Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gays?- Page 2

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 2:18pm

Andrew Sullivan (who has a vested interest in the matter) argues that the pope's words were enormously significant.


THE DISH: Francis’ Sunlight

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 2:18pm

Orfstorm sounds like it would be an awesome Windows screensaver!

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 2:38pm

Sullivan pieces the quotes together differently than they are being reported elsewhere, almost like he's trying to make the statements say something they are not.
Updated On: 7/29/13 at 02:38 PM

[random person 112]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 2:42pm

all that jazz, the last thing the marriage equality debate in Argentina had to do with was marriage equality. It was one of several so called 'progressive' moves the current president made to make herself appear tolerant, liberal and just plain good to the international community while she shuts down opposition news papers, stops travel to the US, and steals from the countries treasury. Plus it was an election year and she has problems with young people...

[artscallion]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 2:45pm

Sullivan's a conservative (except for his support of Obama,) gay practicing catholic. I've seen him on The Colbert Report more than once. He's looking for steps, and he sees them. As PJ says, he has a vested interest.

If it floats his boat, and he thinks it's important, that's fine with me. I just don't see it from that perspective since I'm free of the whole magic thing.

Updated On: 7/29/13 at 02:45 PM

[SNAFU]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 2:47pm

Sullivan is a Catholic Church Apologist. My mind clicks him off everytime he starts something like this.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 2:50pm

Well, since he's a Catholic, I can see why it's important to him. I just don't know why this being reported today like it's important to anyone who isn't Catholic.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 2:55pm

PRS, I thought the same thing. Everywhere else (apart from the headlines) it was clear that the end result was simply an acceptance of gay clergy as long as they're celibate. I suppose it can be inferred that he feels the same way about gay people in general, but what does that accomplish?

[suestorm]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 2:56pm

Im not saying anyone here is doing this, but this reminds me of when Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell or Bill Cosby are criticized when they differ from the unofficial party line. Others question their loyalty

Updated On: 7/29/13 at 02:56 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 3:00pm

Black people don't have a pope and dogma in the way that Catholicism does. Jesus Christ.

[madbrian]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 3:00pm

In a perfect world, the impact of religious doctrine would be limited to its followers. However, in our current world, religious doctrine seems inextricably intertwined with politics. So, I think and acceptance by the leader of the Catholic Church would have an impact well beyond practicing Catholics. Keep in mind that six justices of the SCOTUS are Catholic.

And yes, directives will have impact far beyond responses in a press conference, but the latter may lead to the former. At the very least, these are positive words that directly contradict those of his predecessor.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 3:01pm

'PRS, I thought the same thing. Everywhere else (apart from the headlines) it was clear that the end result was simply an acceptance of gay clergy as long as they're celibate.'

Well...all clergy must be celibate, so it's not like he's picking on gay priests alone. As someone raised Catholic, it is at least somewhat heartening that the truly vile and hideous assertions by the last Pope have been repudiated by this Pope. Is it much? Nope. But is it better than what was there before? Yes.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 3:05pm

"Well...all clergy must be celibate"

That was pretty much my point: He's saying that priests can be gay as long as they're celebate, which priests are supposed to be anyway.

I guess it'd be nice if the world at large said to itself "Oh, the pope says gay people are cool. Let's starting treating them like everybody else." But I doubt that'll happen--and in fact, I bet by tomorrow we'll have some clarification from the Vatican about just how okay the Church actually is with gay people.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 3:06pm

I guess it's not the issue that sticks in my craw as much as the way all headlines (and it seems most reporting) are misrepresenting this as the though the pope is actually saying, without qualification, "who am I to judge gays?" I mean, even in the context of these comments, he's judging gays. And as the man who said gay adoption is tantamount to child abuse, he judges gays.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 3:07pm

True. I expect nothing from a church that caused nothing but hurt in my life. I just was pointing out that these words are indeed different from his awful, hateful predecessor.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 3:09pm

True, Robbie.

And if we just read the headlines (or Andrew Sullivan's rewrite), it sounds great. Most people only read headlines anyway, so maybe some accidental good will come of it.

But I still think tomorrow we'll get "' Not so fast,' says Vatican spokesman . . ."

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 3:21pm

I was raised in this church, too, which may explain my mystification about this being news.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 3:28pm

I mean...I get why it's news. It is actually a break from the old pontiff's line (even though that break is just a reverting to what came before). But I'd rather hear this kind of talk from Francis that the evil that Benedict spewed.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 3:32pm

I'm not so sure. Francis's views seems almost equally gross as Ratzinger (again, the child abuse comment), but he's being hailed as some kind of new beginning for Catholicism, which I think that might be more dangerous because of the way this stuff keeps getting misreported.

Posted: 7/29/13 at 3:40pm

Hasn't the church always heal this line? If you are gay you must remain celibate. If you slip up, you have to make a confession and an act of contrition an vow to sin no more. Then, you pay off the altar boy you sinned with, transfer to another parish and start over.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 3:41pm

Actually, I see some value in the news being reported this way. It removes some of the cultural imperative from hating gays. As Robbie points out, all the statements emanating from Ratzinger were dehumanizing.

If this statement seems to fly in the face of those to rank-and-file Catholics, it pushes the needle and suggests that this pope thinks oppressing gays is less of a priority.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 3:50pm

'Hasn't the church always heal this line?'

Not this particular line. Benedict decided that even celibate priests were intrinsically disordered if they were gay, and decided to crack down on letting gays in the seminary. So...even if they weren't committing the sin of extra-marital, non-procreative sex, they were still pointed towards evil.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 3:52pm

It removes some of the cultural imperative from hating gays.

But...how? If he were rolling back his statements about gay parentage being child abuse, I could see that, but how does acknowledging that gay priests can exist as long as they are celibate remove any cultural imperative from hating gays? I'm not baiting your or being deliberatly obtuse. I really want to understand.

Updated On: 7/29/13 at 03:52 PM

[suestorm]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 3:52pm

anyone know how theyre stand on this compares to the Jewish or Muslim churches? pretty sure some muslim churches (0verseas) consider it punishable by death

Updated On: 7/29/13 at 03:52 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/29/13 at 3:54pm

No.