Pope Says He Won't Judge Gay Priests

philly.com ^ | 7/29/13 | Nicole Winfield

[Brown Deer]

LIAR!

[mitch5501]

"I don’t believe he was saying “its OK to be gay”.

I agree.

Here in South Oz today a news reader commented (on radio)that the pope was taking a softer stance on homosexuality unlike his predecessor who said homosexuality was as dangerous as global warming.My first thought was good grief if that were the case the FReligion forum would go into such a meltdown I'd probably be able to see the smoke from here!

The media will blurt out anything that supports the homosexual agenda it seems.I didn't believe it for a second.As you say,he needs to be more media savvy because this issue is like having a lit match on a windy day next to a case of dynamite.

Makes you wonder if Jesus Christ would be 'media savvy' though.Then again He knows ALL men so I guess that answers that.

"Paul fought the good fight (note that he referred to it as a fight)"

"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." (Matthew 24:13)

Thanks for your post.You made some good points.

grace and peace

[metmom]

Not a liar.

See post 268 this thread.

Here’s a link.....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3048516/posts?page=268#268

[metmom]

Let me guess.

You’re Catholic, right?

I can tell by the warm, loving response to my comment.

[bonfire]

Amen, Talisker.

[bonfire]

Some seem to be poorly catechized. (I KNOW I’ve heard this somewhere before.....!)

[metmom]

Now that you mention it, it DOES sound familiar......

[daniel1212]

I agree that any conclusion that he does not approve of judging homosexuals as wrong for practicing it is not warranted but requires taking his words out of context,* which was the gay lobby.

Also, at face value, his words that "gay people should not be discriminated against; they should be made to feel welcome," are made to be at odds with Benedict's teaching that gays should not be RC priests (actually no one should, as NT pastors were not distinctively called priests or distinctively function as such), but in context the pope is affirming grace should be shown to such as are "in eager search of God," and thus that would live celibate lives at least versus engage in homosexual activity.

The "gay" lobby which is the issue, is that of foisting homosexual relations upon the world, from young to old, as healthy and normal and requiring affirmation of it.

However, this is a pope who seems somewhat more relational than doctrinal in focus, and his statements often emphasize mercy and a reaction against lack of it more than express doctrinal clarity.

As an evangelical i can appreciate his humility, heart and preference for the simple life and common man, and candor, while i oppose his inherited unscriptural traditions. One example is that, as said in the same interview,

"the Virgin Mary is the most important out of all the apostles."

I do not think the pope is making Mary an apostle, for RCs hold that the Church teaches that it cannot ordain women because Jesus willingly chose only men as his apostles, and which is true. Yet he prays to Mary and promotes the same hyper exaltation of her beyond what is written, and which has been the subject of recent threads .

*“There is so much being written about the gay lobby. I haven’t met anyone in the Vatican yet who has “gay” written on their identity cards. There is a distinction between being gay, being this way inclined and lobbying. Lobbies are not good. If a gay person is in eager search of God, who am I to judge them? The Catholic Church teaches that gay people should not be discriminated against; they should be made to feel welcome. Being gay is not the problem, lobbying is the problem and this goes for any type of lobby, business lobbies, political lobbies and Masonic lobbies.” - http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo /gmg-26831//pag/4/

[UAConservative]

How can a man that has taken a vow of chastity even HAVE a sexual orientation?

Allow me to rephrase the question:

How can a man that has taken a vow of chastity EVEN BE SUBJECT TO the temptations of this world?

When the question is phrased this way, the answer becomes evident. A good application of this answer is Henri Nouwen.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Pulled by Admin MOderator. :o(

Maybe try it with a different headline? "Satire: What if the New York Times...?"

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you for these good and reasonable and gracefully-expressed thoughts.

I wish I were on Pope Francis' Media Management Team (which he probably doesn't even have.) Not that I'm an expert, but I have a few thoughts on how to avoid Media foot-faults. I would require a certain amount of scripting, which I know irks the guy. He probably talks with his hands, too! But hey, "sly as a snake."

Good day to you, Brother!

[Mrs. Don-o]

Henri Nouwen. Gerard Manley Hopkins. Affectively, anyhow, the chaste John Henry Newman and half of the Oxford Movement.

Always on the lookout for saints like these. USConservative, if you could add names to the list I would be grateful!

[stanne]

Give us just one phrase, one sentence from the catechism or the bible that states it

You cannot

You lnw, people saying what the church says, or misinterpreting what the catechism says is simply not the same as what the church says

Also, the Church is not tesponsible for how peplemisinterpret

But the Church NEVER says that people must be catholic to achieve salvation

In two days you nor anyone has come up with a phrase sentence or paragraph from the catechism tradition nor the bible that says one has to becatholic to have salvation

Wishing it said that so you candespiseit and call it ignorant or judgmental is not the same as fact

[NKP_Vet]

Of course he’s not going to change what the Church teaches. His job is to safeguard the truth, and that is exactly what he will do and all other Popes that follow him will do.

[FourtySeven]

While I can sympathize with any feelings of frustration WRT debating anti-Catholics here, we Catholics also must be consistent when doing so. For this reason I post this publicly to you, but fear not, this is ultimately a victory for the Church.

metmom is right. The Church most certainly does claim that She is the only means of salvation. Why? Because the Church is the (mystical) Body of Christ, and Christ is the only means of salvation.

Now, one may say, either out of genuine concern or for cynical derision: So what about those who aren’t Catholic on earth? Do they automaticalrly go to Hell?

Two words about that: First, consider the fact that elsewhere in the catechism it is taught that those, through no fault of their own, have no idea about the Church and/or Jesus, (or at least not an accurate understanding thereof, perhaps they may have been told lies about the Church and/or Jesus, but never the truth), and they have no way of knowing this truth themselves, will they go to Hell? No.

The Church teaches as long as they live a moral life “according to the law written on every man’s heart”, then there is hope for them.

That’s point one. Point two to consider is taken right from what metmom posted from the catechism, to whit: “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”

Note what this says (and does not say): it says those who KNOW the Church is founded by God and yet still refuse Her. Now, even here only GOD and that particular person can know if they “knew” or were invincibly ignorant (as described above). So what that passage does NOT say is that one must be a Catholic on EARTH to be saved.

Indeed, the Church teaches that it is perfectly permissible to hope that, at the moment of death, a loved one (or anyone) who rejected the Church here on earth did so out of ignorance and was afforded one last opportunity to repent (and thus, part of such repentance being accepting the reality and necessity of the Church Militant) right before the body expired.

So what does all this mean? It means that yes, metmom is right when she claims the Church claims to be the only means of salvation. It also does NOT NECESSARILY mean one MUST be a practicing Catholic for one’s entire life, or for years, months, or even days.

It’s surely RECCOMENDED (for lack of a better term) though, especially if one even has an “inkling” of the Church’s claim(s) being true. After all, one surely wouldn’t want to fall in the category of KNOWINGLY rejecting the Church. For indeed, then there is no hope.

But again, that’s ultimately between any given individual and their Maker, God.

Again, sorry for the public correction but we cannot let people REMAIN in ignorance, if we have the ability to correct. If we don’t act upon such opportunities then their sin is upon us.

And I hope you don’t doubt what I said is true. I certainly can assure you it is, and I do not want to be put in the awkward position of debating a fellow Catholic.

[stanne]

There still is no phrase nor sentence which states there is no salvation but through the Church

Provide it or drop it

No ome will read all of the bla bla bla

I read from the popes’ own words in the encyclicals

I would not poison and do not ever poison my mind with anh ramblings of anyone who thinks they know more than the popes, the bishos and the doctors of the church

[metmom]

Thank you. My list of FR Catholics to respect has grown by two in the last two days.

[nitzy]

I really don’t want to get into a whole discussion on the merits of the Catholic Church. But I have to say that I don’t think they are the same things. On one hand you are telling someone that they can’t simply be members of the church because of something they did in their twenties (get married outside of the church but now regret it) and on the other hand the pope is saying that men who have had homosexual sex and currently identify as homosexuals can be priests and LEAD the church.

I completely agree that people who have made mistakes should be allowed to ask for forgiveness and be allowed to become part of the church.

I just think it is a huge mistake to allow men with a history of homosexual activity and currently identify as being homosexuals to be PRIESTS.

[FourtySeven]

I don’t know what you could possibly find objectionable about what I wrote.

Read the Catechism for yourself. The quote metmom provided CAME FROM a Pope (Pope Eugine IVth to be precise!!) That’s where this whole notion of “no salvation outside the Church” comes from!

Extra Ecclesium nulls sallus.

Research it on your own if you don’t believe me (thanks for the kind words in that regard by the way, sheesh). You might want to start here (if this is too much “bla bla” to read, maybe this website will be more helpful to you) http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

At any rate, my conscience is clear in this situation. Good luck to you and God bless.

[Wonder Warthog]

Yea and verily! An accurate and succinct synopsis of the REAL position of the RCC wrt non-RCC. Well done!