Pope does it again "Church cannot be obsessed with gays"

[Crossroads Inc.]

Full headline is Gays, Abortion Too Much Of Catholic Church's Obsession

Pope Francis faulted the Roman Catholic church for focusing too much on gays, abortion and contraception, saying the church has become "obsessed" with those issues to the detriment of its larger mission to be "home for all," according to an extensive new interview published Thursday.

The church can share its views on homosexuality, abortion and other issues, but should not "interfere spiritually" with the lives of gays and lesbians, the pope added in the interview, which was published in La Civilta Cattolica, a Rome-based Jesuit journal.

“We have to find a new balance, otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel," Francis said in the interview.

"The church has sometimes locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules,' Francis said. "The people of God want pastors, not clergy acting like bureaucrats or government officials."

The 12,000-word interview ranges widely, touching upon the pope's personal faith, the role of women and nuns in the church, Latin Mass and even the pope's favorite artists.

"He's very open honest and candid like we have not seen in a pope before. He critiques people who focus too much on tradition, who want to go to time in the past that does not exist anymore," said Fr. James Martin of America Magazine, which published an English translation of the interview. "He reminds people that thinking with the church, in obedience, does not just mean thinking with the hierarchy, that church is a lot bigger than its hierarchy."

In the interview, Francis does not come out in support of gay marriage, abortion rights or contraception, saying that church positions on those issues are "clear," but he added that the "the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives.”

“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality,” he said to Jesuit priest Fr. Antonio Spadaro, who conducted the interview for La Civilta Cattolica. “I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.”

The comments on gays and lesbians follow up on remarks Francis made aboard the papal airplane in July when asked about gay priests. "Who am I to judge?" the pope then said, in a quote that made international front-page headlines. In Thursday's interview, Francis clarified that those comments were about all gay people and not only priests.

Francis, 76, also touched upon where he falls within the political and theological spectrum of Catholics. Because of what he said was a purposeful avoidance of talking about sexuality and reproductive issues during the first six months of his papacy, some critics have said the pope has shifted from being more outspoken on conservative issues when he was a Jesuit province superior in Argentina and later was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. The pope, who was appointed to the jesuit leadership position when he was 36, said his youthful lack of experience made him too authoritarian of a leader.

“But I have never been a right-winger," he said.

More from the Associated Press:

Again as in the past, doesn't mean I approve of the Pope or what he stands for as a whole.. I just love it when he says things that Piss off the Catholic Establishment ;P

[Esquire]

I really, really wish Pope Francis were about twenty years younger so that this could gradually become the new Church normal. It's downright comforting to know the man can recognize the truth when it's staring him in the face.

[Highlord Laan]

"Who am I to judge?"

Pretty much the cornerstone of the entire christian fiath. Too bad so many of them either forget it or deliberately ignore it.

[Ritterin Sophia]

"Who am I to judge?"

Pretty much the cornerstone of the entire christian fiath. Too bad so many of them either forget it or deliberately ignore it.

Even the Pope is not without sin.

[Channel72]

I'm somewhat conflicted when it comes to this issue. On the one hand, it's nice to see this kind of social progress coming out of the Catholic Church. However, the disturbing reality is that the right-wing evangelicals are the most consistent in terms of adhering to a strictly Biblical worldview. The Bible itself equates homosexuality with fucking MURDER (Romans 1). Given that sort of moral paradigm, saying "who are we to judge homosexuals" is LITERALLY the same as saying "who are we to judge murderers?"

I'm glad we have a progressive Pope, I guess... but the reality is that the core of Christianity is simply incompatible with 21st century ethics. I'm not entirely sure that a new "liberalized" version of Christianity is actually a GOOD thing. As long as it continues to hold the Hebrew Scriptures sacrosanct, Christianity will always ensure the continued existence of a significant group of Biblical literalists, who will vehemently oppose anything to do with gay rights. This new Pope may be okay with homosexuality, but I assure you that St. Paul was not, and neither are his most devoted followers. The only significant outcome of the Pope's progressivism is to further cement the idea in the minds of evangelicals that Catholics are not "true Christians".

Really, the best thing for the progressive cause may be an increasingly radicalized Church which eventually collapses under the weight of its own insanity.

[CaiusWickersham]

That's nice, Your Holiness. Now, let's see you reverse course on the "snitches get stitches" attitude the Vatican has towards pedophilia among priests.

[hongi]

However, the disturbing reality is that the right-wing evangelicals are the most consistent in terms of adhering to a strictly Biblical worldview.

Uh it's the fucking Catholic Church. Sola Scriptura is a heresy in the eyes of the Catholics. Until the Protestants came around, a strictly Biblical worldview had never been the Christian worldview. So why should Catholics care what right-wing evangelicals think about the Bible?

The Bible itself equates homosexuality with fucking MURDER (Romans 1).

No, it doesn't. And the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. The very modern idea of homosexuality, let alone heterosexuality, didn't even exist in that period. Rather, Paul (like Catholicism) condemns homosexual acts.

Given that sort of moral paradigm, saying "who are we to judge homosexuals" is LITERALLY the same as saying "who are we to judge murderers?"

Take it up with Jesus:

Matthew 5:43 ‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? 47And if you greet only your brothers and sisters,* what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

He says we're all children of God, rapists and murderers and saints and sweet innocent kids.

I'm glad we have a progressive Pope, I guess... but the reality is that the core of Christianity is simply incompatible with 21st century ethics.

Considering that Christianity is in large respects responsible for 21st century ethics, I find that ironic.

As the resident nihilist atheist (seriously go look up my previous posts) who became religious, I'm not impressed.

[Jerry the Vampire]

Yes Christianity which asks us to stone a significant number of the population is responsible for 21st century ethics.


That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

[Kitsune]

I'm glad we have a progressive Pope, I guess... but the reality is that the core of Christianity is simply incompatible with 21st century ethics. I'm not entirely sure that a new "liberalized" version of Christianity is actually a GOOD thing. As long as it continues to hold the Hebrew Scriptures sacrosanct, Christianity will always ensure the continued existence of a significant group of Biblical literalists, who will vehemently oppose anything to do with gay rights. This new Pope may be okay with homosexuality, but I assure you that St. Paul was not, and neither are his most devoted followers. The only significant outcome of the Pope's progressivism is to further cement the idea in the minds of evangelicals that Catholics are not "true Christians".

There is some argument about what Paul really meant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_ ... y#Romans_1

[Ultonius]

Yes Christianity which asks us to stone a significant number of the population is responsible for 21st century ethics.


That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

The only time Jesus ever mentions stoning is to discourage a group of men from stoning an adulterous woman.

[Formless]

Yes Christianity which asks us to stone a significant number of the population is responsible for 21st century ethics.


That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Then you are an ignoramus. Do you have any idea how philosophy or science works? Read Plato or Aristotle sometime. Neither of these guys were on the mark on several accounts. And yet, key concepts they and others from their time came up with have had a remarkable effect on how we think about the world today. Jesus' ideas on religion and morality are the same. Not modern by a long shot, but definitely important to the development of modern (western) moral codes. hongi's point is that one of those key concepts he pushed for was egalitarianism, which is fundamental to modern Humanism and most democratic legal codes ever since Thomas Jefferson ripped off Jhon Locke.

[Jerry the Vampire]

Yes Christianity which asks us to stone a significant number of the population is responsible for 21st century ethics.


That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

The only time Jesus ever mentions stoning is to discourage a group of men from stoning an adulterous woman.

Yet at several points he supports the old texts. So we could probably think that except where he states beliefs contrary to the old testament he probably held their beliefs.

[Jerry the Vampire]

Yes Christianity which asks us to stone a significant number of the population is responsible for 21st century ethics.


That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Then you are an ignoramus. Do you have any idea how philosophy or science works? Read Plato or Aristotle sometime. Neither of these guys were on the mark on several accounts. And yet, key concepts they and others from their time came up with have had a remarkable effect on how we think about the world today. Jesus' ideas on religion and morality are the same. Not modern by a long shot, but definitely important to the development of modern (western) moral codes. hongi's point is that one of those key concepts he pushed for was egalitarianism, which is fundamental to modern Humanism and most democratic legal codes ever since Thomas Jefferson ripped off Jhon Locke.

Which moral codes exactly? Only god can judge people (courts go against that) turn the other cheek? I guess there aren't any wars going on then.

[Kitsune]

The only time Jesus ever mentions stoning is to discourage a group of men from stoning an adulterous woman.

Just to be clear, you know virtually all scholars consider that to be an "add on"?

[Formless]

Yes Christianity which asks us to stone a significant number of the population is responsible for 21st century ethics.


That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Then you are an ignoramus. Do you have any idea how philosophy or science works? Read Plato or Aristotle sometime. Neither of these guys were on the mark on several accounts. And yet, key concepts they and others from their time came up with have had a remarkable effect on how we think about the world today. Jesus' ideas on religion and morality are the same. Not modern by a long shot, but definitely important to the development of modern (western) moral codes. hongi's point is that one of those key concepts he pushed for was egalitarianism, which is fundamental to modern Humanism and most democratic legal codes ever since Thomas Jefferson ripped off Jhon Locke.

Which moral codes exactly? Only god can judge people (courts go against that) turn the other cheek? I guess there aren't any wars going on then.

Humansm, dumbass. Can't you read? Its right fucking there at the end of my post. Also, nice try but there are many peace activists and pacifists from the last century who explicitly cited Jesus as one of their inspirations, if only to guilt trip christian voters. So you can't claim he isn't a contributor to modern ethical discourse. Again, you are an ignoramus.

[DarkArk]

Yet at several points he supports the old texts. So we could probably think that except where he states beliefs contrary to the old testament he probably held their beliefs.

The gospels are not that clear as to whether Jesus supports the OT laws or not. He contradicts himself even within the same gospel (Matthew, I think, it's been a few years). Further the rest of the NT throw out the OT laws as soon as they leave the gospels, such as Saul now being able to eat unclean animals in Acts. De facto Christians have been ignoring the Jewish laws almost from the start, since it was difficult to convince people that they had to become Jewish first and then Christians. They're just something that Christians like to trumpet out when they see something they don't like that is contradicted by the OT laws.

Which moral codes exactly?

The basic concept of nations also. You can see the changing in thought from Christendom to the European community starting with the Peace of Westphalia where the first ideas of national sovereignty were put into treaties, notably with secular language.

[Kitsune]

As expected. . . .
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/pope ... -culture-1

Pope Francis blasts abortion as part of 'throw-away culture'

Pope Francis waves to faithful as he arrives for his weekly general audience in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican, Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2013. (AP Photo/Riccardo De Luca) Riccardo De Luca/Associated Press

Pope Francis offered an olive branch of sorts to the doctrine-minded, conservative wing of the Catholic Church on Friday as he denounced abortion as a symptom of today's "throw-away culture" and encouraged Catholic doctors to refuse to perform them.

Francis issued a strong anti-abortion message and cited Vatican teaching on the need to defend the unborn during an audience with Catholic gynecologists.

It came a day after he was quoted as blasting the church's obsession with "small-minded rules" that are driving the faithful away and urging it to focus instead on being merciful and welcoming — an interview that has sent shock waves throughout the church.

Even before the interview was published, conservatives had voiced disappointment that Francis had shied away from restating church rules on such hot-button issues as abortion, homosexuality and gay marriage. Francis explained his reason for doing so in the interview with the Jesuit journal La Civilta Cattolica, saying church teaching on such issues is well-known, he supports it, but that he doesn't feel it necessary to repeat it constantly.

He did repeat that message on Friday, however. In his comments, Francis denounced today's "throw-away culture" that justifies disposing of lives, and said doctors in particular had been forced into situations where they are called to "not respect life."

"Every child that isn't born, but is unjustly condemned to be aborted, has the face of Jesus Christ, has the face of the Lord," he said.

He urged the gynecologists to abide by their consciences and help bring lives into the world. "Things have a price and can be for sale, but people have a dignity that is priceless and worth far more than things," he said.

Francis' comments to Civilta Cattolica contained no change in church teaching, but they represented a radical shift in tone and stood in stark contrast to the priorities of his two immediate predecessors.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both intellectuals for whom doctrine was paramount, an orientation that guided the selection of a generation of bishops and cardinals who, in countries like the United States, have put themselves at the forefront of the culture wars in opposing abortion and gay marriage. They now find themselves being asked to preach more to those people who have fallen away from the church and offer them a compassionate welcome back.

Greg Burke, the Vatican's senior communications adviser, insisted Friday that Francis was by no means calling into question the papacies and priorities of his predecessors.

"The Pope is not condemning his predecessors," Burke told The Associated Press. "What he is saying is 'We've spent a lot of time talking about the boundaries, we've spent a lot of time talking about what is sin and what's not. Now let's move on. Let's talk about mercy. Let's talk about love." '

[Channel72]

Uh it's the fucking Catholic Church. Sola Scriptura is a heresy in the eyes of the Catholics. Until the Protestants came around, a strictly Biblical worldview had never been the Christian worldview. So why should Catholics care what right-wing evangelicals think about the Bible?

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not saying Catholics should care what right-wing evangelicals think. I'm saying I CARE what right-wing evangelicals think, because, unfortunately they have a very loud and obnoxious presence in my country. The Catholic Church is simply yet another organization that edifies the Hebrew Scriptures, which are the source of many social and political problems in this century.

No, it doesn't. And the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. The very modern idea of homosexuality, let alone heterosexuality, didn't even exist in that period. Rather, Paul (like Catholicism) condemns homosexual acts.

This is exactly why the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament are simply incompatible with modern ethics. Homosexual acts are generally the result of a genetic sexual orientation, and thus the distinction between "homosexual acts" and "homosexuality" for the purposes of defining an ethical standard is meaningless.

Take it up with Jesus:

Matthew 5:43 ‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? 47And if you greet only your brothers and sisters,* what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

He says we're all children of God, rapists and murderers and saints and sweet innocent kids.

Yeah, how nice. Too bad Romans 1 also exists and hundreds of millions of Christians care what Paul thinks.

Considering that Christianity is in large respects responsible for 21st century ethics, I find that ironic.

Oh please. As soon as anyone says some statement like this I usually just stop paying attention. Seriously, I'm glad you took a few philosophy courses or something, but the reality is that 21st century Western ethics are rooted in many complex paradigms and causes, from Greco-Roman thought to Marxism. Judaism and Christianity are just another influence, albeit a significant one. However, the theocratic system of politics/morals proposed in the Old Testament is a pretty faint influence on modern ethical norms. And of course, Jesus's biggest contribution was basically the idea of personal intent over Pharisaic legalism, the importance of forgiveness, and a universal, inclusive system that went beyond the Jews. (Too bad he also utterly polluted the message with his eschatological bullshit. The majority of his parables are just metaphors for what's going to happen when the world ends and God kicks everyone's ass.)

Anyway, Christianity is important, but I doubt you can prove that it's "largely" responsible for 21st century ethics, as opposed to say, Athenian, Roman or 18th-century Enlightenment ideas about democracy and personal rights.

[Channel72]

The point is that whatever "progressive", or egalitarian ideas you can extract from the New Testament, whether it's the inclusion of the Gentiles, the emphasis on personal forgiveness, the idea of equality (there is no "Jew or Greek" in Christ...) is seriously, profoundly diluted by the fact that the whole fucking thing is inextricably grounded in an urgent eschatological fantasy that cosmically vindicates Jesus and completely suppresses not only dissenters, but people who were simply uninterested in his teachings. Almost everything in the NT is colored by this eschatological expectation. The reason for example, that Paul teaches that everyone is equal, yet doesn't discourage the status quo of slavery, is precisely because he doesn't give a shit about this world, because he thinks it's going to end.... aaaaaaaany second now.

[Kitsune]

No disagreement with the fact that most of the evidence Jesus (and Paul) that that the world would end in their time
Granted, Crossan has a different view and considers Jesus not to be an apocalyptic preacher (like Ehrman) but instead a revolutionary.
Has decent arguments but not sure he is right, being that we are looking through the lens of multiple reinterpretations.
This is all assume that Jesus is not simply a mythic figure as support by Robert Price and Richard Carrier (choosing two non cranks)