no actual changes are being made.

Doctrines develop, they don't evolve.

"I am glad that we are talking about 'homosexual people' because before all else comes the individual person, in his wholeness and dignity. And people should not be defined only by their sexual tendencies: let us not forget that God loves all his creatures and we are destined to receive his infinite love."
- Pope Francis, The Name of God is Mercy

https://couragerc.org/ is an international apostolate of the Catholic Church, which ministers to persons with same-sex attractions.

 

[kepha31]

“Women in the church are more important than bishops and priests”
Pope Francis

 

[Nous]

. . . don't you think, in light of the Church's position on the Bible that he would have to say that SSM is not allowable?

Why? Where does the Bible suggest that loving, committed same-sex couples and their children should be deprived to the same civil rights as different-sex couples and their children enjoy?