LGBT ‘Catholic’ groups:If Pope can reverse ...teaching on death penalty, why not homosex?

LEXINGTON, Kentucky, Pro-homosexual dissident 'Catholic' groups see in Pope Francis' ‘changing’ of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty the hope that the Church will one day also change its teaching against homosexuality.

New Ways Ministry called the change in the Catechism proof that "Church teaching can change."

"It's important for Catholic advocates for LGBT equality to take note of this change because for decades Catholic opponents of LGBT equality argued that it is impossible to change church teaching. They often pointed to the fact that condemnations of same-sex relationships were inscribed in the Catechism, and so were not open for discussion or change. Yet, the teaching on the death penalty is in the Catechism, too, and, in fact, to make this change in teaching, it was the text of the Catechism that Francis changed," the group stated on its website.

New Ways Ministry, which works to "promote the acceptance of LGBT people," said that Pope Francis' move will help advance "LGBT equality" in a number of ways.

"First, we now have a clear, explicit contemporary example of church teaching changing, and also a look into how it can be done: with a papal change to the Catechism," it stated.

"Second, we can see that the process that brought about this change has been decades of theological debate and discussion, and not just a papal whim. That means the theological and even ecclesial discussions and debates right now about LGBT people have great potential to shape future changes in church teaching in regard to those topics," it added.

The pro-gay group was not the only one to see the significance of Pope Francis' rewrite of the Catechism.

In a post that appeared yesterday on Twitter, Lexington-based “Fortunate Families” wrote:

The church cannot change its teaching. That is what so many others say about other topics, for example regarding LGBTQ persons. But doctrine develops. Today’s news is a sterling example.

"The idea first floated by [the] Pope on Catechism’s 25th anniversary last fall to signify development of doctrine,” the tweet continued, “rescript issued today sees Francis issue edit of the 1994 official text, now deeming capital punishment ‘inadmissible’-- the new formulation.”

“Development of doctrine”, legitimately used to describe how the Catholic Church refines and expands, but never undermines or rejects, what was taught earlier, has now been interpreted by some to mean the erasure of settled Church teaching.

Critics say Pope Francis attempted to do that yesterday when he promulgated a new teaching concerning the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, saying that it was “inadmissible.” The perennial teaching of the Church, based on Scripture and unanimously accepted by the Church Fathers and every pope until Francis, is that legitimate civil authority may impose the death penalty on a malefactor. Although both Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI were strongly opposed to capital punishment--and John Paul’s Catechism strongly circumscribed it--neither pope denied this principle.

Pope Francis’ innovation has already become a club for American liberals to beat conservatives with. Jane Fleming Kleeb, Chair of the Democratic Party in Nebraska, has tweeted “Let's be clear Nebraskans, @GovRicketts is going against the teachings of the church. We can change leaders by voting different on Nov. 6--Democrats are against the death penalty.”

Fortunate Families, founded in 1992 by Mary Ellen and Casey Lopata, the Catholic parents of a same-sex attracted man, is a group of Catholic religious and laypeople who dissent on authentic Church teaching regarding sexuality and marriage. From 2010 until this July Fortunate Families was part of a coalition with Call to Action, the banned Dignity, and the censured New Ways ministry.

Astonishingly, since November 2017 Bishop John Stowe, OFM of Lexington has served as the dissident group’s “ecclesial advisor”. Stowe is one of the five bishops who have endorsed Fr. James Martin’s pro-LGBT book Building a Bridge. The bishop was appointed to the Lexington diocese by Pope Francis in 2015.

Fortunate Families was last in the news when a Lexington Catholic church stretched an LGBT flag across its front lawn. The first executive director of the group, Stan “JR” Zerkowski, is a parishioner at St. Paul’s parish, and told media that he hoped the banner got wide publicity.

“This is a church that is open to all people and I hope this sign gets that across,” he said in the TV report. “I don’t think a Catholic Church has ever had a sign like this before in front of it during Pride Week or any other time. However, in other parts of the country we see this regularly.”

The banner read “LBGTQ+ Catholic /Family, Friends & Allies/all are welcome”, insinuating that at other Catholic churches Catholics who experience same-sex desires or suffer from gender dysphoria are barred from the worship of God.

Former homosexual Joseph Sciambra retweeted the group’s Twitter message, saying “Bishop Stowe’s ‘Fortunate Families’ believe that the [Catechism of the Catholic Church] will also ‘change’ in terms of homosexuality. FF operatives are embedded within several dioceses around the US.”

Sciambra, a survivor of the San Francisco 1990s “gay scene”, is dedicated to helping people with same-sex attractions avoid being trapped in what he says is a dangerous way of life.

All these little foibles, crises, heresies, scandals, will smooth out and pass by, as those before. The Church is big, it’s monumental, it’s gorgeous, it’s the sole bastion of sanctity in the world. It’s powerful. It was founded by Christ himself 2000 years ago. Protest-ants were an off-shoot, a man-made upstart imitation. Their obsession with the Bible reflects their lack of deep symbolism, art, theology.

I’m not saying all that is true of protestants, but it’s part of the old Catholic mindset that is woven into the past and present.

So all that means to convey the lack of concern about apostasy. The Church is impressive, even invincible. People believe in her. Bergoglio has raised fears among those who follow all the details, but most Catholics keep their interests local.

You know there was a time in history when there were two competing popes? Catholics who lived then would not have known who to believe. Catholics today can look back in retrospect and pick the guy they feel was more orthodox or the one that did better things, and label the other guy as an impostor. I think a lot of Catholics today are looking at Francis and saying that he is an impostor also. The question for Catholics then becomes, who is the genuine pope?

Of course the word of God is the only unchanging revelation, and it appears self evident that past and present popes have disagreed on doctrinal issues. Papal infallibility or even apostolic succession does not hold up to scrutiny from a logical standpoint. I think Jesus and Paul both taught that holding to the original message was the test of being a true disciple, not claiming to be the successor of an apostle and therefore infallible yourself.

See John 8:31,32 31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

If we hold to Jesus teaching, we are His disciples, if we don’t hold to His teachings, we are not.

See also Paul from Galatians 1: 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!

By including the “we” in the above he showed that even those claiming apostleship must have their message examined to see if it matches the original message. Our foundation must be the unchanging revelation of God’s word.

Church being a higher authority than the Bible

That the Church is not a "higher" authority than the Bible. However, the Church logically preceded the New Testament (since she assembled it, and it was written to her). Jesus founded a Church to teach in his name, he didn't write a book.

The Church is definitely a higher authority than your own personal interpretation of Scripture, or mine. Even Protestant apologists admit to this; Hank Hannegraaf used to cite something he called "the historic Christian faith" when refuting various heresies. "The historic Christian faith" is nothing more or less than the Church's understanding of the Bible.

However, "the Church" is not "everything the current Pope says today". It's more like "everything the Church has said for 2000 years". The current Pope is free to reverse the purely administrative acts of his predecessors, but he treads on dangerous ground when he tries to reverse doctrine.

You know there was a time in history when there were two competing popes? Catholics who lived then would not have known who to believe.

Ancient proverb:

Man with one watch knows what time it is.
Man with two watches never sure.

Ours is a world with many popes and pastors and tall weeds growing with the wheat.

Nothing new under the Son, just lots of willful humans being human.

“I’ll give it a try if you clarify.”

In post #12 I was referring to what appears to me to be self-contradictory in the Catholic objections to the Reformation.

One of the most consistent arguments I’ve heard over the years is that Apostolic succession is an evidence of the Catholic Church being the one-and-only true Church. I don’t see how anyone can hold the view of Apostolic succession and simultaneously believe a Pope could be a heretic or apostate. And this leads me to believe I’ve had some fundamental misunderstanding of the Catholic position on this matter.

“So all that means to convey the lack of concern about apostasy. The Church is impressive, even invincible. People believe in her. Bergoglio has raised fears among those who follow all the details, but most Catholics keep their interests local.”

This comes across to me as if many practicing Catholics just go through the motions and “go along to get along”.

The premise of the Reformation was that there were certain intolerable practices and errors of Church teaching that had to be corrected. Over the years, prior to the Reformation attempts were made to reform from within. But at a certain point, Protestants (or their predecessors within the Catholic Church) concluded that change would only happen apart from the infrastructure that was never really part of the Universal, Invisible Church. In other words, buildings, furniture, art, relics, and even locations, schedules, and rituals can belong to the Church but are not the Church itself. And so, members of the Church felt the need to go “outside of the camp” so-to-speak in order for the corrections to happen.

I’ve heard arguments that most of the claims of Protestants about historical abuses of the Catholic Church are simply fabrications. If so, there is no need for a Reformation. The argument is also made that reform, the correction of heresies, and the call for repentance for sin happening in the Church must remain inside the Church.

But the current suggestion that the Pope and other high-ranking Church leaders could change historical Church views or practices seems inconsistent with what I thought I knew about the Catholic position on this subject.

100% agree, though I’m not sure any Catholics here will see it this way.

I’ve engaged in this debate in the past and am not trying to rehash it. But I’ve been surprised lately at this trend of even Catholics calling into question the credentials of the currently-recognized Pope. Your explanation makes sense from a Protestant perspective.

To me the arguments against the legitimacy of the Reformation seem to be contradictory to the idea of the Pope going astray. So, I’ve been wondering whether I’ve misunderstood the position of the Catholics on this subject.

“Is this the new trend in breaking the Catholic Caucus? Simply repost it by a non-Catholic and then allow it to go forward without the designation so the insults can begin? Just asking for clarification.”

In the past I’ve thought of reposting some Catholic Caucus posts to open up discussion. I never have done so. The times I thought about it were usually pertaining to something controversial in the title or first sentence of the post. Otherwise I would not even be aware of the content because I have rarely been curious enough to click on topics intended for a Catholic audience.

However, I’ve noticed for a while there being a lot of Catholic Caucus threads that come from Lifesite News, which is not a Catholic website. These articles often discuss abortion, which is a conservative issue and not a Catholic-only issue.

I can certainly appreciate the need to have a place for discussion which is off limits to debates and arguments. But I don’t think this is supposed to close off all debate and discussion on the subject matter or particular news item.

Is it a “trend”? This is my first time doing so.

“He is not fit to be pope.”

What I have trouble following is how it is possible, from a Catholic perspective, for a Pope to be or become unfit for his office. I thought the principle of Apostolic succession essentially prevents such a thing from happening.

Wouldn’t the Pope being unfit imply that he was a bad choice for the office in the first place? But how would that be possible if his selection was God-ordained?

I’m not trying to stir up a debate on the topic. I just think my understanding of the Catholic view on this subject must have been off, and I’m trying to follow the rationale.

“He is not fit to be pope.”

Wouldn’t the Pope being unfit imply that he was a bad choice for the office in the first place? But how would that be possible if his selection was God-ordained?

I’m not trying to stir up a debate on the topic. I just think my understanding of the Catholic view on this subject must have been off, and I’m trying to follow the rationale.

“The Church is definitely a higher authority than your own personal interpretation of Scripture, or mine.”

I agree that the Church, and especially its leaders, are responsible for the defense of the eternal message. As a Protestant I view the Bible as the final authority. I understand and appreciate the counter-argument that the world is full of people who CLAIM to believe the Bible and yet disagree with each other over its meaning. So, the salient question becomes how it is possible to determine who is right or wrong.

For the Catholic the answer seems to rely on the authority of the Church. For the Protestant the answer is seen as a personal reliance on the Holy Spirit. However, the Holy Spirit indwells the Church—i.e. the collective members of the body of Christ. So, listening to the Holy Spirit often means listening to other Spirit-led Christians.

Hopefully, this thread will not spiral into the up-until-now endless debate over this issue. It’s been a while since I’ve engaged on that subject here and have probably had more than my share of participation in it. I recognize a lot of usernames of those on the forum who, such as yourself, are apologists of Catholic views. But I do not recall the specific debates and with whom they were engaged.

Based on the arguments I’ve heard over the years on this particular subject I understood that Catholics considered it possible for a Pope to make errors and even teach things that were wrong on occasion as a fallible human being. We even see the apostles made a few mistakes that required correction when we read the historical accounts, though there was never any error or wrong teaching from them in the recognized cannon of scripture. But my assumption about the Catholic view of the Pope has been that a Pope could never be a heretic or change “the historic Christian faith” as you described. I thought the principle of apostolic succession excluded these from ever happening. However, this may be a misunderstanding of the Catholic view on my part.

Again, from the Religion Moderator’s homepage:

Linking to Previous Posts on the Religion Forum:

If however he is linking to an article posted by someone else - and that article was a “caucus” of which he was not a member - then I might pull the post anyway if I think it would have the affect of defeating the caucus label.

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.