Well... it's not really confusion at this point, it's more of the same.

How loving and charitable: "homosexuality is not a crime"... sodomy laws should be stricken from countries.

"Being homosexual isn't a crime".... well of course.

More acrimony directed at faithful bishops from Pope Francis:
"These bishops have to have a process of conversion, tenderness, please, as God has for each one of us."

Maybe traditionalists should start acting out in accord with homosexual tendencies to get some papal ire directed at it.
Where is that necessary tenderness when the matter is all things liturgical?

The articles running this story make no distinction between the inclination and the willful acting out.... and of course they're not going to. Of course Pope Francis isn't that much of a fool to think that they would.

Pope Francis: "It's not a crime. Yes, but it's a sin. Fine, but first let's distinguish between a sin and a crime."
And guess what part of that most are going to completely ignore.... Catholics in educational settings included.

This type of talk reminds me of what CS Lewis discusses in Abolition of Man.

I am not a fan of Francis but I will defend him on this one, I'm pretty sure this was directed at Islamic societies like Iran where homosexuality is often punished with death. It has become a bit of a cliche, but Iran is the country that pushes homosexuals off of buildings. I think we should all agree that this is inhumane.

As opposed to stoning them to death, isn't that what God called for in ancient Israel?

There is absolutely no evidence that anyone in ancient Israel was ever stoned to death for homosexuality or any other offense, in ancient law codes, not just in Israel, but also in Egypt, Greece and in Hammurabi's code, the death penalty was "on the books" for pretty much every single offense, but was never actually used, the penalty was simply a way to demonstrate the seriousness of the offense. Moreover, the entire point of the Mosaic Law was to prevent mob violence by putting by requiring due process and putting everything in the hands of the Sanhedrin.

At any rate, what the hell is this comment, are you an atheist now, you sound like one of those Internet atheists who mock the Bible and everything Christians say, or maybe you're just Richard Dawkins under an assumed name.

Internet atheist, for asking a question? Quite the jump there...

My point was if God called for the death of homosexual offenders, how would that be inhumane today?

Regarding homosexuality, in that interview he says
“God loves us as we are.”

No call to conversion.
This will be viewed as granting license for the action.

While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

I have yet to meet one single homosexual person who does not know the Church's teaching on homosexuality.

There are many who do indeed claim that the Church doesn't hold homosexuality to be a sin, just like there are some who claim that the Church doesn't teach abortion is a sin. They do this by claiming that such teachings only date to the late Middle Ages (or later), that they are not Biblical, or contradict the Bible, and aren't infallible. They will further claim that such late teachings are the product of "the bigotry of their time" and that further doctrinal development that those biased teachings were wrong.

You’ve asked them?
Or have they solicited it to you? “Oh yes, I know the behavior is sinful.”

I know many Catholics who truly believe that “bedroom inclinations” do not determine if a person is a “good or bad person”. Usually followed with the typical fluff of “it’s how I treat others that really matters”

I'm glad someone else posted this. I was going to, but had no idea under which thread. Pub, politics, newsroom, family, or Catholicism 101. Pub it is.

This would be a good time for someone to help with some citations as to the extent one is obligated to follow what the Pope says. When is a statement a matter of prudence versus faith? What if someone makes a compelling case for making homosexual acts illegal? It's too bad the articles did not emphasize the sinful nature of homosexual acts. I'd rather think the media chose to ignore or downplay this. I hope it wasn't an oversight on the Pope's part.

Okay, fair.

Neither Christians nor Jews have ever interpreted the penalties in the Mosaic law strictly literally, any more than judges in the United States take the sentences attached to various offenses in the American penal code strictly literally. The law might command a life sentence after 3 felonies (the "3 Strikes" law) but if those 3 felonies are for non-violent offenses, say shoplifting, no judge on the bench in this country is going to actually give a life sentence, particularly if the defendant is young, say 20 years old.

If you study ancient law codes, you will see this in action, the legendary "Code of Draco" from ancient Athens prescribed the death penalty for relatively trivial offenses, this is the origin of the word "Draconian" meaning "unreasonably severe", according to ancient legend, Draco defended his law code by saying "I think small offenses deserve death, and I can't give a more severe penalty for a more serious crime." A funny line, but he almost certainly never said it. And yet, based on what we know about ancient Athens, and we know quite a bit, it seems that the death penalty was rarely ever given, and certainly not for the kind of trivial offenses that the law supposedly required. The execution of Socrates by being forced to drink Hemlock is notable precisely because it was contrary to the normally lenient nature of Athenian justice.

There is actually a word to describe this kind of law code, where penalties are attached to offenses in theory but judges were generally lenient in practice. I wish I could remember it....but this kind of flexibility, harsh in principle, and lenient is practice, is common with ancient law codes.

And again there is no Biblical or post-Biblical evidence that in ancient Israel that the death penalty was ever used for any crime other than pre-meditated murder.

I tried to post the exact same thing, beat me to it! Regardless of what some claim, including Fr. James Martin, the teaching of the Church is clear on this matter.

The people in my life are people with whom I discuss many things. Sure we talk about Catholicism. I've had that conversation with folks I meet at a secular conference, which usually starts with a question about some piece of jewelry I am wearing or when I cross myself before I eat. There are folks who will ask "is the Catholic Church going to change and allow gay marriage?"

There is a gay member of my extended but very close family who would give me a kidney or his last $10 if I needed it, yet, he would not attend one of our family member's wedding because at that time gay marriage was still illegal.

YMMV, you may meet very different people.

Granted, I am NOT talking about comment box wars or Facebook strangers, Reddit sessions or what some TV talking head decides to show for outrage bait.

In general, this is, or at least used to be, a major difference between Catholics and Protestants. Protestants generally just deny or openly reject any moral or theological teaching they don't like, while Catholics are more inclined to say “ yes I know I am in a state of sin and if I don't repent, I'll probably go to hell.” This is what fundamentalists and atheists mean when they complain about Catholic “hypocrisy”. However, I think the honest hypocrite who accepts a moral authority higher than himself even if he doesn't follow it, is in the morally superior position

It’s a clarity that is being obscured by confusing things said by our Pope.

From Fr Z’s blog (a quote from America by Cardinal McElroy):



This is from a man our Pope made a Cardinal in 2022.

No distinction between the act and the person?
That is clearly scandalous and will serve as justification for those who think that the two shouldn’t be separated. To think otherwise is a few country miles beyond naïve

I mean my goodness you could have added McElory’s blather in Dostoyevsky’s section on The Grand Inquisitor and it would fit in with nary a seam.

It gets better… more from the wise Cardinal:




Ahem…
“This objection should be met head on”

Nope… no license granting here. This is just good ol orthodox Catholic teaching.

We have a bad Pope.

So what?

Ignore him and wait for the next Pope and pray he's better.

Things are better that way.