Posted on 07/29/2013 11:47:39 AM PDT by NYer
Oh boy. There's nothing wrong with what Pope Francis said here but the words are vague enough that those who want to misconstrue them will have plenty of opportunities to do so.
Yahoo News has the part in question:
The National Catholic Reporter says Francis participated in a wide-ranging interview with reporters on the plane for close to 90 minutes. While he spoke openly about many church topics, Francis' most newsworthy soundbite came when he said he would not judge gay priests and seemingly opened the door for gay acceptance within the church. "When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby," Francis told reporters. "If they accept the Lord and have good will, who am I to judge them? They shouldn’t be marginalized. The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem … they’re our brothers." As the Associated Press points out, this is a radical change of position from Francis' predecesscor, Pope Benedict XVI, who signed a church document in 2005 banning homosexuals from serving the church.I'm not sure how the AP calls this a "radical change" from Pope Benedict.
The nearly ubiquitous John Allen, the solitary boast of the National Schismatic Reporter, has notes from a wide-ranging interview Pope Francis gave to reporters while on the airplane heading back to Rome.
I have been musing to myself for a while now about what is going on in Francis’ mind when he does something odd. Were I able to ask directly, I would show him how, say, The New York Times (aka Hell’s Bible) covers him, and ask “Holy Father, is this what you want?”
Come to think of it, I would also show him the NSR and ask the same question. NSR’s editors choose to highlight the Pope’s answer about homosexuals, as if that where the most important thing their constituency needed to know about. Note, for example, that they did not lead with Francis’ strong statement that the door is closed on the matter of ordination of women as priests. They did not lead with the issue of curial reform, which is far more important, and more interesting, than a pretty standard response about homosexuals.
Just watch. The MSM and homosexuals will now have a conga line because of what Francis said about one issue and the rest will get lost.
It’s already happening...
Before you post a “Breaking News” story, you should take a deep breath and gather all the facts.
Right here on FR
If only the “orientation” is present, and not the behavior or the self-advertising, then there is nothing to be observed, judged, or objected to.
Yep...
;-(
We’ll handle the moderating. Thanks.
Yes and his making life very difficult for apologists on his side might cause him to reflect on this and cut it out, with all due respect.
There is no “orientation,” only perverted desires.
Do we call a sick person someone with the opposite “health orientation” of well people? It is a made up political term, and those who use it, along with the term “gay,” have already conceded much to the sodomite lobby.
Well, I'm not Catholic, so maybe I'm missing something, so color me confused. If Pope Benedict XVI signed a Vatican document that said men with homosexual tendencies should not be priests, then why are there gay priests? If they were gay, shouldn't they have been relieved of their position?
And now with this statement, if no one, including the Pope is supposed to judge them, then will they continue to allow gay priests to serve...aren't gay priests what caused the whole gay abuse scandals in the first place?
This makes homosexuality sound normal, as though it is just a different flavor of the normal.
I think that homosexuals and men who want to have sex with little children are sick and abnormal, and that if you learn that they are having such desires, then they are already someone that you want to marginalize and keep out of some work, such as Priest or Scout leader.
If you don’t know that a potential or practicing Priest is homosexual then there is nothing to discuss or think about, but if he is so deep into his sexuality that people learn about the sick, unnatural sexual desires that he is fighting, then he needs to be marginalized.
No matter what, this is a statement which helps people to accept homosexuality as normal, it further undercuts resistance to the homosexual agenda and signals to everyone, especially Catholics, to lighten up on the gay stuff both within and without the Catholic denomination and the Catholic voters sure don’t need to hear that message in America.
Your personal characterization is irrelevant.
Straight Priests have also taken a vow not to act on their natural, opposite sex attraction.
Just like a number of FRpers have been doing on a number of threads I have been seeing today.
As I have been saying on this thread, even a number of FRpers have been doing the same thing, jumping all over Pope Francis.
heh heh...
I am amazed at the bumper crop of threads on the same subject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.