Pope and Kim Davis

[gurneyhalleck1]

We've heard some folks in TAW lately lauding this pope and looking up to him, which I find perplexing.....

I find it fascinating how this Pope Francis refuses to take on LGBT issues and stand up for what their church teaches on it. Kim Davis refused to issue "gay marriage" licenses, and was jailed, as we all know. And recently she met with the Pope. Interestingly enough, the Catholic Church went out of its way this week to say this:

"The pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects," Lombardi said.

Heaven forbid the Pope support Kim Davis and stick with the official teachings of the CC.

I think that's telling.....we should be careful, as Orthodox Christians with our flirtations and admiration for folks in other denominations, being cautious to size up their positions with Holy Orthodoxy....

http://news.yahoo.com/vatican-popes-visit-davis-not-form-support-092505075.html

 

[gzt]

I'm not sure why the Catholic position would imply approval of the exact stance taken by Davis or why the Pope would approve of being used as a prop to support her in the way that she was doing. So I'm not sure why this should be a strike against the Pope.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

I gotta agree with gzt on this. You can say "homosexual activity is a sin" without supporting someone like Kim Davis.

 

[seekingfreedom]

I would like to give another take on this.

From the article:
"Just knowing that the pope is on track with what we're doing and agreeing, you know, it kind of validates everything," she told ABC.
The Vatican statement made clear the pope intended no such validation."

It seems to me that what the Vatican is not validating is the way and means she chose to take a stand for her beliefs. The Vatican is making that clear.

And in this article: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...rancis-reportedly-had-a-private-meeting-in-dc

"On his flight back to Rome, the pope was asked during a press conference if he would support government officials who say they cannot in good conscience discharge their duties — for example, issuing same sex marriage licenses.

"Without referring to Kim Davis, the pope said conscientious objection is a right that is part of every human right."

The position he is not validating is not her position on LGBT, he is not validating the way she chose to take a stand.

I think both quotes from the two articles support one another. In the first, why Kim Davis said that "knowing the pope is on track with what we're doing and agreeing...... " could be just using an opportunity that she took to validate her own actions. Who knows. I would also like to know who the "we" are that she is talking about and how she knows this. In the second article, the pope was being baited by the press and he didn't take the bait.

Wasn't there some heated discussion on here about the way Kim Davis handled herself.

 

[dzheremi]

Did anyone catch the Huffington Post article (er, editorial rant might be closer) on how the Pope supposedly squandered all the good will he supposedly generated here in America by meeting with her in private? Calling him a coward and such. The sense of betrayal was almost palpable, like they thought they finally had a Pope who would be on their "side" on issues of sexual morality and are now bummed that his infamous "who am I to judge?" does not actually mean "everyone do whatever they want". I dunno. I found it funny. A bunch of atheists and other non-Christians (and not a few Catholics) being mad at the Roman Pope for being a Catholic. What did they expect? Hahaha.

Sometimes it's good to not be liked by everybody.

As far as Kim Davis is concerned, I think I wrote too much about this in the other thread here on that situation. My opinion has not changed. I just think it's funny how the Pope has to "stay on message" with a bunch of people not in his church in the first place or else he's the worst person ever in the entire world or some such. And so many comments of the type "Wow...this pope had me reconsidering Catholicism/Christianity in general, but now? NO WAY!" Yeah, like I'm sure Jesus Christ is going to say on the day of judgment "Ohhhh, you're right, Goddess Sissyphus Moonbeam Kleinschmidt from Facebook...I was going to consider doing the will of My Father, too, but then He, like...wanted me to do stuff...and some people didn't like it...so, y'know...I totally get where you're coming from! We cool?"

If, as they say, the Roman Catholic Church reduces Christ's loving message to one of rules, prohibitions, and punishments, then the world is at least equally guilty of attempting to rob Him of His judgment, and of following what they have heard said rather than what He tells us. This is what I like about Orthodoxy. It is balanced in a way that the partisans on either side of the Kim Davis debate can neither respect nor it seems even begin to understand. (Probably because if they did they would have to recognize the falsity of their characterizations of our faith, and Lord knows the world can't have that!)

 

[~Anastasia~]

Ok, so the Pope is in my newsfeed today. Kinda.

Forgive me Gurney, I wanted to share this somewhere ...

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

One thing about Catholicism I always admired was their fierce stance against abortion. I find it something the Orthodox Church has really failed to speak out against. Look at Russia. For all their claims of being so holy and the "third Rome" and the real flagship of Orthodoxy, Russia kills more babies than any country on Earth--even more than China, an atheist nation!? Orthodoxy is too quiet about the slaughter of innocents, and I hate that. We need a louder sense of outrage. But Catholicism, wow, they've been militantly loud! Pope JP2 was shouting from the rooftops against it, and Pope B16 was very pro-life, but this Pope is often mum. Liberals love that! The problem is, it's a type of holocaust, and for him to focus his energies on climate change when we're sending babies to mills of slaughter and selling their parts, I think it just makes me face-palm...ugh

 

[rusmeister]

I think this captures the ethos of their meeting: http://reductress.com/post/pope-met-with-kim-davis-also-sort-of-everyone-2/

A site that seriously uses the partisan epithet "anti-gay" is not one I want to look to for the correct understanding of these things.

Of course, I think if we fall into using the language of "being gay" and "having a sexual orientation", then we are sheeple who do not think clearly, anyway.

 

[rusmeister]

One thing about Catholicism I always admired was their fierce stance against abortion. I find it something the Orthodox Church has really failed to speak out against. Look at Russia. For all their claims of being so holy and the "third Rome" and the real flagship of Orthodoxy, Russia kills more babies than any country on Earth--even more than China, an atheist nation!? Orthodoxy is too quiet about the slaughter of innocents, and I hate that. We need a louder sense of outrage. But Catholicism, wow, they've been militantly loud! Pope JP2 was shouting from the rooftops against it, and Pope B16 was very pro-life, but this Pope is often mum. Liberals love that! The problem is, it's a type of holocaust, and for him to focus his energies on climate change when we're sending babies to mills of slaughter and selling their parts, I think it just makes me face-palm...ugh

I have seen the other extreme, the Orthodox anti-abortion activist willing to insult and attack other Orthodox who also strongly oppose abortion when they do not agree with his approach. Our outrage ought not to be sinful anger.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well of course I agree. I don't propose frothing at the mouth here! But apathy sucks, Rus. And the papal nuncios saying "oh well, the Holy Father doesn't endorse Kim Davis's views per se, uh..." is an eye-roller for me.

I have seen the other extreme, the Orthodox anti-abortion activist willing to insult and attack other Orthodox who also strongly oppose abortion when they do not agree with his approach. Our outrage ought not to be sinful anger.

 

[buzuxi02]

All these leaders gear their message towards the cultural attitudes of the specific nation they are addressing..

I cant take them seriously, both the EP and the Pope can tell me how polluting the environment is a sin, personally I can care less and still wont put my catalytic converter back onto my muscle car. And I also know they cant find any Church Father, canon, or biblical verse to back it up.

 

[dzheremi]

A site that seriously uses the partisan epithet "anti-gay" is not one I want to look to for the correct understanding of these things.

Of course, I think if we fall into using the language of "being gay" and "having a sexual orientation", then we are sheeple who do not think clearly, anyway.

I guess you missed the tone of the article, or any of the other articles in the sidebar, such as "If you wanted to use the sidewalk, you should have had two babies like me". It's a parody site.

 

[buzuxi02]

One thing about Catholicism I always admired was their fierce stance against abortion. I find it something the Orthodox Church has really failed to speak out against. Look at Russia. For all their claims of being so holy and the "third Rome" and the real flagship of Orthodoxy, Russia kills more babies than any country on Earth--even more than China, an atheist nation!? Orthodoxy is too quiet about the slaughter of innocents, and I hate that. We need a louder sense of outrage. But Catholicism, wow, they've been militantly loud! Pope JP2 was shouting from the rooftops against it, and Pope B16 was very pro-life, but this Pope is often mum. Liberals love that! The problem is, it's a type of holocaust, and for him to focus his energies on climate change when we're sending babies to mills of slaughter and selling their parts, I think it just makes me face-palm...ugh

Its abysmal. This is one area where Orthodoxy has dropped the ball. Unfortunately you wont hear a peep because the laity are a bunch of liberals that all support abortion, plain and simple. All of Eastern Europe is an abortion free for all. Romania is disgusting its abortion rate is even higher than Russia. Greece is on the verge of extinction. The highest recorded birth rates in the country's existence were in the 1960's where they averaged 150,000 to 160,000 births annually, before abortion existed and the population was smaller than today. 2014 was the all time record low birth rate of 91,000. You would think someone would say something but they could care less.

 

[buzuxi02]

There is no tradition in the Church to claim that throwing a wrapper away or causing excess smoke or cutting down a tree or urinating in the ocean is a sin. Are books a sin for causing deforestation? I dont believe so but I'm sure in a few centuries thats precisely what that future generation will accuse us of for not having invented the kindle in time and the inventors of the gutenberg press were medievel barbarians.

Just like the vegans are now gaining traction among the christian west claiming eating meat is a sin and omnivore humans are murderers.

 

[gzt]

Of course, I think if we fall into using the language of "being gay" and "having a sexual orientation", then we are sheeple who do not think clearly, anyway.

I think the phrases "being gay" and "having a sexual orientation" are quite useful.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Using such terms means we're playing right into secular hands by their rules; humanist moderns disregard the Fall and the idea of sin and redemption. They mock the supernatural and see being "gay" as an intrinsic created default! They see "gay" as a useful label indicating a norm for that person's programming via evolution. It gets tied to an identity. That's NOT Orthodox thinking. Same sex attraction is NOT an "orientation" (another misuse of language) but rather a struggle, a symptom, of the Fall. We play into Sayan's hands with these semantic missteps!!

 

[jckstraw72]

St. Basil said that existing species were designed to continue until the end of the ages. While I disagree with him, if you want to hold to the Hexameron then it is a violation of God's design to cause the extinction of a species.

of course there's the issue of what his nomenclature meant, or what "kind" in the Scripture means

 

[Cappadocious]

of course there's the issue of what his nomenclature meant, or what "kind" in the Scripture means

I agree. I don't think the Scriptures were using a technical term, but St. Basil surely was.

In any case, just because the garden is overrun doesn't mean it's not our job to take care of it. As Fr. Hopko liked to say, God will make all things new, not all new things.

 

[jckstraw72]

I agree. I don't think the Scriptures were using a technical term, but St. Basil surely was.

In any case, just because the garden is overrun doesn't mean it's not our job to take care of it. As Fr. Hopko liked to say, God will make all things new, not all new things.

haha, Fr. Thomas was quite the orator

 

[~Anastasia~]

If I may?

I don't want to just intrude here, but I wonder if I understand the disagreement properly?

I take this use of language to mean ...

If one "is gay" then that implies that this is basically how God created that person to be, how they are? Thus either homosexual sex must be acceptable to God, or else God must have made a mistake with those persons. Is that the reasoning? I remember a time before such words too ...

However, if we say that a person has same-sex attraction, then they are a person, and their passions lean in that direction. People can likewise have desires/attractions in many different directions - some more fully entrenched, some less. Some socially acceptable and good, some clearly not. I hope that I don't need to go into details, but people can have a desire for other humans based on sex, on age, on race, on physical type, or on any number of variables. People can also have desires for non-humans and inanimate objects.

Does God create a person to be attracted to these, or are they a result of our socialization or some other factor of human experience, or of demonic influence and temptation? Or some combination?

To say that a person is same-sex attracted merely describes the state of that person. It may be quite a permanent feature of who that person is, just as it may be a permanent feature of a person to be attracted primarily to the opposite sex of a particular race, or conquests outside of marriage, or any number of inclinations. Some of these find acceptable outlets (a monogamous relationship with the opposite sex within marriage) but the rest do not, and we see those as a cross to be borne by the person who has a desire which cannot be legitimately satisfied. (At least we recognize temptation to be a cross.)

Do I understand the issue? Forgive me again for intruding ...