Pope Francis, on Gay Catholic Priests, Inquires, "Who am I to judge?"

[One Approved]

Pope Francis a few years ago on gay marriage: “Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal_bergoglio_hits_out_at_same-sex_marriage#ixzz2afy6howk

The Catholic church is just trying to give themselves a better image. It's still an extremely corrupt organization. Also, Francis is still condemning homosexuals to hell, he's just saying it in a "nicer" way.

I think you have a really skewed view of the Catholic Church. Just because they identify something as a sin does not mean that they are explicitly condemning everybody who participates in that sin to Hell. Lying and stealing are considered sins and spoken out against regularly by the same group of people, but I don't see anybody flipping tables over how the Catholic Church has condemned every single liar and thief who has ever existed to Hell. Why? Because they haven't done it. The Catholic Church is literally saying the same_exact_things about homosexuality as they are about every single other sin that has ever existed, but everybody picks to make a huge deal about this one just because they disagree with it. Is the Catholic Church identifying homosexuality as a sin? Yes, they still are. Are they condemning all homosexuals ever to burn in Hell? No, they never have, and they never will.

Now let me just go on the record here and say that I'm in no way against homosexuality or anything like that. I personally think if it's what makes people happy, then they should go for it. I'm just trying to clarify what the Catholic Church is /actually/ saying, because there are a lot of misconceptions floating around out there.

As for the topic at hand, I'm very happy with what Pope Francis has said. It basically echoes exactly what the Bible says, which is what they're basing their beliefs off of. There's a verse that says "For He so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son..." It doesn't say "loved the world minus the homosexuals" or "loved the select, lucky, and chosen few" but the_entire_world. Having a Pope actually come out and say that he's not going to judge Homosexuals like people have for so many years is awesome.

 

[bacon]

To be honest Teapot, it's still a pretty piss poor philosophy to brand a sexual orientation on the same level as lying or stealing (or worse), irregardless of whether or not some God still loves you.

If someone said to me "Well it's not like I'm \against\ you having brown hair, but it \does\ fly in the face of what my all-knowing perfect God wants", I'd see that as nothing more than a blatant disapproval followed by cowering behind some superior figure that I can't even communicate (and hence argue) with.

 

[Shining Raikou]

Regardless if it is a mask for condemning it, I do applaud the Pope for being much more open minded than his predecessors. This will no doubt be sparking the discussion that has been much needed in many catholic churches and among priests for a while, and most will end up opening their minds as a result of what he said. It is a massive step forward for a church that has been very cold to gay people in the past. It was very surprising to me for him to say this, because when this pope was elected by the cardinals, I feared this pope would never say anything remotely in support of gay people. Why? Because as stated before, just a few years ago the same man, Pope Francis or "Jorge Mario Bergoglio" had spoken out against a gay marriage bill and gay adoption in Argentina calling it "the devil's handiwork".

It's not a leap forward, but it's a pivotal point. It's the catholic church starting to open it's mind. In recent memory, I can only remember Archbishop Desmond Tutu speaking publicly in defense of gay people. Having the pope say something like this publicly is just a shock.

 

[professorlight]

Pope Francis a few years ago on gay marriage: “Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal_bergoglio_hits_out_at_same-sex_marriage#ixzz2afy6howk

The Catholic church is just trying to give themselves a better image. It's still an extremely corrupt organization. Also, Francis is still condemning homosexuals to hell, he's just saying it in a "nicer" way.

That bastard, I thought he had just shut up back then. I have a really bad memory.

Anyway, wasn't it that sins (any sins) automatically condemned the sinner to hell unless he repented and had confession? if for him homosexuality is still a sin, and his words are "why should I care?", doesn't that means that still gays will go to hell if they don't repent (ergo, stop being gay) and that he's basically saying "I dont' give a f*** about that?" Oh, wait, that's what shining raikou said... well, we are two now.
His statements in the new york times report were pretty ambigous (or should I say... bi? ba dum tssssss).

We are in election season here, and everyone is claiming he's on their side. Even a rabbi, for one of the parties. A rabbi, for arceus's sake, using the pope for a senate seat. I think I'm going mad! am I the only one who thinks that's something out of a kafka book? we are at two thirds of a "a rabbi, a priest and a..." joke! oh, I got it:

Rabbi bergman, pope francis and elton john are in a bar. francis asks elton how it is to make love to a man, and elton says: "well, it's no different than with women: the only important thing is the love we have for each other.", then asks francis how it is to be one with god, and francis says: "well, I imagine it's not so different from what you said, he loves me and I love him. You are still going to hell, though.". A little offended, elton asks bergman: "how about you, rabbi? do you have anything you want to ask us?", and he responds: "not really, I'm only here for a photo".

That's... a surprisingly good joke. I didn't expect that, honest. Maybe a little bit localist...

 

[Breakfast Cereal]

To be honest Teapot, it's still a pretty piss poor philosophy to brand a sexual orientation on the same level as lying or stealing (or worse), irregardless of whether or not some God still loves you.

If someone said to me "Well it's not like I'm \against\ you having brown hair, but it \does\ fly in the face of what my all-knowing perfect God wants", I'd see that as nothing more than a blatant disapproval followed by cowering behind some superior figure that I can't even communicate (and hence argue) with.

This.

And Teapot, I know how the core of Christianity works, my whole family is Christian. I suppose it was just the most efficient way of saying it at the time.

Let me rephrase: they're still condemning everyone but themselves to hell. That's better.

 

[PDC]

Back in Argentina wasn't this guy a misogynist?

 

[Shining Raikou]

Pope Francis recently offered greetings to Muslims celebrating Ramadan too, showing acceptance of other faiths.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/pope-francis-id-ramadan-greetings_n_3695752.html

What is very interesting about this:

Pope Francis explained that he wanted to personally write this year's message as a mark of his "esteem and friendship" for all Muslims, citing the example of his namesake Saint Francis, who "loved every human being deeply."

Could this be a part of what sparked his change of heart? If this is what did it, that's called living up to your name.

 

[PG24]

Of course the same organization that gets accused of touching little boys would accept gay Catholic priests.

 

[professorlight]

Back in Argentina wasn't this guy a misogynist?

As much as any high ranking member of the church, I guess. No particular case comes to mind, but, as I said, I have a terrible memory. He (or the local church, with him in command; again, bad memory) did support the local high-profile case of father grassi, a sick f*** who had a flock and a charity to his name and in his free time, abused little kids from them. A lot. Of little kids. The bastard got prison in the end. Don't know if it was released.

Unsheated, the catholic church is the epitome of hypocrisy, they hide the abuser priests with one hand and with the other point at the gays and "send" them to hell. They were like that even during the crusades: "thou shalt not kill... unless the m******** praises a different god"

 

[Chaos Jackal]

Well, from one point of view, the marriage as a mystery is the connection of man and woman, so obviously no priest can accept a religious gay marriage. But this isn't about marriage at all, it's about the relationship itself. You can't condemn gays to hell. I've done much worse than many gays. So I guess I'm going to hell as well.
Think about another thing, though. OK, you've got gay priests, no problem. But the whole thing about molesting little boys isn't being gay, it's being a pedophile. Now, I'm sure the pope didn't say anything about that part. And I don't think anyone can.

 

[bacon]

Well, from one point of view, the marriage as a mystery is the connection of man and woman, so obviously no priest can accept a religious gay marriage. But this isn't about marriage at all, it's about the relationship itself. You can't condemn gays to hell.

Well yes, but you can consider their "opinion" on what constitutes a legal marriage as a subset of the general homophobia permeating the upper ranks of the Catholic church.

I mean, let's say I open a store, and I order that only white people can step inside. Needless to say that in a civilised society people would question my decision. If I responded "Ah, I'm not racist, it's just simply a rule that black people aren't allowed in my store", nobody would take me seriously. I'd probably have my store closed down, even.

This really isn't too far from the traditionalists that oppose homosexual marriage on the grounds that marriage is defined as a union between male and female (i.e. a rule). It's an absurd argument because it's the rule itself that represents homosexual intolerence.

 

[PDC]

God didn't create marriage.

Can these people grasp this concept?

 

[Chaos Jackal]

Unfortunately, God did create marriage. I do not know the exact translation of the Greek Bible into yours, but there is a phrase saying pretty much the following:

"And then Adam said: "She's bone from my bones and flesh for my flesh; she'll be called "woman" because she came from man." And that's why man will abandon his mother and father and unite with his selected woman. And they'll become one entity."

That's the definition of marriage in Genesis. If we take it from that point, then religious gay marriages cannot apply.
Note that I do not entirely agree with this. For me, rules must change to fit the age. Right now, I'm just playing the devil's advocate, 'cos I just love a healthy discussion.

 

[Fancy]

Its good that Pope Francis isn't judging Atheists, the LGBT community, or the other minorities. Otherwise wouldn't really be following the bible too well. Overall, I think the Church has to respect freedom, the bible even says God gave us freedom to choose.

Freedom to Religion, Freedom to go a path without God. Each of us has that freedom, we are captains of our own soul, and each of us use our rationality to pilot toward the truth or the path that we think is better for us.

Overall, Give the people what they want. Saying "You're all going to hell if you don't believe!" doesn't really make you want to believe, does it? The church has better things to do than just condemning people or talking to people that aren't listening.

 

[professorlight]

... Saying "You're all going to hell if you don't believe!" doesn't really make you want to believe, does it? The church has better things to do than just condemning people or talking to people that aren't listening.

Actually, it kind of does... You see, human society (as complex systems of communication and social awareness) is kind of unprecedented in the natural world, and as such, we are kind of... buggy. One of this bugs is related to how, when we form groups (call it friends, call it family, call it fans of a specific sports team, or a specific sport, either), we meld into them, they become part of our personal identity, and we take attacks to the group as personal offenses, as well as attacking other groups because their choice of an alternative might mean our choice is not the best. That, and hatred and negative thoughts give a kind of satisfaction, a release of endorphins (if you don't believe me, go to any internet forum and announce "I'm a *something controversial/opposite to the forum*". See how much flak you get in the first ten minutes. collect it. cash it. success!).
We hear all the time about "righteous indignation" or "giving the life for the cause", and this is that: we are so afraid to have made a terrible mistake in our choices that we will fight to the death to defend them, be it our death or of millions of other people. It's the motherlode from where religion, racism, terrorism, patriotism, zealotism, and even love and more come.

So the church really is kind of minding their business (their nasty, bigot business) after all, catholicism is a choice, one that leaves other choices out, and if they don't assure you at every step "you are doing the right thing, buddy" they are afraid you will realize "hey, maybe god is not just catholic... praise the flying spaghetti monster!" and leave, so they try to keep you occupied by pointing the finger to the LGBT community and saying "those people are against everything we stand for! smite them!" (because this time god is too busy to do it himself, apparently... he must have gotten skyrim after sodom and gomorrah).

As chillbill said, the bible specifies marriage as the joining of a man and a woman, but the bible is just a document, written by men, and it's bound to change. What would god think of the internet? that's not in the bible. or cars? or open heart surgery? how about pokemon? is that kosher?.
It's good if bergoglio is trying to change things to be more tolerat and up to the times, but maybe that change has to start with what started everything, the bible. And his successors have to keep at it, of course, such a deep change won't be quick.

 

[Fancy]

Actually, it kind of does... You see, human society (as complex systems of communication and social awareness) is kind of unprecedented in the natural world, and as such, we are kind of... buggy. One of this bugs is related to how, when we form groups (call it friends, call it family, call it fans of a specific sports team, or a specific sport, either), we meld into them, they become part of our personal identity, and we take attacks to the group as personal offenses, as well as attacking other groups because their choice of an alternative might mean our choice is not the best. That, and hatred and negative thoughts give a kind of satisfaction, a release of endorphins.
We hear all the time about "righteous indignation" or "giving the life for the cause", and this is that: we are so afraid to have made a terrible mistake in our choices that we will fight to the death to defend them, be it our death or of millions of other people. It's the motherlode from where religion, racism, terrorism, patriotism, zealotism, and even love and more come.

Hatred, Negative thoughts, and Smiting is the very thing the Bible warns against. Yet it has become the norm in the church to do it to outsiders to make them think "Its okay." Condemning people also just serves to push the outsiders away from the church, and not get them to join the church; (and it should be noted that getting them to join the church is one of their primary goals.)

So, all in all, the Church should follow the example they were given and I believe the Pope is taking a step towards that by not condemning/judging people (Which the Bible warns against).

 

[Ghost King]

you have to figure out that everything is not in the Bible, some of it was taken out, there are holes in the bible and there are missing books in there also.

 

[professorlight]

Actually, it kind of does... You see, human society (as complex systems of communication and social awareness) is kind of unprecedented in the natural world, and as such, we are kind of... buggy. One of this bugs is related to how, when we form groups (call it friends, call it family, call it fans of a specific sports team, or a specific sport, either), we meld into them, they become part of our personal identity, and we take attacks to the group as personal offenses, as well as attacking other groups because their choice of an alternative might mean our choice is not the best. That, and hatred and negative thoughts give a kind of satisfaction, a release of endorphins.
We hear all the time about "righteous indignation" or "giving the life for the cause", and this is that: we are so afraid to have made a terrible mistake in our choices that we will fight to the death to defend them, be it our death or of millions of other people. It's the motherlode from where religion, racism, terrorism, patriotism, zealotism, and even love and more come.

Hatred, Negative thoughts, and Smiting is the very thing the Bible warns against. Yet it has become the norm in the church to do it to outsiders to make them think "Its okay." Condemning people also just serves to push the outsiders away from the church, and not get them to join the church; (and it should be noted that getting them to join the church is one of their primary goals.)

So, all in all, the Church should follow the example they were given and I believe the Pope is taking a step towards that by not condemning/judging people (Which the Bible warns against).

Well, sodom and gomorrah, were attribbuted to god, also there were this huge flood, you might have heard of it, it's said only one dude and his family survived, and there was that time a couple pissed god off and he basically evicted them for I-don't-know-how-many-years. I gather from all that stuff the big guy can hold a grudge.
And, as I said, the bible was created by men, half of it preaches love and understanding and the other teaches to despise those who are different or "impure" (if not explicitlely, once you couple it with human nature). Basically, if you don't fit in the mold of a "good christian" you have ahead a eternity of suffering in the fiery pits of hell; that doesn't sound very nice.

 

[Fancy]

And, as I said, the bible was created by men, half of it preaches love and understanding and the other teaches to despise those who are different or "impure" (if not explicitlely, once you couple it with human nature).

The bible tells us that "we aren't from this world" and rebukes that nature, telling us that we shouldn't use that nature in the first place. If we want anything to despise, despise the sin itself or "the devil" and try to lessen our sinning.

Basically, if you don't fit in the mold of a "good christian" you have ahead a eternity of suffering in the fiery pits of hell; that doesn't sound very nice.

Thanks for pointing this out! I told you why the Church shouldn't condemn Outsiders; now I'll go ahead and tell you why the Church shouldn't condemn its own people. First off, I don't know how many times in the New Testament it states this, but I'll sum it up.

You believe in Jesus, You go to heaven. You're saved. That's the "New Covenant" that the world is in.

That's it. Now you may ask, "But, oh why, dear Fancy would this be? When serial killers, murderers, thieves, and the like can simply go to heaven; why wouldn't unbelievers? This certainly can't be right.."

Spoiler: The Answer for Anyone who Wants to Hear It

There's a simple reason the bible states. People go to hell because they are guilty of sin. The only way to escape hell is to be innocent of sin, and the only way to be innocent of sin is to accept Christ’s atonement. Men are not condemned because they don’t believe. They are condemned right from the start."

This is why I believe that no condemning by the Church should be done and Pope Francis is doing a good job at not judging Christians and Outsiders of the Christian Faith. Because, its not even his job to judge! Once all of the churches and all of the denominations realize that, I think we can take a big step forward.

If they will? Just gotta wait and see.

 

[professorlight]

The bible tells us that "we aren't from this world" and rebukes that nature, telling us that we shouldn't use that nature in the first place. If we want anything to despise, despise the sin itself or "the devil" and try to lessen our sinning.

But isn't "not using that nature" on par with "not being gay" or "not being a female priest" or "not covering your p*** with a piece of latex when having sex"? in the sense that god made you and now is saying "oh, sorry humanity, I was drunk at the time, just ignore all that hatred, homosexual love, gender equality and premarital sex I hardwired into you and you'll be fine".

Thanks for pointing this out! I told you why the Church shouldn't condemn Outsiders; now I'll go ahead and tell you why the Church shouldn't condemn its own people. First off, I don't know how many times in the New Testament it states this, but I'll sum it up.

You believe in Jesus, You go to heaven. You're saved. That's the "New Covenant" that the world is in.

That's it. Now you may ask, "But, oh why, dear Fancy would this be? When serial killers, murderers, thieves, and the like can simply go to heaven; why wouldn't unbelievers? This certainly can't be right.."

Spoiler: The Answer for Anyone who Wants to Hear It

There's a simple reason the bible states. People go to hell because they are guilty of sin. The only way to escape hell is to be innocent of sin, and the only way to be innocent of sin is to accept Christ’s atonement. Men are not condemned because they don’t believe. They are condemned right from the start."

Niiice, you are learning from me, honey, I'm flattered.

Now, let's say:
-if you believe you go to heaven
-if you don't, or believe in something else (flying spaghetti monster! hell yeah!), you go to hell
-if you are a sinner, believe, and are forgiven, you go to heaven
-if you are a sinner, believe but do not seek forgiveness, you go to hell

Now, let's say a catholic practicant kills an atheist. the atheist didn't do anything, and goes to hell. the catholic guy confesses, and goes to heaven. Does that seem like a fair trade? the work of a god who loves all his children? because assuming the catholic god exists, then we are all his children, and he loves us, we should all go to heaven, unless he disowns some of us, in which case he wouldn't be so much caring and loving, more like a petty megalomanical bastard.

This is why I believe that no condemning by the Church should be done and Pope Francis is doing a good job at not judging Christians and Outsiders of the Christian Faith. Because, its not even his job to judge! Once all of the churches and all of the denominations realize that, I think we can take a big step forward.

If they will? Just gotta wait and see.

Well, at least in that we can agree. I think we are derailing the thread, so let's leave it at that.
Now go talk to the ayatollah, see what you can do.
And don't worry about the buddhists, those guys are cool.