General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Pope's comments on family and marriage seem very much open to interpretation-WRONG
Last edited Wed Sep 30, 2015, 10:05 PM - Edit history (1)
Nowhere does he mention gender. The closest he comes is citing the fact that fundamental relationship are being called into question. I can read that as saying the man/woman construct is being called into question. But so, too, could I see the same words aimed benevolently at same sex couples.
I'm sure everyone has an interpretation of his words, but I'm honestly not sure what he meant.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Families is? For the love of Mike this dishonesty has to end. Own who he is. He meets with Tony Perkins and NOM, holds anti gay conferences. Just stop it.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Families come in all shapes and forms, and my family means more to me than anything else on the planet. Yet I didn't come from a traditional family, grow up in a traditional family, raise my kids in a traditional family, and our family is a wonderful, if small, eclectic mix today.
I think that's the OP's point; the Pope's statement that was quoted is general enough to include all kinds of families. It's open to interpretation. I don't know if that was deliberate or not, but I suspect it was.
I am not Catholic, not Christian, but I'm watching this Pope with interest, because he carries weight across the globe. I don't expect that any Pope could step into his office and immediately turn thousands of years of doctrine and policy on its head, but he's certainly moving in that direction, one step at a time. Whether that will eventually include doctrine involving women and sexuality is still to be determined. It's early days yet, so I can hope it will, for now.
He's begun by reminding people about the socialist nature of Christ as recorded. That's a step in the right direction.
I don't remember, in my two full readings of the Christian Bible, Jesus teaching people to subjugate women or to see homosexuality as a sin. If the Catholic Church were evolving to become more like the recorded Jesus, real or not, the Church, and the world through its followers, would be a better place.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)valid, Sacrementally or socially.
Also, I'm very annoyed by the selective reading of Jesus, if you took the whole character in, it would be a wash at best. He wasn't the best example of a good moral or ethical teacher.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)The absence of explicit description of "family" leaves the door open; at this point, that's all it is. An open door. I'm not suggesting more than that.
"Selective reading of Jesus?" I'm not a Christian because the churches I had to attend before adult hood seemed so hypocritical and "anti-Jesus" to me. I read the Bible through twice, beginning to end, just so they'd stop throwing isolated pieces at me, spun to suit their purposes.
What am I missing? Do Christians, or do they not, base the life of Jesus on their Bible?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,272 posts)The complementarity between a man and a woman is being questioned by the so-called gender ideology in the name of a freer and more just society, the Pope observes. In fact, he warns, the differences between men and women are not a question of “opposition or subordination but rather of communion and generation… always in the image and likeness of God." Without mutual giving- he adds - neither can have an in-depth understanding of the other.
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/06/08/pope_marriage_between_man_and_woman,_no_to_gender_ideology/1150051
No, there is no 'open door'. That was this summer.
Take a look at how many times the Catechism defines matrimony as between a man and a woman: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm
LWolf
(46,179 posts)An open door is not a stampede through it, or even a step through it. It's just an open door.
And I think that's what I see. Maybe it's not very far open. There's certainly a very long way to go to actually move through and past that door. It's not closed, locked, and barred, though.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)on that/those characters.
This deity is generally a reflection of their own values and beliefs, arrived at through larger culture or subculture(which itself can be heavily Christian, but also includes other sources).
I'm frankly amazed, I have yet to meet one Christian who disagreed with their god on any issue, rather they dismiss or minimize the things that make them uncomfortable.
One of the prime examples of this, the worse the old testament god can do is kill you(and did kill a LOT of people, according to myth), Jesus wants you to burn eternally, and he's considered the nice one!
LWolf
(46,179 posts)that it's been a long time since my readings...but I believe the translations and interpretations about hell and fire are a source of argument, not agreement, even among evangelicals.
Church leaders are always arguing, then and now, about what their faith really means. Which is why faith evolves and changes, and why Christianity can, too.
It would be good if the Abrahamic religions that dominate the world of faith today evolved, imo of course.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)is this need for the "faith" to evolve. Is it the truth, or isn't it? If not, or incompletely, how can you tell when its more accurate?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)He has described same-sex marriage as the work of the devil and a “destructive attack on God's plan."
That's the "threat" to which he referred. What threat do you think he meant? Chtulu?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)It's not a one-dimensional problem.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Are people supposed to remain together regardless of their feelings for each other? Should every couple who lives together always get married? If the parents can time manage properly to raise their kids, who cares if both work? Is everyone supposed to start a family?
More importantly, when the fuck is any of this your Church's business?
rug
(82,333 posts)The problem is "the family, which is threatened, perhaps as never before, from within and without". Do you think the family is not threatened?
That, very abbreviated, list is some of the causes, which effects every constellation of family.
More importantly, when the fuck is any of this not your former Church's business?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The Meeting of Families allows no mention of gay families, no advocacy for them or for fair treatment of them.
LGBT events always let the Catholics have a booth. Who gets the Jesus badge?
rug
(82,333 posts)None of which nullifies the many causes, most economic, that threaten families.
Thee Meeting of Families is far from the final word.
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/world-meeting-of-families-co-chair-pushes-gay-rights
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)he needs to be challenged on this issue. I don't think it will do much to change his mind, I doubt he's going to pull a George Wallace and renounce his previous position.
rug
(82,333 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)If you want to talk about practicalities, such as living wages that allow one income to support up to 4 people, or providing free daycare for every child in the nation, along with free or affordable health care for every child, then we would have something to talk about.
But those are economic and public policy issues, not issues that should concern your Church.
rug
(82,333 posts)"But those are economic and public policy issues, not issues that should concern your Church."
You really have not been paying attention.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)even then the actual actions may or may not be actual problems it really depends on context and family life.
For example, cohabitation, my sister and brother-in-law have lived together since high school, co-habiting for almost 10 years before finally tying the knot. Not sure why that was a problem. Actually, brother-in-law's mother and step dad were cohabiting until well after all the kids left the house, for over 25 years. They got married after becoming "born-again", it was very awkward for my very atheist brother-in-law. Right now I'm co-habiting with my fiancée and have for the past 4 years, not sure where the problem is here. One other example from personal life, my future father-in-law and his significant other have been together for 20 years or so, and still haven't gotten married, both were married before. Their house is also filled with grand kids all the time. Not sure how any of them represent a "threat" to the family when they are families.
And now, for a contrast, and I swear I'm not making this up, my fiancée's best friend is going through a separation that will end in divorce. Her and her soon to be ex-husband are divorcing because he's come to terms with his homosexuality. He's moved out of the house, they are coming up with custody arrangements for their kids, and while this time is very painful, mostly for her, its also for the best. Divorce in this instance isn't a problem, but a solution. Yes this relationship could have been avoided if society was much more accepting 30+ years ago, but, given the circumstances, this is the best of a less than ideal situation. Hopefully they will work out what differences they have amicably and remain family, if not together. Again, this isn't a "threat" to the family, but a challenge for one family to work through.
The other issues you mentioned are issues the Church can only assist with on a very limited scale. I don't think the Catholic Church can provide all people that need it with a living wage, free childcare and affordable healthcare.
rug
(82,333 posts)Like most things, they are often necessary and can improve family relationships. Very often, they're not.
Religion is easily the most malleable ideological political tool. Most recently it's been harnessed by the right. But the theme of this visit shows it can also be harnessed in a fight for economic justice.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)except for that family's unless abuse and/or exploitation is involved.
I do have a huge issue with the Church and its "family advocacy" this usually revolves around being anti-family planning, and no, NFP doesn't count, it doesn't really work. You can't be "pro-family" and against family planning at the same time. Economically and socially it doesn't work. Do you know why my sister and BIL have so far been successful? Because, the entire time they co-habited, and into their marriage, they used birth control. They didn't start having kids until they were financially ready, they have a house, two cars and two dogs along with the two kids. Apparently they like things in twos.
See, my parents were smart and ignored the Church's positions on family planning when they took my sister to an OBGYN and got her a prescription for birth control when she was a teenager, at her request. She asked them first, which was a contrast from me when I was a teenager and my dad took me out to demystify the purchase of that most sacrilegious of objects, a box of condoms. Granted that first box was never used, but not for lack of effort! Ahh, the rejections! I was an awkward teenager. 
The problem is this, religion can be a powerful political tool, and how your church has used it has been double edged, on one hand talking about the economic problems, and on the other, going off on tangents like being against birth control, sex education, family planning, sterilization, etc.
You can't have one without the other, you want people to be able to establish themselves in the workforce, have the education they desire, and also later establish stable families with the people they fall in love without coercion? Then you need to advocate for effective family planning, otherwise you are just blowing hot air.
rug
(82,333 posts)I don't buy the libertarian ideology that individuals, their property and their families are autonomous nomads glaring behind their castle walls.
That said, people have privacy and choice. My first wallet had a telltale circle.
If you have ever sat down and read Humanae Vitae, either while or after you called yourself Catholic, you'd know it's not about coercion.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Social concerns for most families belongs in either therapy rooms or, worse case, family court. But generally speaking, its not a legislative matter.
Also, why do you always name drop "libertarian ideology", is it to cease the argument?
Honestly, I don't know why Humanae Vitae is even relevant, its a classic document in how your Church continues to attempt to counsel its members and others on subjects they know little about.
pnwmom
(108,960 posts)since Jesus Christ gave the Sermon on the Mount.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)the Church has no business meddling with our secular state in this manner. We don't need theocracy, thanks.
pnwmom
(108,960 posts)poverty and the obligations of the rich to share with the poor.
And his followers have the same right of free speech that you have.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)narrow definitions of family onto the rest of us.
Also, I strongly object to your Church's leadership, who are exclusively unmarried, celibate males, in commenting on anything to do with family, family planning, contraception, relationships, sexuality, or the human condition. It has been demonstrated, repeatedly, they they are not competent on these issues.
pnwmom
(108,960 posts)are more likely to use artificial contraception than the average American.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Africa, 100,000+ AIDS dead each month. Church forbids condoms and tells people they spread HIV. 44% of Uganda is RCC, 7.2% of Uganda lives with HIV, most recent year with a count had 62,000 deaths in Uganda from AIDS. Assistance groups cite a lack of education about prevention and also religious objections to explain why in a place with such decades long health crisis only 13% of Ugandans have ever used a condom.
So those teaching matter. This is a planet shared with others. Just the millions of orphans created should give anyone pause. Millions of orphans. Millions of dead. Some of the clergy of course are glad to see excess orphans for reasons of their own, reasons that will never be punished by their company.
I've studied Jesus and I think he would stand with the sick and the orphans and the condoms. So that's the way I'm going with it.
Silence = Death
Knowledge = Life
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)That poster will likely tell you how the RCC is totes cool with condoms now. But that doesn't help the millions infected or the anti vax efforts.
The Catholic Church is killing people. Not by pulling a trigger or wielding a weapon, but by imposing Dark Age ideas on a vulnerable population.
This needs to be stated clearly: The Catholic Church is morally responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans. Those that have not died as a result of imposing this theology, the Church would now like to saddle with polio and tetanus.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/freethoughtnow/were-all-africans-stand-against-hivaids-polio-and-the-catholic-church/
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)"No, no, no, just ignore what we think is the bad stuff anyway!!"
That reeks of such privilege and is so selfish I can't stand it. OK, you ignore it and defy the teachings for your own lives while supporting the message and efforts to impose them on a literal global scale. Plus, while you ignore the stuff liberals think is bad, the right ignores the few liberal messages in literally the exact same manner.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)their choices in this country completely. The Church still tries though, and appears to be succeeding, along with other antichoicers, especially when it comes to clinic access.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Thus the focus on family reunification....
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/288493-family-reunification-must-be-part-of-immigration-reform
rug
(82,333 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"The Catholic gay rights group New Ways Ministry had been vying to convene a workshop during the conference on “Transforming Love: Exploring Gender Identity from Catholic Perspectives.” The workshop appeared to be all set — until Archbishop Charles Chaput vetoed it.
The only gay-themed address on the schedule is by a gay man and his mother, who, according to program language, will discuss ways in which “Catholic families can respond to a family member’s disclosure that they are same-sex attracted … or gay or lesbian.” The speaker, Ron Belgau, is celibate, modeling what is apparently the only acceptable way to deal with homosexuality in the minds of the conference decision-makers."
http://www.religionnews.com/2015/09/13/paradox-heart-catholic-world-meeting-familes-commentary/
Chaput says show up but shut up:
"We hope that everyone feels welcome to come, and certainly people who have experienced same-sex attraction are certainly welcome like anyone else," he said.
But, the archbishop added, "we don't want to provide a platform at the meeting for people to lobby for positions contrary to the life of our church, so we're not providing that kind of lobbying opportunity."
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/chaput-gay-families-are-welcome-world-meeting-families-lobbying-isnt
It's that gay lobby again, it's bad, it's bad.
Can I talk about you and your family like that? 'Hey, you can come but don't speak'?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Or people lambasting "ghetto culture", "thugs", etc.
This Pope is NOT benevolent towards same sex couples, why the fuck people even attempt to defend this is mystifying. He has been crystal clear in the past, from when he actively campaigned against he legalization of same-sex marriage in his native country to becoming Pope and having, several times now, made speeches against so called "gender theory", same sex marriage, etc.
pnwmom
(108,960 posts)I think most people's have. I say that as the daughter of a gay man, who over the last several decades, has been watching people change their minds.
So I don't think that whatever he said as Cardinal means he can't ever change his mind or have a different approach as Pope.
My father has died but his partner loves this Pope.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)or even a Barack Obama and denounced his past opinions/actions?
All people pull out is one out of context quote about "who am I to judge" which was about celibate homosexual priests. He just went on a speaking tour denouncing "gender theory" which, from what I can gather, is a catch-all(not scientific) term for pretty much everything the church considers bad about gender studies and modern understanding and evidence revolving around gender identity and biology. Its the Pope's version of Young Earth Creationism.
Maybe he realizes that denouncing sexuality will lead to more members leaving the Church, but if he were to be ambigous and denounce vague concepts instead, then he can stay true to the teachings without alienating too many people.
pnwmom
(108,960 posts)that's a significant move in the hoped-for direction.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)pnwmom
(108,960 posts)and religious figures, and you want me to provide evidence? I and millions of others FEEL strongly, based on the totality of words and actions we've experienced from this Pope, that he's far less judgmental than other Popes we've known. That's a subjective judgment, as many are.
But I can also point you to some "evidence" -- but I don't expect you to accept it anymore than you would someone else's religious beliefs.
His statement "Who am I to judge," (an almost unheard of statement by a Pope) in combination with his urging Bishops to be pastoral and less doctrinal.
The message to the Bishops in particular is very different than anything I've seen another Pope say.
For instance, he says instead of lecturing, they should be dialoguing.
The path ahead, then, is dialogue among yourselves, dialogue in your presbyterates, dialogue with lay persons, dialogue with families, dialogue with society. I cannot ever tire of encouraging you to dialogue fearlessly. The richer the heritage which you are called to share with parrhesia, the more eloquent should be the humility with which you should offer it. Do not be afraid to set out on that “exodus” which is necessary for all authentic dialogue. Otherwise, we fail to understand the thinking of others, or to realize deep down that the brother or sister we wish to reach and redeem, with the power and the closeness of love, counts more than their positions, distant as they may be from what we hold as true and certain. Harsh and divisive language does not befit the tongue of a pastor, it has no place in his heart; although it may momentarily seem to win the day, only the enduring allure of goodness and love remains truly convincing.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)and I'm asking for evidence that HE is less judgemental about LGBT families, it should be easy to come by.
Has he said or done anything to indicate that he no longer views same-sex parenting as child abuse, or that homosexuals can have families at all. Really, anything at all should do, and again, the quote about "Who am I to Judge" isn't even the same subject.
And you want to talk about harsh and divisive language, what about the Catechism, are homosexuals "objectively disordered" or not?
pnwmom
(108,960 posts)has said.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)homosexual isn't a sin, acting on it is. So even it says "Who am I to judge" the celibate.
This has also been open policy for JPII as well, as far as accepting open homosexuals in the priesthood goes. Benedict changed this policy, making him the outlier, not Francis.
ON EDIT: So you could say that Francis returned to a policy of a previous Pope, and corrected the error of a now Bishop Emeritus.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)When did DU become the fucking 700 Club? Do you dig you some Rick Warren as well?
Do you think his talk about protecting life was pro choice, Stinky?
Stinky The Clown
(67,766 posts)Nowhere do I tell you what to think. That said, your little outburst was doing exactly that to me.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I'm sure you refused the informed dialog out of great respect and a sense of equality, but had you responded to that I'd not have snarked at you. This is something to consider. I tried to discuss the actual subject matter you quote Francis talking about, his World Meeting of Families. That is the context he gave for his comments. I posted about that Meeting. You offered no response at all and that really does not indicate a desire to discuss but to instruct.
I tired. I spoke exactly and directly to the OP you offered. And you did not give that the time of day. That's not what you were looking for. So I gave you what you wanted. Snark.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)of the Pope's views. Yes, he has made laudable statements on poverty and the responsibilities of the rich. But nothing he has to say on family life (LGBT family life especially) is a substantial departure from Church doctrine, which views same-sex attraction as "disordered" and all but demands celibacy from gay Catholics.
By all means, praise Francis when he gets things right. But it seems disingenuous, at best, to act as if there aren't substantially troubling aspects to his theology as well.
Stinky The Clown
(67,766 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)his views on the LGBT community?
Not to mention it happened a year ago, and there are plenty of Cardinals, Bishops and Archbishops who hold views just as egregious as his that have not been demoted.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)demoted for being anti gay. That is the OP's claim there and now it is yours. Prove your assertion, this assertion you are so eager to make. Back it up. Where did the Vatican say he was axed for being a bigot? They did not.
You will offer no support for your claim because none exists. Straight folks like to make claims about Francis that are not true and they do it constantly. You are doing it here, and that will be demonstrated by your lack of response to this.
You are not my superior, no matter what your preacher tells you. You don't command. You are not entitled to make wild claims without any proof, so prove your assertion.
But you can't so you won't.
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Or do you NOT want it to mean what it really does mean?
The pope has made plenty of other speeches and comments on this matter. He was attacking same sex marriage. There is no interpretation needed.
The pope is an anti-gay politician for the Catholic Church. Intentionally trying to be vague as to allow people to think he is being liberal and open minded to attract new blood to the church, while not actually changing a damn thing.
Don't fall for his spin.[/font]
Stinky The Clown
(67,766 posts)But don't let that stop a good vilification (of yours truly).
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]If that was my goal I would of accused you of agreeing with him rather than simply insinuating that you were possibly being cognitively dissonant.
But, I will believe you and shall give you a few links:[/font]
http://www.catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis-on-abortion-and-homosexual-marriage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/06/pope-slovakia-referendum_n_6630876.html
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/pope_francis_announces_support_for_laws_banning_same_sex_marriage_and_adoption
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/pope_francis_on_gay_rights_his_5_worst_quotes/
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/new-pope-francis-jorje-mario-bergoglio-gay-adoption
http://ncronline.org/news/global/children-need-heterosexual-parents-pope-francis-says-after-gay-pride-march
[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Let me quote from the first one:[/font]
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]“At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother, and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”
Cardinal Bergoglio continued: “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.”
[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Be honest, do you really think this pope was not talking about gay marriage?[/font]
Stinky The Clown
(67,766 posts)I didn't mean that implication at all. Yours was the first post that actually considered the OP in the sense in which it was intended. To get to your post, I had to read all the previous posts. There you'll see what I was referring to.
I am a long, long lapsed Catholic. I am that for many reasons, and the church's intractability on so many issues is one part of why I am. Things like choice and marriage equality are far more important to me than the church. If they want me back (I doubt they do) they will have to do a lot more to reach out to me.
This Pope seems very different from any of his predecessors that were there in my lifetime (back to Pius XXII). True enough, he hasn't, and likely never will, change church doctrine. Surely he won't change dogma, but what he seems to be is willing to "forgive" us for our actions that are counter to doctrine and dogma. A way back for divorced Catholics. Forgiveness for things that were (still are, I guess) unforgivable.
I read hope in those words.
Clearly not everyone sees them the same way. (See upthread as witness to that statement.)
pnwmom
(108,960 posts)His most recent statement as Pope was far less judgmental.
And other people have changed their views over the years. How do you know he hasn't been, too? There aren't too many 78 year olds of any religion who would have said, "Who am I to judge?"
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)People who change their minds are easy to spot. They say 'I was wrong' then they say 'I am so very sorry for the harm I have done to others' then they explain exactly how they were wrong and how they intend to express their newfound enlightenment.
Francis has not done any such thing. Not even close. No cake and eat it too.
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)First before you guys attack me, I am pro-choice, I believe that contraception should be available and affordable. I am pro equal rights for GLBT, pro same sex marriage and I left the Catholic Church many years ago over those very issues.
I'm also not sure if that is what he is doing. Maybe, like you guys say it's all dog whistle stuff but when he twice started in on the usual; preserve life at all stages, threats to the family talk and then immediately expanded the expected anti-gay anti abortion stuff into areas that are also Catholic doctrine but are not the areas that recent popes have pressed, I have to listen. That handshake with John Kerry--a man who was refused communion by Cardinal Burke--could also have been a signal--or maybe it was just appreciation for Kerry's role in the Cuba reconciliation--I don' know and you don't know either.
It's ambivalent, like Stinky said, it's open to interpretation. Sorry, I can't imagine Popes Benedict or John Paul being coy about abortion.
The Church will always consider abortion to be a sin. It will most likely always consider homosexuality to e a sin as well which is something that I do not agree with. Still, all of this is within the Church's rights and purview. You don't like it, don't be a Catholic or work from within to change it if you can.
My problem with the Church is when they try to impose their views on people who are not Catholics by influencing the laws of this and other countries and by preventing Catholic hospitals from providing medically necessary health care. If Pope Francis is trying to dial back on this and refocus the Church on social and economic justice and a broader definition of the sanctity of life than kudos to him.
I realize that I will not change anyone's mind on this issue. I'm not telling anyone else to think. I'm just saying what I think. Stinky's point is an interesting one.
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]But, on this issue, the Pope has been abundantly clear.[/font]
http://www.catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/pope-francis-on-abortion-and-homosexual-marriage
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]“At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother, and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”
Cardinal Bergoglio continued: “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.”
[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]It is hard for there to be room for interpretation when the pope has talked on this topic before.
Now if you want to focus solely upon the economic aspect of the pope that is fine; but, unless you are posting in the catholic safehaven, you can't expect to do so on DU without facing push back.
Simply put, given his global affluence and influence, the pope is quite possibly the single greatest enemy to women's and LGBTQ rights in the world. No one who is deeply supportive of those issues or secularism, are going to be pleased to see him PRAISED on a website that is supposed to be for allies to their cause.
Imagine that all these pro-pope threads were pro-Santorum? Or pro-Pat Robertson? Or pro-David Duke? Do you think liberals would stay quiet with that?
There are allies to economic justice who are not homophobic or misogynists to praise. Why insist on praising one who has hurt so many people?
How about focusing on someone who is pro-economic justice and pro-lgbtq.[/font]
pnwmom
(108,960 posts)over the years, like those of most other people?
Now that he is Pope he is also freer to express views that a Cardinal might not be able to express.
Like, "Who am I to judge?"
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)gay lobby' which Francis says is bad. Just like that 'it's bad'. He says celibate priests who have same sex attractions they do not act upon should not be judged as long as they don't form any close friendships or community based on being gay. It is in reality a terrible diatribe full of invective about Masons and gay people.
It is very sad to me that people are willing to claim such a nasty speech was pro gay. 'As long as you have no sex, no gay friends and no gay community, we accept you'. That is not acceptance, that is a long list of demands to be met in order not to be denigrated.
. His actual entire statement on his private jet can be read by anyone who looks for it. Telling us to have no friends, no lovers, no community is judgement.
You can not determine that a group of people is unworthy of rights without judging them. To judge while claiming you do not is self serving mendacity.
This World Meeting of Families allows no LGBT advocacy at all. All Catholic pro gay groups banned. One 'event' with a celibate gay man and his mother on how to 'deal with it all'. Twisted, sick and shameful.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I tip my hat.
Sid
pnwmom
(108,960 posts)From the website you linked to:
Catholic Answers is one of the nation’s largest lay-run apostolates of Catholic apologetics and evangelization. Its mission statement explains its purpose:
muriel_volestrangler
(101,272 posts)The Holy Father began his address by dwelling on the word “complementarity”: “a precious word, with multiple meanings.” Although complementarity can refer “situations where one of two things adds to, completes, or fulfills a lack in the other” it also means much more than that. Christians, he said, “find its deepest meaning in the first Letter to the Corinthians where Saint Paul tells us that the Spirit has endowed each of us with different gifts so that-just as the human body's members work together for the good of the whole-everyone's gifts can work together for the benefit of each.”
Complementarity, the Pope said, “is at the root of marriage and family.” Although there are tensions in families, the family also provides the framework in which those tensions can be resolved.” He said that complementarity should not be confused with a simplistic notion that “all the roles and relations of the sexes are fixed in a single, static pattern.” Rather, “complementarity will take many forms as each man and woman brings his or her distinctive contributions to their marriage and to the formation of their children.”
Pope Francis stated frankly, “In our day, marriage and the family are in crisis.” The “culture of the temporary” has led many people to give up on marriage as a public commitment. “This revolution in manners and morals has often flown the flag of freedom, but in fact it has brought spiritual and material devastation to countless human beings, especially the poorest and most vulnerable.” The Pope said that the crisis in the family has produced a crisis “of human ecology,” similar to the crisis that affects the natural environment. “Although the human race has come to understand the need to address conditions that menace our natural environments, we have been slower to recognize that our fragile social environments are under threat as well, slower in our culture, and also in our Catholic Church. It is therefore essential that we foster a new human ecology and advance it.”
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/11/17/pope_francis_marriage_and_the_family_are_in_crisis/1111371
pnwmom
(108,960 posts)as a public commitment.
And he says men and women complement each other in marriage, but that does not mean "all the roles and relations of the sexes are fixed in a single, static pattern."
I don't see anything in the statement that specifically addresses LGBT issues.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,272 posts)The Holy Father began his address by dwelling on the word “complementarity”: “a precious word, with multiple meanings.” Although complementarity can refer “situations where one of two things adds to, completes, or fulfills a lack in the other” it also means much more than that. Christians, he said, “find its deepest meaning in the first Letter to the Corinthians where Saint Paul tells us that the Spirit has endowed each of us with different gifts so that-just as the human body's members work together for the good of the whole-everyone's gifts can work together for the benefit of each.”
Complementarity, the Pope said, “is at the root of marriage and family.” Although there are tensions in families, the family also provides the framework in which those tensions can be resolved.” He said that complementarity should not be confused with a simplistic notion that “all the roles and relations of the sexes are fixed in a single, static pattern.” Rather, “complementarity will take many forms as each man and woman brings his or her distinctive contributions to their marriage and to the formation of their children.”
Pope Francis stated frankly, “In our day, marriage and the family are in crisis.” The “culture of the temporary” has led many people to give up on marriage as a public commitment. “This revolution in manners and morals has often flown the flag of freedom, but in fact it has brought spiritual and material devastation to countless human beings, especially the poorest and most vulnerable.” The Pope said that the crisis in the family has produced a crisis “of human ecology,” similar to the crisis that affects the natural environment. “Although the human race has come to understand the need to address conditions that menace our natural environments, we have been slower to recognize that our fragile social environments are under threat as well, slower in our culture, and also in our Catholic Church. It is therefore essential that we foster a new human ecology and advance it.”
The point being that, without any doubt whatsoever, the pope regards only a man and a woman as being able to form a marriage. See another quote from him, and the Catechism, in reply #73 for another example.
It's amazing how many people want to ignore what the man says, to try to make him look more sympathetic to them.
pnwmom
(108,960 posts)And I understand why, because you're putting it into a larger historical context.
But this statement by itself skirts the issue of same-sex marriage.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,272 posts)The pontiff made the comments at a mass in Manila as part of his tour of Asia, despite apparently relaxing the church’s position towards the LGBT community in recent months.
“The family is threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage. These realities are increasingly under attack from powerful forces which threaten to disfigure God’s plan for creation,” the Pope said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/pope-francis-warns-that-same-sex-marriage-threatens-the-family-and-disfigures-gods-plan-for-creation-9986028.html
pnwmom
(108,960 posts)But I agree with a lot more than I disagree with him on, and I'm very glad to finally hear a Pope speaking about poverty and the environment.
It doesn't surprise me that this 78 year old has antiquated ideas about LGBT issues. But he's also the first Pope I've ever heard say, "Who am I to judge?" when asked about a priest's being gay. To me, that's a huge step in the right direction.
As a very long ago lapsed Catholic, I agree.
Some can't see the forest for the trees. 
pnwmom
(108,960 posts)Stinky The Clown
(67,766 posts)
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Not to know exactly what he meant. Have you never seen him speak on this before? Educate yourself, and stop being an apologist for a bigoted asshole.
Stinky The Clown
(67,766 posts)Read the fucking OP again.
An apologist?
Are you fucking kidding me? Gezzus Fucking Kerist, but you go from zero to "fuck you asshole" waaaaaaay too fast. Mellow, huh? Ya. You are really out of bounds, having no fucking clue what I believe.
Feh.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)You said you believe the Pope may be not a bigot. You posted an OP to say it. But he is, most definitely, very clearly, a fucking asshole bigot. Your OP looks pretty shitty. Imagine someone posting an OP like this, listing dog whistle quotes of someone like Santorum, and asking if he is really sincerely against gay marriage?
There is shit all over the Internet of the Pope saying despicable shit, and the World Meeting of Families is where all of that bigotry is affirmed. Again, educate yourself.
It's only because this guy is the Pope that DU is slobbering all over an asshole bigot. It's pretty disgusting display of religious power and privilege.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)First of all your language is terrible - you'll get no respect for your opinion writing that way.
In addition you obviously have no idea how transformation this guy is. As a fallen away Catholic, who is not going back anytime soon, I can tell that he has made conservative Catholics, including bishops, squirm with his inclusive remarks. Intelligent people judge others by how far they have improved over the norm. Believe me when I tell that judged on those terms, this Pope is a breath of fresh air. You are the one who needs to educate yourself.
Now be a good boy and go look up the word 'bigot" and while you are at look up the man's history - by definition you cannot be a bigot if you love everyone and strive all of your life to raise everyone up.
And one more thing, and this warning shouldn't necessary, don't believe every thing you read on the internet.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)It's very possible to be a bigot while claiming to love everyone. Hate the sin love the sinner right? But if you don't think the belief of homosexuality as "disordered" is bigoted because you also say you love everyone, then most conservatives aren't bigots.
I get that some conservative priests squirm, so what? Rand Paul makes some conservatives squirm. He ain't an ally.
I wonder how opposing women's choice or contraceptives is trying to lift everyone up? I wonder how opposing gays adopting children is trying to lift everyone up? I wonder how saying the devil is behind marriage equality is trying to lift everyone up?
And you wonder why people get so pissed at these apologetics of the Pope.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)And the traditions of the Catholic Church make it a great deal more difficult to turn than and than the Queen Marry II, but Francis taking steps towards inclusion in his dialog:
On homosexuality: "If someone is gay and searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
On contraceptives: "The real issue is making sure that pastoral action takes into account that which is possible for people to do." Followed by: " Catholics must not breed like rabbits."
And before you reply, no he hasn't actually changed the rules, but every journey starts with a single step.
The most important steps he can take is the restructuring of the ultra conservative Curia - already underway - the dismissal of bishops who failed to protect children from abuse and those who so conservative they publicly confront him - also underway - and the appointment of more liberal Cardinals who will help elect the next Pope.
You should know that one of the reasons left the church was its stupid stance on the use of contraceptives and that my very favorite uncle is gay.
And by the way, Rand Paul is not a conservative, he is a libertarian - there is a big difference.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)And you know 'who am I to judge' was very decidedly NOT about homosexuality, it was about celibacy in persons with same sex attraction. It was about those who avoid not only all sexuality but all community or friendship based on being gay people. To claim that a man who is saying 'as long as they have no sex or romance or support groups' is speaking favorably of sexuality is not honest at all.
That phrase comes from a long speech Francis gave about 'the gay lobby' and the 'masonic lobby' in the Vatican. It had nothing at all to do with LGBT persons or families or couples.
A modicum of honesty would go a long way.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)Pope Francis is the closest the Church has come in a long time to a pontiff who truly gets social justice issues and social justice teachings. Sorry he can't be all things to all people, but then again, who really can? But the vulgarity that is being thrown his way is clearly beyond the pale and uncalled for. Would we rather have another Benedict XVI? Or Pius XII?
And I also speak as an ex-Catholic who has plenty of issues with the Church.
I am convinced that if Christ came back this very day, He would be back up on that cross by sunset because people are too quick to deride and dismiss -- on both sides of the religion argument. I've seen plenty of that all over the Internet this week, and I'm done.
Peace out. Again -- I. am. done. If people on the boards have all the answers and know how to get things done, then shut down the computers and by all means help humanity out. And before anyone snipes, that includes me: I am giving strong, serious thought to getting involved in Syrian resettlement, an urge that has only crystallized after listening to Francis's words this week.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
David__77
(23,344 posts)I understand the Catholic doctrine on marriage and sexual relations and do not agree with it. Regardless of that, I'm glad that he refrained from being more explicitly in defining the threats he mentioned.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)As pope's U.S. visit nears, friction mounts over LGBT issues
"The only speakers specifically addressing LGBT issues at the Sept. 22-27 conference are a celibate gay man and his mother. Gays and lesbians can attend the meeting as individuals, but groups supporting gay marriage were denied exhibit space and other official options for presenting their views.
"We don't want to provide a platform at the meeting for people to lobby for positions contrary to the life of our church," said Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput, the meeting's host."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-united-states-visit-friction-mounts-over-lgbt-issues/
During U.S. Visit, Pope To Attend Conference With People Who Think Homosexuality Can Be Cured
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/08/22/3694128/pope-francis-ex-gay-groups/
LGBT groups criticize decision to eject them from church near World Meeting event
"
RNS) The Catholic gay rights group New Ways Ministry is criticizing a decision by the Philadelphia Archdiocese not to let a local parish host a workshop on gender identity that would have coincided with Pope Francis’ visit to the World Meeting of Families.
“How are LGBT people supposed to feel welcome in the Catholic Church when church officials will not allow them to speak?” asked Francis DeBernardo, executive director at New Ways Ministry, one of the organizers of the workshop.
“No speakers at the World Meeting will address the topic of gender identity, yet this is an issue that is being faced by more and more Catholic families and communities in the U.S.” DeBernardo said in a statement."
http://www.religionnews.com/2015/08/19/lgbt-groups-criticize-decision-eject-church-near-world-meeting-event/
This is context to those comments provided by Francis himself. He mentioned the conference as context to his comments. I would offer that to consider his remarks outside the context he gives them is disrespectful to Francis and to the issue that bothers him so very, very much.
I'm also going to add a link for a Time Magazine article about the conference this past November at the Vatican with invited guests Tony Perkins and FRC, NOM, Heritage Foundation and other luminaries in attendance. It is also context, not pleasant for the Pope fans, but it is stone cold truth:
Vatican Strengthens Ties with Evangelicals and Mormons Against Gay Marriage
http://time.com/3597245/vatican-evangelicals-mormons-gay-marriage/
Not much nuance in evidence actually.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)This is part of the reason why. By not stating he was talking about gay marriage or abortion he did leave it open to interpretation. The left is jizzing all over about how he DIDN'T say anything negative about either. Meanwhile, the religious right is already airing commercials using his words to attack the evil gays.
It's a political Rorschach ink blot. It means what you want it to mean.
Stinky The Clown
(67,766 posts)Kim Davis????
Really????
Bad Move, Frank.
VERY Bad Move.
