Pope Francis on Gays "Who Am I To Judge?'

Originally posted by Observor
It appears that the Holy Father is attempting to turn Catholics' attention from the excruciatingly divisive mundane issues to the spiritual. Inspiring and touching! May he succeed in his noble attempts.

Like how Catholics deal with gays? In probably one of the most liberal cities in the world?
I agree its nice to see the Pope getting involved in more current affairs in a more modern attitude but he seems to be skirting the edges, many bigger things facing the church than gay rights.

Possibly I can see this as a slap in the face to some religions and almost showing they are willing to progress.
Are they setting themselves up for more change?

Or it all could just be headline-ism.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I find it hard to respect or believe the leader of any organization that covers up for their members crimes against young boys and men. Pedophelia and child abuse.


www.truth-out.org...

Hypocrites all !!! To gain respect from other Christians, the Catholic Church needs to come COMPLETELY CLEAN and stop with the coverups and denials.

Yeah....."who am I to judge"............cover ups and denials are a form of judgment.

and the child abuse continues to this day............
www.salon.com...

reply to post by MystikMushroom

I don't get it either. I'm just telling ya'll what they said and what is reported.
There are times when the 'reasoning' is a mystery. And a lot of it I disagree with ...

Originally posted by glen200376
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Can you read?Peados go for pre pubescent children.The documentary I mention tells of the Benedictine priests waiting until the children were roughly 13,therefore not pre pubescent,therefore homosexual priests not peado.
So the pope is covering his churches ass before this scandal hits the media by saying it's not our job to judge homosexuals.
Can you now see that it's just the usual catholic hierarchy covering up?

Oh I can read. You are using a technicality to pursue what, to me, seems like a bigoted approach towards homosexuality. You are ignoring any distinction between a post pubescent (or pubescent) child, and an adult male who is able to consent.

I don't think the pope is insinuating that it is ok for people to fondle your son. I think people who sit by their dictionary, and look for out of context interpretations of words that are themselves interpreted from another language.

I mean really. Really? If that is what you are saying, what you say isn't worth acknowledging any further.

Originally posted by glen200376
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Can you read?Peados go for pre pubescent children.

Can YOU read?? I posted information showing that homosexuals and pedophiles are two different things. Homosexual adults are attracted to other adults, not children. Pedophiles don't have attraction to other adults but only for children.

So the pope is covering his churches ass before this scandal hits the media by saying it's not our job to judge homosexuals.

Again. No. He was speaking about SOULS .. not actions. Big difference.

Originally posted by windword
Well, I disagree. There is no scriptural imperative that every act of sex must be about procreation.

Join the club. You and I and 90% of Catholics disagree with the Catholic doctrine of Onanism.
But the fact is .. it is a DOCTRINE ... not a discipline. So it can't change.
Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just telling ya' what the church believes.
(and that's not what I believe)

reply to post by glen200376

Geeeze ... dude ... it's been explained to you ... homosexuality and pedophilia are two separate things. Pedophiles are NOT homosexuals. Homosexuals are NOT pedophiles. Go back and read the information that I provided.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Noticed you never reminded me the age of consent in the Vatican.
Wonder why?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
But no one is to JUDGE the SOUL of another human being.
That's God's job alone. And to judge a soul is to try to elevate yourself to be God.
DISCERN the ACT ... but don't JUDGE the SOUL.

Well said!

Originally posted by glen200376
Noticed you never reminded me the age of consent in the Vatican.
Wonder why?

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??

Vatican City has no 'legal age of consent'. Italy has a 'legal age of consent' of 14. There is an urban legend hoax that has been around since 1929 that the Vatican City has a 'age of consent' of 12. But that isn't true. Back then, that was the legal age of consent for the country of Italy .. not the country of Vatican City. Vatican City shared a 'criminal code' with Italy. But no longer. Most of Europe has a 'legal age of consent' of 14.

Researching Vatican City Laws

Vatican divorces from Italian law - Jan 2009

The Vatican City State, the world's smallest sovereign state, has decided to divorce itself from Italian law.
Vatican legal experts say there are too many laws in Italian civil and criminal codes, and that they frequently conflict with Church principles.

With effect from New Year's Day, the Pope has decided that the Vatican will no longer automatically adopt laws passed by the Italian parliament. All Italian laws will be examined one by one before they are adopted.

ITALY has an 'age of consent' of 14. The Vatican City has no age of consent.

NONE OF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT.

Again ... Homosexuals aren't pedophiles and pedophiles aren't homosexuals. They are two different things. Read the information provided and educate yourself.

reply to post by glen200376


The age of consent in the Vatican is a legal matter.

In my nation, it is 18. Regardless of the Vatican.

Wonder why you ask?

Seems like there's finally a Christian Pope.
Judge not.

There is no age of consent when it comes to pedophile, child molesting priests. They simply don't care about the age of the kids.

But the priest can be protected and hidden from the law while the abused child is left to deal with the abuse on his/her own.

I guess the abused kids are Judged to be inferior to the Priesthood and unworthy of care.

fightforsexualabusevictims.com...

This entire trip by the Pope stinks of public relations and photo ops. "Who am I to Judge" is difficult to take seriously. The Vatican doesn't give a **** about peoples souls.

I'm skeptical of all religions and people that subscribe to the dogma or doctrine, but especially Catholics.

Originally posted by glen200376
reply to post by windword

 

I never said that homosexuality was a disorder.
Are you saying that forcing 13 year old children is ok?

No, I'm saying that kind of abusive disorder has a "philia" name.

reply to post by FlyersFan


The Pope..... hahahahahahaha.......

I still can't trust what he says.

If however he's genuinely pro gay, or in acceptance? Good for him, I take my hat off!

But it's still probably because he's a closet gay that likes people younger. Or his best friend of the cloth might do instead.

I'm all for gay priests, i really am. But they need to lust after people aged 18 and over.

Fair play to him if he's genuine and trustworthy.

Other people who claim to be Christians should take their example from this statement. Christians are not supposed to judge other people period. Christianity teaches that it is God's job to judge every single person, not the job of other people. The quote "ye without sin cast the first stone," should be followed by everyone, not just Christians. In fact, if every single person in the world adhered to just the moral teachings of Jesus, the world would be a much better place. But it is very bad when those who claim to live by these teachings are in fact doing the exact opposite of what they claim they believe. Just look at groups like the Westboro Baptist Church. I mean seriously?

You cannot have your cake and eat it too, there is a thing that exists called Papal infallibility, which sort of defines and justifies the existence of the Pope, if the pope is really the Vicar of Christ and by proxy, "God' as implied in this position, then he certainly can judge, if not, then why do we even need a Pope? to those that just think he is a figure head and political figure maybe this will not ring through, but the original and supposed purpose of Pope was that Peter was supposedly given keys to the kingdom and acting on behalf of God/Christ or however you believe, if so, he is not the average run of the mill person, human, christian right????

I have to bring this to light for someone that can explain it so i can make sense of it all, all I see is a load of contradictions and man, not God imposed laws that make no sense.

I think if you read what the Pope made reference to, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, he plainly said it explains the position, if this is so, is this not judging??????? it is written law he has no choice to not follow if not then I guarantee, there will be some forces in the Vatican with talk of excommunication within days.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Originally posted by phinubian
If he is the vicar of Christ, or is the embodiment of Christ on earth, wants other humans to bow down, kiss his ring etc, wouldn't he be bound by this heavy responsibility and also if he has the "keys" wouldn't he have some judgement or opinion to make on anything that previously was deemed not kosher in the bible or canons of the church historically, I mean if this is the case and was the case all along shouldn't all of the pontiffs have felt like this? why would any church present, or in history have judged, tortured and burned at the stake anyone that opposes the teachings of the church or had not been in line with their teachings? it really makes zero sense to me.
The questions I have on this subject is who is worse, the heretic? or the hypocrite ? and who is the most credible?

Hypocrite - Merriam-Webster Online
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite‎
a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion. 2. : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

heretic - definition of heretic by the Free Online Dictionary ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/heretic‎
A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

edit on 29-7-2013 by phinubian because: (no reason given)

This is where a lot of people get confused about Christianity. Search through the New Testament - the new "Constitution", if you will, between God(s?) and the People. There, find where Jesus Christ judges homosexuality. I'm no Bible scholar, not by a long shot, so I may well be wrong, but I don't think its in there. In Christianity, aside from historical documentation (lineages, etc.), if Old Testament "rules", so-to-speak, don't jive with the New Testament, consider that portion of the Old null and void.

Wonder why they still dont let priests marry and allow female Priests.
These two things shouldnt be an issue either.