From the article:
“When Pope Francis said he wouldnt judge gay priests he unwittingly undermined clerical celibacy.”
I disagree....as even priests can misinterpret what took place.
A more accurate take is made by Rev. Mark A. Pilon, S.T.D.
“Nothing the pope said was new or different from what his predecessors have said on this issue. He distinguished clearly between orientation and homosexual acts, he spoke of confession and repentance, and he repeated the Church’s teaching that homosexuals not be marginalized because of their sexual orientation. None of this is revolutionary.
But the press picked up and focused on a single sentence, “Who am I to judge them? Taken in the context of everything else the pope said in that interview or elsewhere many times, there is absolutely nothing new or surprising.
The press, however, in large part, especially in the United States, chose to interpret that statement not in the context of the popes broader comments but in the context of the non-judgmentalism and relativistic morality in our society.
In the contemporary world, not judging people translates as not judging their actions, and the press took this as an opening for the Church to reconsider its moral condemnation of homosexual relationships and activity. It doesn’t matter what the pope said before or after this statement; the press chose to portray him as opening the door to a new moral attitude.
This is the danger in off-the-cuff interviews today. What the press is interested in are simply sound bites and controversy. Complex issues like homosexuality and homosexuals in the priesthood cannot be discussed with the media swine in this manner without constantly having to correct their misinterpretations and reportorial sensationalism.
By and large the press is not interested in the Church or her true mission, but only in the scandals and controversies surrounding the hot issues of contemporary culture and how the Church fits into these issues.
No one who has followed this pope and understands his deep faith and the weight of Church teaching and tradition in his approach to any of these hot issues could really think that he is going to make any substantial changes.”
“No one who has followed this pope and understands his deep faith and the weight of Church teaching and tradition in his approach to any of these hot issues could really think that he is going to make any substantial changes.”
The above is BS. Cardinal Bergoglio was known for his distaste of the TLM in his archdiocese. Now, as “Bishop of Rome”, he has wasted no time to personally suppress a religious order that had chosen to offer it.
Hold on to your hat!
The Pope is blurring the Truth—and it shouldn’t ever be done-—This pope and the popes since Vatican II have been tippy-toe (literally) about the Truth and Sin (for some reason, which I have figured out to a large extent-—reading Bella Dodd’s book and the Summa).
This is from Fr. Oko’s Report and he goes on to explain why people who have such an unnatural “orientation” -—CAN’T join the priesthood. They need to be kept OUT. You need to read the whole article but this is a part:
The Homoheresy article was commissioned by the Vatican —google it —
“....a perversion consisting in adult homosexual men being attracted not to children, but to pubescent and adolescent boys. It is a typical deviation related to homosexuality. Basic knowledge about that reality includes the fact that more than 80 percent of cases involving sexual abuse by clergymen reported in the U.S.A. were cases of ephebophilia.......”
“homosexuality is a wound on the personality which may impair many other functions. Such impairments include distorted relationships with other men, women and children; the habit of constantly pretending, hiding something important in their lives; the pattern of playing a game which prevents honest, deep, emotionally fair relationships with peers and tutors. It also hampers proper understanding and respect for the nature of femininity and marriage as the mystery of the love between a man and a woman. Besides, if a homosexual feel similar desires towards men as a man who is undisturbed in that regard feels towards women, these desires will be constantly aroused in him by the permanent, close presence of the objects of his desire. “
On and on....
What people heard was the word gay being used, and a possible distancing from Benedict’s 2005 rule on the seminary and homosexuals.
Has the English translation of the transcript come out yet?