So Is Pope Francis Leading The Catholics Into Tolerance, Did The Lds Church Just Lose A Political Ally?

[Stone holm]

The Vatican Establishment seems to being busy with their erasure squad following Pope Francis around as he fires off comments. Do his comments about gays in Brazil mark a major change in Catholic policy, or just a slight nuance that brings the Catholic position and the Mormon position into alignment?

[Calm]

More info on what he actually said...

[Stone holm]

http://thinkprogress...re-still-a-sin/

http://news.yahoo.com/not-pope-said-gays-said-183538032.html

It looks like an alignment, but not sure it really matters since American Catholics tend to ignore their Pope and Bishops when it comes to this kind of stuff.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Stone holm

[CV75]

The Vatican Establishment seems to being busy with their erasure squad following Pope Francis around as he fires off comments. Do his comments about gays in Brazil mark a major change in Catholic policy, or just a slight nuance that brings the Catholic position and the Mormon position into alignment?

I'm amazed this didn't get on the board a lot sooner!

According to the NYT article I read:

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

And

“I think that when we encounter a gay person, we must make the distinction between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of a lobby, because lobbies are not good.”

He's saying he loves and doesn't judge the sinner (the unfortunate living contrary to church standards) but not the sin (lobbying against the church).

I think this melds well with the LDS leadership's attiude.

[Bikeemikey]

The Vatican Establishment seems to being busy with their erasure squad following Pope Francis around as he fires off comments. Do his comments about gays in Brazil mark a major change in Catholic policy, or just a slight nuance that brings the Catholic position and the Mormon position into alignment?

Watch this space i guess.

[canard78]

More info on what he actually said...

It seems much the same as our own position.

Pope Francis has said gay people should not be marginalised but integrated into society.

Speaking to reporters on a flight back from Brazil, he reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church's position that homosexual acts were sinful, but homosexual orientation was not.

He was responding to questions about whether there was a "gay lobby" in the Vatican.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23489702

[Calm]

The first article's writer isn't using his brain when he states:

But the Cardinal hasn’t always followed his own advice and has repeatedly condemned the rights of same-sex couples under the guise of love and support for the gay community.

Considering he just quoted the concept of 'love the sinner, hate the sin', that it was the act that was the sin and not the state of homosexuality, it is surprising and somewhat baffling that he doesn't get that enacting laws against marriage is about responding to behaviour, not to the attraction.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The first article's writer isn't using his brain when he states:

Considering he just quoted the concept of 'love the sinner, hate the sin', that it was the act that was the sin and not the state of homosexuality, it is surprising and somewhat baffling that he doesn't get that enacting laws against marriage is about responding to behaviour, not to the attraction.

Well, most of these people that write for "news" outlets seem to rarely use their brain and are driven more by political idealogy. It would be nice when people just report the news and stop offering their freaking opinions.

[Stone holm]

The first article's writer isn't using his brain when he states:

Considering he just quoted the concept of 'love the sinner, hate the sin', that it was the act that was the sin and not the state of homosexuality, it is surprising and somewhat baffling that he doesn't get that enacting laws against marriage is about responding to behaviour, not to the attraction.

Correct. It is interesting, though, the percentage of Catholics who ignored the Bishop and voted for SSM anyway. Tends to reinforce the notion that "Catholic doctrine is the Pope is infallible, but Catholics don't believe it" etc. Not sure the hate the sin, love the sinner thing is going to successfully translate for mass consumption in a situation where the identify tends to be associated with the behavioral activity. But this does appear to be in alignment with current LDS policy.

[canard78]

Well, most of these people that write for "news" outlets seem to rarely use their brain and are driven more by political idealogy. It would be nice when people just report the news and stop offering their freaking opinions.

News reporters interviewing other news reporters has always been a pet peeve. I want news. Not a journalist's opinion on the implications of the news.

[Stone holm]

News reporters interviewing other news reporters has always been a pet peeve. I want news. Not a journalist's opinion on the implications of the news.

Yeah, except in this case there seems to be a fair consensus as to what he said. It appears that they are having a wee bit of a problem controlling his casual offhand comments which the common people seem to love, not sure about the rest of the Catholic bureaucracy though.

[ChristKnight]

The Vatican Establishment seems to being busy with their erasure squad following Pope Francis around as he fires off comments. Do his comments about gays in Brazil mark a major change in Catholic policy, or just a slight nuance that brings the Catholic position and the Mormon position into alignment?

No, it isn't a major change in Catholic policy, nor is it a slight nuance. I read it as saying what the Catholic Church has always maintained and taught on the matter. Gay marriage is still morally wrong, and will remain so. Gay people can still search for the Lord and hear His voice. What Pope Francis said isn't anything new, for those that understand Catholic teaching (not saying you don't).

I also don't really see the "Vatican Establishment" (whatever that is) doing what you say.

[Calm]

No, it isn't a major change in Catholic policy, nor is it a slight nuance. I read it as saying what the Catholic Church has always maintained and taught on the matter. Gay marriage is still morally wrong, and will remain so. Gay people can still search for the Lord and hear His voice. What Pope Francis said isn't anything new, for those that understand Catholic teaching (not saying you don't).

I also don't really see the "Vatican Establishment" (whatever that is) doing what you say.

This seems to me an attempt to create news where there isn't any really.

[Calm]

The second link is much better, but still imo is attempting to create something new where there isn't:

Similarly, Francis’ statement on the plane was not far from the passage on homosexuality in the catechism of the Catholic Church, published under Pope John Paul II in 1992. That text calls on Catholics to accept homosexuals “with respect, compassion and sensitivity,” avoiding “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard.”

Where he differed is in what he left out: the accompanying message in the catechism that while a gay person is to be accepted, acting out on homosexual acts is to be deplored: “Under no circumstances can they be approved … Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” Francis, who cited the catechism in his answers to reporters, said nothing to contradict this. Asked for his position on gay marriage, he answered: “You know perfectly the position of the church.”

But while Francis has put little doctrinal space between himself and his predecessors, comments like the one on the plane reflect a clear choice in the early months of his papacy to de-emphasize the issues of sexual morality that have made the church a lightning rod in the culture wars....

In Brazil, he told the reporters on the plane, he purposefully avoided talking about abortion or gay marriage, in order to stay focused on the positive. “His message is not ‘Don’t do that, don’t do this,’” says Wauck. “The moral scriptures are present, but they’re implicit.

I don't see how just not including a statement about a perfectly well known church position can be called deemphasize....I would say he is emphasizing love, but in no way was he dismissive of holding people accountable for their acts, etc. Edited July 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[ChristKnight]

This seems to me an attempt to create news where there isn't any really.

Agreed.

[Stone holm]

The second link is much better, but still imo is attempting to create something new where there isn't:

I don't see how just not including a statement about a perfectly well known church position can be called deemphasize....I would say he is emphasizing love, but in no way was he dismissive of holding people accountable for their acts, etc.

I don't know, he may well be de-emphasizing sexual morality as he seems to be more focused on the plight of the poor. The question is whether the media will let him de-emphasize sexual morality. The Catholic Church has on a more frequent occasion than the Christian Right been willing to discuss economic justice -- and although their position appears to be the same with ours regarding homosexuality, if he can manage to switch the religious dialogue away from its obsession with sex, then he should be commended. I doubt, however, that many who control the American Christian microphone right now will follow his lead, if that is in fact his intention.

[thesometimesaint]

John 8:1-11

1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

² And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

³ And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

⁴ They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

⁵ Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

⁶ This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

⁷ So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

⁸ And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

⁹ And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

¹⁰ When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

¹¹ She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

[Calm]

I don't know, he may well be de-emphasizing sexual morality as he seems to be more focused on the plight of the poor.

"De-emphasize" is an active verb, not a passive one. Can you provide any quotes where he deemphasizes or dismisses sexual morality?

[thesometimesaint]

"De-emphasize" is an active verb, not a passive one. Can you provide any quotes where he deemphasizes or dismisses sexual morality?

He doesn't, but I do see a greater emphasis on how we treat our homosexual brothers and sisters.

[Calm]

He doesn't, but I do see a greater emphasis on how we treat our homosexual brothers and sisters.

As I stated earlier.

[thesometimesaint]

As I stated earlier.

I wasn't disagreeing with you.

[CV75]

He doesn't, but I do see a greater emphasis on how we treat our homosexual brothers and sisters.

Not really--I think the commandment has always been the same. We have always been taught to treat people as Christ did.

I see instead that emphasis is being placed on this particular, narrow application of that commandment to undermine tolerance for those breaking other commandments with acceptance for breaking them. This is a form of lobbying.

Edited July 30, 2013 by CV75

[Stone holm]

Apparently, there was also a comment that women in the Church were more important than Bishops, does anybody know exactly what the Pope said on that related subject?

[Calm]

He said “Mary is more important than the apostles,” adding that important female biblical figures have been overlooked.

He also said, “One must think of women in the church. We have not done enough theology on this.”

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/07/29/pope-francis-talks-women-in-the-church-gay-issues-on-recent-trip/

[Calm]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/29/206622682/pope-francis-discusses-gay-catholics-who-am-i-to-judge

Pope Francis reiterated that the Church will not ordain female priests, saying that the stance was "definitive." But he also said that the question of how to reflect the importance of women had not yet been answered fully.

"It is not enough to have altar girls, women readers or women as the president of Caritas," he said, according to the Catholic Herald. "Women in the church are more important than bishops and priests," he said, in the same way that "Mary is more important than the apostles."

On the role of women in the church, the National Catholic Reporter quotes him as saying, “A church without women would be like the apostolic college without Mary. The Madonna is more important than the apostles, and the church herself is feminine, the spouse of Christ and a mother.”

Though he acknowledges that Pope John Paul II had “closed the door” on the possible ordination of women as priests, Francis addressed the changing role of women and the need for the church to grapple with that. “The role of women doesn’t end with being a mother and with housework,” he said. “We don’t yet have a truly deep theology of women in the church. We talk about whether they can do this or that, can they be altar boys, can they be lectors, about a woman as president of Caritas [an international confederation of Catholic relief agencies], but we don’t have a deep theology of women in the church.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/07/29/pope-charts-new-ground-on-gay-priests-and-women/ Edited July 30, 2013 by calmoriah