Here are the direct quotes [from Pope Francis]you requested:“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.”
This is true in itself. He was asked about "homosexuality" (a psychosexual disorder) and he chose to answer that we should first look at the person, not the disorder. This is "best practice" --- especially best pastoral practice when looking at any person with any disorder.
"The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you. And the ministers of the church must be ministers of mercy above all. The confessor, for example, is always in danger of being either too much of a rigorist or too lax. Neither is merciful, because neither of them really takes responsibility for the person."
I don't see how this is disputable. Teaching of moral rules is doomed to futility unless Jesus Christ is proclaimed as Savior. How could any Catholic say otherwise?
“We need to proclaim the Gospel on every street corner,” the pope says, “preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing, even with our preaching, every kind of disease and wound. In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge.By saying this, I said what the catechism says."
Once again, he is not talking about homosexual behavior, which is to say, attachment to porneia, i.e. indecency or sodomy. He is talking about homosexual persons. People who have a sexual disorder. Te Church does not condemn people who suffer from, or struggle with, this disorder, any more than she condemns other people who have disorders, such as, depression, Tourette syndrome or alcoholism.
The person is described as being "of good will and in search of God," and beyond that, there's no mention of whether he or she exhibits, or admits to, sexually perverse behavior in thought, word, or deed. Without THAT information, how would you be qualified to judge?
"We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible... But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context."“The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.”
Seriously, who could dispute this? Take a lesson from how St. Paul dealt with these and similar issues.
I understand that you are, as you say, dealing with "perception" rather than anything actually and precisely false or wrong or evil in what Pope Francis is saying.
You may be surprised to know that I agree with you on that. My impression is that Pope Francis talks (and writes) way too loosely and way too much. His predecessor, Benedict, was criticized (though not by me) for being too "professorial," since he wrote and spoke with disciplined precision. Francis may be holy, "bless his heart," but precise he is not. He's gabby and colloquial, and it causes significant confusion --- which means it's a significant obstacle to his role as a teacher.
He perhaps assumes that people will be drilling way down into the deep context --which of course they are not --- as if to say "Eh, caro mio, why repeat and repeat basic moral doctrines? Everybody knows what the Catechism says..." --- facepalm)
What the hell is "PR genius" Greg Burke doing to earn his salary, by the way?
Excellent post.
I think we agree :)