Pope Francis: "Who am I" to judge gays?

[Miles]

Article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DC Al Fine]

Given how many lapsed Catholics are involved with NYT, you'd think they'd be less tone deaf about Catholicism Francis' remarks are hardly revolutionary. "Judge not lest ye be judged" and all that.

[Blue3]

This has been the position of the Catholic Church for at least a decade, if not more. It's the same view as Benedict and John Paul.

They could have said it louder and more often, but this has been Catholic belief for a long time.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

This has been the position of the Catholic Church for at least a decade, if not more. It's the same view as Benedict and John Paul.

They could have said it louder and more often, but this has been Catholic belief for a long time.

Yeah.  And I think it depends on what one means by "judge."  To Catholics, judging homosexual behavior isn't the same as judging homosexuals... of course, I've heard the old "hate the sin, love the sinner" rhetoric from Christians of all denominations.  That said, I see myself liking this Pope more each day.

[ilikeverin]

This has been the position of the Catholic Church for at least a decade, if not more. It's the same view as Benedict and John Paul.

They could have said it louder and more often, but this has been Catholic belief for a long time.

Eh, I wouldn't say this is meaningless.  Here's something I found online:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DC Al Fine]

This has been the position of the Catholic Church for at least a decade, if not more. It's the same view as Benedict and John Paul.

They could have said it louder and more often, but this has been Catholic belief for a long time.

Eh, I wouldn't say this is meaningless.  Here's something I found online:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I assume Francis was speaking Spanish, Italian, or Latin in his speech. Do the romance languages have separate words for gay & homosexual or is it just different renderings of the same word into English.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This has been the position of the Catholic Church for at least a decade, if not more. It's the same view as Benedict and John Paul.

They could have said it louder and more often, but this has been Catholic belief for a long time.

Eh, I wouldn't say this is meaningless.  Here's something I found online:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I assume Francis was speaking Spanish, Italian, or Latin in his speech. Do the romance languages have separate words for gay & homosexual or is it just different renderings of the same word into English.

The English word gay is pretty widespread in Italian and French.

[Associate Justice PiT]

This has been the position of the Catholic Church for at least a decade, if not more. It's the same view as Benedict and John Paul.

They could have said it louder and more often, but this has been Catholic belief for a long time.

Eh, I wouldn't say this is meaningless.  Here's something I found online:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I assume Francis was speaking Spanish, Italian, or Latin in his speech. Do the romance languages have separate words for gay & homosexual or is it just different renderings of the same word into English.

     It works both ways, though. I rather suspect that there were similar patterns of usage to guide our previous Popes as well.

[DC Al Fine]

This has been the position of the Catholic Church for at least a decade, if not more. It's the same view as Benedict and John Paul.

They could have said it louder and more often, but this has been Catholic belief for a long time.

Eh, I wouldn't say this is meaningless.  Here's something I found online:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I assume Francis was speaking Spanish, Italian, or Latin in his speech. Do the romance languages have separate words for gay & homosexual or is it just different renderings of the same word into English.

The English word gay is pretty widespread in Italian and French.

Just checking. Thanks.

[ilikeverin]

This has been the position of the Catholic Church for at least a decade, if not more. It's the same view as Benedict and John Paul.

They could have said it louder and more often, but this has been Catholic belief for a long time.

Eh, I wouldn't say this is meaningless.  Here's something I found online:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I assume Francis was speaking Spanish, Italian, or Latin in his speech. Do the romance languages have separate words for gay & homosexual or is it just different renderings of the same word into English.

The English word gay is pretty widespread in Italian and French.

Spanish too.  He wouldn't speak Latin to reporters.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The real judge.

[afleitch]

The real judge.

Corrected;

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The real judge.

Corrected;

No appreciation for art?

[afleitch]

The real judge.

Corrected;

No appreciation for art?

Judge Judy is art

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Not as much as this! (It's Jesus)

[barfbag]

The pope is in a position to be a moral interpreter. There are reasons to support and oppose gays based on scripture, but more importantly is understanding subtext and background for scripture.

[Velasco]

This has been the position of the Catholic Church for at least a decade, if not more. It's the same view as Benedict and John Paul.

They could have said it louder and more often, but this has been Catholic belief for a long time.

Eh, I wouldn't say this is meaningless.  Here's something I found online:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I assume Francis was speaking Spanish, Italian, or Latin in his speech. Do the romance languages have separate words for gay & homosexual or is it just different renderings of the same word into English.

I watched the video. The Pope was speaking in Italian and used the word "gay". You cannot expect a complete turnabout in the Pope's rhetoric, that's not the ecclesiastic style, but the tone is certainly promising, specially when he carefully avoided the reference to the description of homosexuality in the Catholic catechism ("disorderly inclination"). Bergoglio may not be a revolutionary, but when same sex marriage was discussed in the Argentinian parliament he proposed civil unions as the "lesser evil", whereas conservative priests rejected any compromise on the subject. 

[HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows]

And who is the pope to judge thieves, liars, drunkards, adulterers, fornicators, idolaters, etc, etc, etc...?  Is he saying calling sinful action a "sin" is tantamount to being judgemental?!  If so, it seems this pope is very confused, for the NT is full of examples calling out people of their sin without condemning them:

John 8:7-11 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

---

The distinction between pointing out sin on one hand and condemning someone on the other seems pretty incredibly simple to me.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

And who is the pope to judge thieves, liars, drunkards, adulterers, fornicators, idolaters, etc, etc, etc...?  Is he saying calling sinful action a "sin" is tantamount to being judgemental?!  If so, it seems this pope is very confused, for the NT is full of examples calling out people of their sin without condemning them:

John 8:7-11 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

---

The distinction between pointing out sin on one hand and condemning someone on the other seems pretty incredibly simple to me.

Go away, jmfcst.

[barfbag]

And who is the pope to judge thieves, liars, drunkards, adulterers, fornicators, idolaters, etc, etc, etc...?  Is he saying calling sinful action a "sin" is tantamount to being judgemental?!  If so, it seems this pope is very confused, for the NT is full of examples calling out people of their sin without condemning them:

John 8:7-11 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

---

The distinction between pointing out sin on one hand and condemning someone on the other seems pretty incredibly simple to me.

These stories are metaphors for political conflicts in the latter first century. In fact Mark is wartime literature.

[TJ in Oregon]

And who is the pope to judge thieves, liars, drunkards, adulterers, fornicators, idolaters, etc, etc, etc...?  Is he saying calling sinful action a "sin" is tantamount to being judgemental?!  If so, it seems this pope is very confused, for the NT is full of examples calling out people of their sin without condemning them:

John 8:7-11 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

---

The distinction between pointing out sin on one hand and condemning someone on the other seems pretty incredibly simple to me.

That's not what he was saying at all. The context was the pope was asked about a particular priest who was rumored to have a gay relationship years ago and was asked about there being a "gay lobby" in the Vatican, to which he responded, "A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will — well, who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn’t this orientation — we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby.”

When he referred to the Catechism, he reiterated the Church's teaching that homosexual sex acts are sinful. But he was also talking about the priesthood, which in the Western Church requires celibacy. He was defending that he appointed a priest who had a gay relationship a long time ago to a position, not trying to say that we can't call sin sin or that the guy didn't sin.

[DC Al Fine]

[Velasco]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn’t this orientation.

Sorry, when the Catechism is defining homosexuality as "disorderly" it's saying that there's a problem with that sexual orientation. Also, such categorization is a way of marginalization.

On the other hand, I see everybody understood the Pope's statements in different ways, according to proper inclinations. As it's usual in the Vatican and the Catholic Church, he was extremely cautious and subtle. It's possible to interpretate, not only his words in a literal sense but the tone he used and other clues that he's giving, as a certain will of opening-up Church's stances or at least giving a humbling experience. It's unlikely that he's a revolutionary and stated clearly that he's in favour of celibacy and opposed to women's priesthood, but he told the latter deserve a major role.

[The Mikado]

The pope is in a position to be a moral interpreter. There are reasons to support and oppose gays based on scripture, but more importantly is understanding subtext and background for scripture.

That's just it, though.  It's not a statement out of line with Church theology precisely because of the nature of the way the Church views homosexuality.  If the Pope had said "Who am I to judge a man with a gambling addiction?  I hope he gets the help he needs."  Or "Who am I to judge an alcoholic?  I hope he finds rehabilitation" it would be precisely in the same vein as what he said about homosexuality and in the same context...the Church views gay people as something akin to compulsive gamblers and drunks in that their behavior is the problem and if the behavior ceases the problem ceases.  I think that people looking for signs of "liberalism" or support of gay rights in this statement are barking up the wrong tree because it's the same message the Church has been giving for decades.

[7,052,770]

I love how the right-wing Catholics have to scramble to make up excuses and contrive explanations every time the pope says something like this.

What's really amusing is how Benedict was actually almost as liberal too, but people just didn't notice.