Posted on 12/09/2014 10:18:02 AM PST by Jan_Sobieski
The Catholic Church must help parents stand by their gay children, Pope Francis said in a new interview about his papal ministry. The pontiff’s comments come a day after Francis urged top church officials to pay attention to the “signs of the times” and listen to ordinary Catholics, according to The Independent.
“We come across this reality all the time in the confessional: a father and a mother whose son or daughter is in that situation. This happened to me several times in Buenos Aires.... We have to find a way to help that father or that mother to stand by their son or daughter,” he said in a wide-ranging interview with the Argentine daily La Nación. While it is important to find ways to welcome gay Catholics, gay marriage is still not on the church’s agenda, Francis said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibtimes.com ...
Lora wrote:
While it is important to find ways to welcome gay Catholics, gay marriage is still not on the church’s agenda, Francis said.
Let’s see the actual quote. I’ll bet the Pope didn’t use the word “gay,” and I’ll bet he didn’t mean that sodomy is the same as heterosexual intercourse. Nor did he change the teaching that all sex outside marriage is a sin.
In which case, the article is a lie and the author has committed a sin of omission. This means that the writer cannot be trusted as a journalist. Which means she is not a journalist.
Also, I’ll wager that she is a lesbian.
I know. I’ve had Catholic friends do the same.
I myself have a number of gay friends, btw, because of the field in which I work, and I simply decline the invitation and don’t go to these things, and they respect it. It’s not necessary to make a scene, especially if the person in question is not your child, but it’s certainly not necessary to look as if you approve (ESPECIALLY if it’s your child).
his statements just keep getting worse and worse.
I don’t have faith in their decision making but I don’t have to. I have faith in the Church, which has been through stuff like this before.
That said, the makeup of the group changes with time, and I think the electors are going to be much more keen next time to not elect a loose cannon. Just look how the Bishops were baffled by and ticked at the Synod.
I have not read the interview but if he means stand by children who are attracted to the same sex and help them live out lives of chastity and celibacy that is one thing. If he means give parental approval to sons or daughters who are sexually involved in same sex relationships then I would disagree.
We can still love our children even when they make wrong choices but we cannot pretend those choices are o.k. with us.
Why was “(Babylon the Great)” added to the headline and what do you mean by it?
“I didn’t become a Christian to be trendy.”
Yep!
This is what we get as a result of making a Jesuit the new Pope.
Jesuits are really nothing more than religious Communists.
Got it. Just didn’t know your POV until now.
I see. Thanks.
I don’t know. There is a reason people tend to make a noun out of the verb. Even the lover of the sin does it. They ARE homosexuals, not persons practicing sodomy.
In many cases a persons entire identity and personality and emotions are wrapped up in their pet sin.
Basically a bunch of Jack Chick/Lorraine Boettner garbage.
Nothing would make me abandon my sons. Nothing would make me lie to my sons to make them feel good about sin, either.
What if the child is a serial thief? Would you throw them out then? How about rapist, child molester, murderer?
Sin is sin, and giving a child a home where they can chill while waiting for the next opportunity to fulfill their personal sin is just as bad as providing alcohol to a drunk.
I have five children and if one of mine “came” out, they would then “go” out, so they could not infect the others.
What he said was, “nobody talked about homosexual marriage in the Synod. What we did speak about is when a family has a homosexual son or daughter, how it educates him or her, how it gets along, how to help this family to get along in this somewhat unusual situation. That is, they spoke in the Synod about the family and homosexual people in relation to their families, because it is a reality that we often meet in the confessional: a father and mother who have a son or daughter like that.”
“It happened to me several times in Buenos Aires. And, well, we have to see how to help that father or mother to accompany that son or daughter. This is what was discussed in the Synod. It was for that reason that someone spoke about positive elements in the first draft. But was still a relative draft.”
So, no, he never used the word “gay,” although he did seem to say that homosexuality is sort of a given and that there is no moral choice or choice of any kind involved, which is exactly what people who define themselves as “gay” are claiming. For him, it’s just a problem in teaching the family how to support (”accompany”) this person.
And it is true that the Synod never discussed “gay marriage,” and I believe the Pope himself has rejected the concept a couple of times recently. Also, he did not say that “gay marriage” is “still” not being discussed, but merely that it wasn’t discussed at that time. So you can take that any way you want, I suppose. But the writer of this piece did take liberties with his words and exaggerated the points that she liked.
BTW, he also proclaimed in the interview that his homilies and interviews are his “magisterio” (teaching), which accounts for the poor and confusing quality of the latter.
Personally, I think he’s basically a rather slippery small-country “progressive” with a massive ego and an extremely authoritarian concept of the Papacy which allows him to think he can simply enforce anything that is his whim at a given moment. I don’t think he can, and in fact one of the things asked by the interviewer was how he had managed to stir up so much opposition so fast. His answer was evasive, and then ended up referring to anyone who even raised any questions or appeared to defend traditional doctrine as being one of the “stick in the muds,” and that he was praying for the Spirit to convert them.
Like all progressives, he genuinely thinks he means well and that his “inconsciencia” (translated as “lack of awareness” in the official translation, but which can be and usually is translated as “recklessness,” “negligence” or “heedlessness”) is a good thing because he really means well and God really is working through him. Maybe He is - God does write straight with crooked lines, as we all know - and this has certainly made many of us analyze and reaffirm our adherence to the Church, despite it all, and the traditional doctrines and teachings of the Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.