Pope Faults Church’s Focus on Gays and Abortion

[eastcoast_bsc]

What makes you say that? There's only one english translation of the interview that I'm aware of, and it was done by the Jesuits for publication in their American magazine. Those words have certainly been misinterpreted and sensationalized by the media, but the translation itself is correct.

I didn't post that. Your taking someone elses post and putting my name to it.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

And yet all priests are under orders to only give the Sacrament of Baptism to those children when they are *sure* they will be raised in the Faith.

Agreed, which is why I called the priests' promises to baptize the man's daughter "inappropriate" in an earlier post. A priest's decision to baptize should only be made after discussion with the family, but provided that he was willing to return to the church (which is beyond the scope of anyone here's knowledge of the situation), there is no reason his daughter should be refused baptism.

The parents are to be examples for the growing child. You are aware that God has called sexual relations between the same-sex an "abomination".

The Bible says many things that are rather closed-minded and/or barbaric. We've even decided (rather arbitrarily, in my opinion) that some of these are meant to be taken literally and others figuratively and that some are no longer valid while others are. I, personally, am of the opinion that the stance on homosexuality is one of these things. Perhaps that makes me a bad Catholic, but then I already knew that.

And yet it is advised to put the child in a schizophrenic world of loving and respecting her parents (and believing that they would not purposely do things against God) and God's clear (and somewhat "fiery") statements from both the Old Testament and the New Testament against same-sex sexual relations. Hardly good for the child--or the Faith.

So then I ask you the same question I asked eastcoast (which he has avoided answering thus far): Would you agree that baptism should be refused to the child of an unmarried couple? Because it's essentially the same situation.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I didn't post that. Your taking someone elses post and putting my name to it.

Oops, dunno why the quote function thought that was you. It was taken from WarriorAngel's post.

Edit: fixed it, sorry about that

 

[AMDG]

Would you agree that baptism should be refused to the child of an unmarried couple? Because it's essentially the same situation.

I'll go back to the fact that the priest must be sure that the child will be brought up in the Faith before agreeing to baptize. And so I would expect the priest to postpone the baptism of the child until he somehow feels assured. And I would expect the priest to start marriage preparations (or offer it) if it was a couple who requested the baptism. (Obviously, there could be no marriage if the "couple" were same-sex.) In that case, I would expect the request for baptism to be definitely postponed.

Remember, it is not baptism alone that saves--it is baptism and Faith in Jesus. (At the time of baptism, it's the parents who agree to raise the child up to believe in Jesus so both requirements are satisfied.) If the parents are raising the child in the Faith, than the priest will be assured that baptism is right for the child. And of course, the child can always choose baptism for himself when he is of age.

 

[MikeK]

Two paragraphs, but no answer to the question you were asked?

I'll go back to the fact that the priest must be sure that the child will be brought up in the Faith before agreeing to baptize. And so I would expect the priest to postpone the baptism of the child until he somehow feels assured. And I would expect the priest to start marriage preparations (or offer it) if it was a couple who requested the baptism. (Obviously, there could be no marriage if the "couple" were same-sex.) In that case, I would expect the request for baptism to be definitely postponed.

Remember, it is not baptism alone that saves--it is baptism and Faith in Jesus. (At the time of baptism, it's the parents who agree to raise the child up to believe in Jesus so both requirements are satisfied.) If the parents are raising the child in the Faith, than the priest will be assured that baptism is right for the child. And of course, the child can always choose baptism for himself when he is of age.

 

[Tallguy88]

What makes you say that? There's only one english translation of the interview that I'm aware of, and it was done by the Jesuits for publication in their American magazine. Those words have certainly been misinterpreted and sensationalized by the media, but the translation itself is correct.

I believe the translation in the Jesuit magazine was approved by the Vatican.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I'll go back to the fact that the priest must be sure that the child will be brought up in the Faith before agreeing to baptize.

Going by canon law, this (along with parental consent/near-death state) is the only requirement for baptism. What constitutes "brought up in the Faith" seems to be up to the individual priest to decide though. For you, that seems to mean rigidly following all precepts of the Faith, which is somewhat unrealistic. My parents taught us that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality or contraception, so by your definition, my siblings and I should not have been baptized.

Basically, your argument against baptism comes down to "They're living in sin!" However, it's important to remember that we all live in sin, in one way or another. Who are we to say that one man's sin might make him incapable of raising his child in the standards of the Church?

To cite the USCCB on the issue:

Baptism of children in the care of same-sex couples presents a serious pastoral
concern. Nevertheless, the Church does not refuse the Sacrament of Baptism to these
children, but there must be a well founded hope that the children will be brought up in
the Catholic religion.41
In those cases where Baptism is permitted, pastoral ministers
should exercise prudential judgment when preparing baptismal ceremonies. Also, in
preparing the baptismal record, a distinction should be made between natural parents
and adoptive parents.42

From: http://old.usccb.org/doctrine/Ministry.pdf

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I believe the translation in the Jesuit magazine was approved by the Vatican.

I would not be surprised if this were the case. They also had five separate experts check it for error. I'm about as confident as I can be that their translation is correct without being an Italian scholar myself.

 

[Michie]

But at the basis of his remarks, I find a profound truth which must today come to bear heavily on our understanding of evangelization and catechesis: the presentation of a “disjointed multitude of doctrines” (and moral norms) apart from the joyful and Emmaus-like heart-warming proclamation of Jesus Christ is inherently flawed. Catechesis apart from kerygma no longer works.

Three reflections on the Antonio Spadaro interview...

**********************

A new and extensive interview with Pope Francis is making headlines around the world. The New York Times initially headlined its story, “Pope Bluntly Faults Church’s Focus on Gays and Abortion.” USA Today declared: “Pope seeks less focus on abortion, gays, contraception.

Pope Francis focuses on the bigger picture in his new interview...

 

[Michie]

But at the basis of his remarks, I find a profound truth which must today come to bear heavily on our understanding of evangelization and catechesis: the presentation of a “disjointed multitude of doctrines” (and moral norms) apart from the joyful and Emmaus-like heart-warming proclamation of Jesus Christ is inherently flawed. Catechesis apart from kerygma no longer works.

Three reflections on the Antonio Spadaro interview...

**********************

A new and extensive interview with Pope Francis is making headlines around the world. The New York Times initially headlined its story, “Pope Bluntly Faults Church’s Focus on Gays and Abortion.” USA Today declared: “Pope seeks less focus on abortion, gays, contraception.

Pope Francis focuses on the bigger picture in his new interview...

 

[Michie]

In the twenty-eight pages of his interview with the director of “La Civiltà Cattolica” Antonia Spadaro, published simultaneously in sixteen other magazines of the Society of Jesus all over the world, there are two passages in which Pope Francis unravels one of the biggest enigmas of his pontificate. That is...

In two parts of the interview, Pope Francis unraveled one of the biggest enigmas of his pontificate...
******************
Don’t focus on the jump-out quotes from the Pope's interview. Read the whole thing. Let it sink in. Think about it...
**********************

 

[Michie]

*dp*

 

[FireDragon76]

As a non-Roman-Catholic dedicated to the broad catholic movement of Christendom, to social justice and respect for the rights and dignity of individuals in matters of conscience, I welcome what the Pope has said. It is a refreshing change from the frequent screeds from the previous Bishops of Rome. The battlefield analogy perfectly sums up the issues- our civilization is becomming indifferent to Christianity altogether, people don't even want to their wounds patched up because they are tired of being lectured on quitting smoking and eating better.

 

[steve_bakr]

I don't think Jesus would promote the hate against their tiny innocent "neighbor" and would approve of the violence toward women that the abortion crowd does, nor the hate of those who chose to violate God's clear statements on homosexual sex.

I don't think the "Servant of the Servant's of God" (which the Pope is) would go against God's will either--he simply can't. Something else is happening. A problem in translation? A misunderstanding? A lack of the whole story? Something. Stay tuned. We'll probably find out in time.

I think that the Pope is trying to set a pastoral tone of love and compassion instead of conflict and vitriol. I also think that it is long in coming. He also said that God is in every person's life, even if it contains sin and vice. This is reminiscent of theologian Karl Rahner, who was also a Jesuit. Rahner taught that God's grace is available to all people at all times. The ultimate expression of God's grace is Jesus Christ.

 

[steve_bakr]

If the church agrees that abortion is the taking of a life and there were over 300,000 abortion in the US in 2013, then to trivialize that would be an even graver sin. Just my thought and I am sticking with it.

Be very careful of what you are suggesting, and show respect for the Pope. I think he is saying that the love and compassion that comes from Christ is a better pastoral model than vitriol.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think it's imperative that a pastoral leader of any church make it clear that homosexuality and abortion are 100% unacceptable WHILE not overlooking the other sins of divorce, cohabitation, greed, war-mongering, and disregard for the poor. I have a 'walk and chew gum' view of these things.

Some people are super tingly-feeling because they think the Pope is "off" the gay topic and onto bigger, 'better' issues addressing poverty. My angle is, "why not do both?" I think the best approach is the holistic approach of condemning sin period, and continuing to condemn the gay lifestyle, while addressing the downtrodden.

Why has the Catholic Church (and others!) had to address the gay stuff in recent decades more than in the past? Well, it's pretty obvious. In the 1950's, you didn't need to preach the evils of sodomy. Most Americans took that as a no-brainer. But as the media, the corrupt psychiatric community giving in to the gay lobby's pressures, and a host of other factors like Hollywood and pop brainwashing have all sought to convince Americans that being afflicted with Same-Sex Attraction is somehow healthy, normal, and laudable, the Church has had to weigh in. It's her duty to combat the sinful water-torture of the 'world.'

Predictably, the far left has gotten angry and created a false either-or scenario where, if you are against the gay lobby you somehow have forgotten the poor and all the other sins....which is bogus.

I can't tell the pope what to say nor will I criticize him, but I think the Church has been on the right track for years in addressing this and I think when the waters get muddied and you speak too vaguely and with too much 'understanding,' the media will RUN with it and manipulate "who am I to judge?" into really meaning, "hey, since all sin is sin anyway, why not be gay? The pope's ok with it! What's your hangup!?"

In 2013, specificity and being VERY clear is paramount!

We CAN care for the poor, stand up against unjust wars, fight for justice, and make a difference in the world WHILE not giving into sodomy and baby-killing as 'just another sin.'

 

[AMDG]

I think it's imperative that a pastoral leader of any church make it clear that homosexuality and abortion are 100% unacceptable WHILE not overlooking the other sins of divorce, cohabitation, greed, war-mongering, and disregard for the poor. I have a 'walk and chew gum' view of these things.

Some people are super tingly-feeling because they think the Pope is "off" the gay topic and onto bigger, 'better' issues addressing poverty. My angle is, "why not do both?" I think the best approach is the holistic approach of condemning sin period, and continuing to condemn the gay lifestyle, while addressing the downtrodden.

Why has the Catholic Church (and others!) had to address the gay stuff in recent decades more than in the past? Well, it's pretty obvious. In the 1950's, you didn't need to preach the evils of sodomy. Most Americans took that as a no-brainer. But as the media, the corrupt psychiatric community giving in to the gay lobby's pressures, and a host of other factors like Hollywood and pop brainwashing have all sought to convince Americans that being afflicted with Same-Sex Attraction is somehow healthy, normal, and laudable, the Church has had to weigh in. It's her duty to combat the sinful water-torture of the 'world.'

Predictably, the far left has gotten angry and created a false either-or scenario where, if you are against the gay lobby you somehow have forgotten the poor and all the other sins....which is bogus.

I can't tell the pope what to say nor will I criticize him, but I think the Church has been on the right track for years in addressing this and I think when the waters get muddied and you speak too vaguely and with too much 'understanding,' the media will RUN with it and manipulate "who am I to judge?" into really meaning, "hey, since all sin is sin anyway, why not be gay? The pope's ok with it! What's your hangup!?"

In 2013, specificity and being VERY clear is paramount!

We CAN care for the poor, stand up against unjust wars, fight for justice, and make a difference in the world WHILE not giving into sodomy and baby-killing as 'just another sin.'

It's not a matter of "either/or". It *is* a matter of "both/and".

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

Homosexuality isn't 100% unacceptable, it's just the same sex act that is.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well actually the desire is sinful if you think about it. Our thoughts can be sinful and we must guard our thoughts carefully, heterosexuals and SSA-sufferers. The Lord tells us that to desire sex in our hearts with another woman is tantamount to the act itself. Now while I will acknowledge the actually jumping into bed with someone else is the real deal full-on super sin, let's face it, desiring people sexually isn't healthy and is a sinful, impure desire. Father Seraphim Rose proved that it can be overcome through Christ.

The Orthodox famous radio and scholarly personality Father Thomas Hopko has said, "you may be born that way (gay) but thanks to God you don't have to STAY that way!"

Homosexuality isn't 100% unacceptable, it's just the same sex act that is.

 

[Michie]

I think it's imperative that a pastoral leader of any church make it clear that homosexuality and abortion are 100% unacceptable WHILE not overlooking the other sins of divorce, cohabitation, greed, war-mongering, and disregard for the poor. I have a 'walk and chew gum' view of these things.

Some people are super tingly-feeling because they think the Pope is "off" the gay topic and onto bigger, 'better' issues addressing poverty. My angle is, "why not do both?" I think the best approach is the holistic approach of condemning sin period, and continuing to condemn the gay lifestyle, while addressing the downtrodden.

Why has the Catholic Church (and others!) had to address the gay stuff in recent decades more than in the past? Well, it's pretty obvious. In the 1950's, you didn't need to preach the evils of sodomy. Most Americans took that as a no-brainer. But as the media, the corrupt psychiatric community giving in to the gay lobby's pressures, and a host of other factors like Hollywood and pop brainwashing have all sought to convince Americans that being afflicted with Same-Sex Attraction is somehow healthy, normal, and laudable, the Church has had to weigh in. It's her duty to combat the sinful water-torture of the 'world.'

Predictably, the far left has gotten angry and created a false either-or scenario where, if you are against the gay lobby you somehow have forgotten the poor and all the other sins....which is bogus.

I can't tell the pope what to say nor will I criticize him, but I think the Church has been on the right track for years in addressing this and I think when the waters get muddied and you speak too vaguely and with too much 'understanding,' the media will RUN with it and manipulate "who am I to judge?" into really meaning, "hey, since all sin is sin anyway, why not be gay? The pope's ok with it! What's your hangup!?"

In 2013, specificity and being VERY clear is paramount!

We CAN care for the poor, stand up against unjust wars, fight for justice, and make a difference in the world WHILE not giving into sodomy and baby-killing as 'just another sin.'

Got to agree. After reading this interview a grand total of four times I feel he was doing a little unneeded dancing. I still agree with what I think his meaning was overall but forthrightness is an admirable quality. I'm sure he is aware of all the twisting done in the press. All the more reason to be clear for those easily confused.