Pope on gays : "Who am I to judge?"

[dps]

But also perspectives differ, I think of Anglicanism which, unlike Catholicism, believes doctrine can change. Their entire view of doctrine is that it should be dynamic and pragmatic

Do they justify that by declaring that God keeps changing his mind?

A non-Anglican, non-Catholic perspective on the matter would be that God's will doesn't change, but our understanding of His will can change.  Doesn't seem like that should be so hard to grasp--no one seems to have a problem with the same principle when it comes to science--i.e., the laws of nature don't change, but our understanding of them certainly does.

... and which church argues that their understanding is merely tentative and will in future be proven wrong one our understanding of the will of god improves? ... and which church argues that it's moral teaching is not right due to it being the will of god but merely a best guess of his will which will later be improved upon once our understanding of it improves? ... and which church argues that any and all of it's teachings are potentially falsifiable and thus potentially wrong and that despite this you as a believer should wager your immortal soul on those teachings non-the-less?

that is mere post-facto bs trying to cover up for the fact that an allegedly absolute and un-alterable truth was replaced with a new and inconsistent absolute and un-alterable truth for secular and material reasons.


edit: there is one church, that is the church of science and Dawkins is it's prophet.

OK, let me re-phrase:  it doesn't seem like it would be so hard to understand for someone who doesn't have an axe to grind.

[Sheilbh]

So that's sort of my point. At one hand, you are fine with them changing their doctrine to whatever seem to be working for them at any given time, ie. with them not having sure knowledge on how a proper Christian church should handle itself.

Look I've given two examples. On the one hand you've the Catholic Church which is absolute on doctrine, but extremely careful in what it declares is doctrine. In that case the only option is a change of emphasis and tone. For example the Pope's comments on whether there'd ever be women priests. Roughly he said 'no. That's settled.' But then went on to say 'But look at the wider picture. Remember that in the Church, the honor accorded to Jesus' mother is higher than that of any of the apostles, and that women, simply by virtue of being women, are above priests in importance to the Body of Christ.' That's an extraordinary shift in tone while hewing to orthodoxy.

The other example is the Anglican church which, roughly, agrees with dps. They make the point that actually the Church fathers and the Bible are very difficult to understand and they're always becoming more difficult because we're growing more distant from the cultural landscape from which they came. It's not changed, but we have and it is impossible and farcical to re-imagine ourselves into the mind of first century Jews or fourth century Romans. In addition the currents that have changed us must change the way we read any text even a divine one - we can't forget the discovery of the new world, the atom bomb or the billions that live outside of traditional Christendom. So whenever there's silence, or ambiguity, or tension within the Bible we have to use our reason to proceed in how it should be interpreted now. But that reason is human, it isn't eternal, it's entirely contingent on the situation we find ourselves in now.

Those are two approaches that seem reasonable to me. The Catholics claim hierarchies of truth and elevate to the absolute only very few articles of faith. Other, lower levels, that may be true at one time can be found untrue at another. The Anglican view is a bit more liberal, they don't presume to declare on the lower levels of 'truth' because to do so would be overly exclusive; the Anglican communion or the CofE are, by design, broad churches with little central teaching. They do however have a sort-of intellectual framework for Bishops, who represent authority, to exercise. But that authority comes not just from them being a Bishop but from the exercise of their reason and the piety of their people.

Edit: I just found a couple of lovely lines on Anglicanism, first from Robert Runcie when he was Archbishop of Canterbury which sums up the Anglican approach, 'Anglicanism has a radically provisional character which we must never allow to be obscured'. Or more religiously the 1930s Archbishop Ramsey: 'While the Anglican Church is vindicated by its place in history, with a strikingly balanced witness to Gospel and Church and sound learning, its greater vindication lies in its pointing through its own history to something of which it is a fragment. Its credentials are its incompleteness, with the tension and the travail in its soul. It is clumsy and untidy, it baffles neatness and logic. For it is sent not to commend itself as 'the best type of Christianity', but by its very brokenness to point to the universal Church wherein all have died.'

Needless to say neither a Pope nor a holy roller would talk in those terms.

On the other hand, despite the above, you accept their opinion on god's nature as a given. Based on what?

As I said earlier belief comes first.

[Caliga]

Pope Francis: Church can't 'interfere' with gays
By Eric Marrapodi and Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editors


(CNN) - Pope Francis said the church has the right to express its opinions but not to "interfere spiritually" in the lives of gays and lesbians, expanding on explosive comments he made in July about not judging homosexuals.

In a wide-ranging interview published Thursday, the pope also said that women must play a key role in church decisions and brushed off critics who say he should be more vocal about fighting abortion and gay marriage.

Moreover, if the church fails to find a "new balance" between its spiritual and political missions, the pope warned, its moral foundation will "fall like a house of cards."

The interview, released by Jesuit magazines in several different languages and 16 countries on Thursday, offers perhaps the most expansive and in-depth view of Francis' vision for the Roman Catholic Church.

The pope's comments don't break with Catholic doctrine or policy, but instead show a shift in approach, moving from censure to engagement.

Elected in March with the expectation that he would try to reform the Vatican, an institution that many observers say is riven by corruption and turf wars, Francis said his first mission is to change the church's "attitude."

"The church has sometimes locked itself up in small things," the pope said, "in small-minded rules."

"The people of God want pastors," Francis continued, "not clergy acting like bureaucrats or government officials."

The interview was conducted by the Rev. Antonio Spadaro, editor of La Civilta Cattolica, a Jesuit journal based in Rome, over three meetings this August at Francis' apartment in Rome.

The pope approved the transcript in Italian, according to America magazine, a Jesuit journal based in New York that initiated the interview and supervised its translation into English.

Advance copies of the interview were provided to several news organizations, including CNN.

Jesuits from around the world submitted questions to Spadaro. Francis answered them with the frankness that has become a hallmark of his young papacy.

To begin the interview, Spadoro bluntly asks, "Who is Jorge Mario Bergolio?" - Francis's name before he was elected pope.

"I am a sinner," the pope answers. "This is the most accurate definition. It is not a figure of speech, a literary genre. I am a sinner."

The pope didn't mention any particular sins, and Catholic theology holds that all humans are sinners, a consequence of Adam and Eve's original transgression. Still, a pope describing himself foremost as "sinner" is striking.

Offering new glimpses of his personal life, Francis said he prays at the dentist's office and that he felt trapped in the Vatican's traditional papal apartments. (He moved to a smaller one in a nearby building.) He has a taste for tragic artists and Italian films and keeps the will of his beloved grandmother in his prayerbook.

But it was the pope's vision for the church's future  - painted in broad strokes - that's sure to rile or inspire Catholics, depending on which side of the church they sit.

Here are some highlights:

On Women

Francis said, emphatically, that the "door is closed," on women's ordination, a statement that disappointed many Catholic liberals.

But that doesn't mean the church should consider women secondary or inferior, Francis said. "The feminine genius is needed wherever we make important decisions," he told Spadora.

Francis also called on Catholics to think hard about the function of women in the church.

"Women are asking deep questions that must be addressed," the pope said. "The church cannot be herself without the woman and her role."

On Homosexuality

When Francis was a bishop in Buenos Aires, Argentina, he received letters from gays and lesbians who said they were "socially wounded" by the church, he said.

"But the church does not want to do this," Francis said in the interview.

The pope then recalled his comments in July, when he told the media aboard a flight to Rome, "Who am I to judge" gay people?

"By saying this, I said what the catechism says," the pope told Spadaro. The catechism, the Catholic Church's book of official doctrine, condemns homosexual acts, but says gays and lesbians "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."

"Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person."

Francis said that someone once asked him if he "approved" of homosexuality.

"I replied with another question," he said. "`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. Here we enter into the mystery of the human being."

Abortion, gay marriage and contraception

Some American Catholics grumble that Francis has been largely silent on signature Catholic political issues.

"I'm a little bit disappointed in Pope Francis that he hasn't, at least that I'm aware of, said much about unborn children, about abortion, and many people have noticed that," Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, said earlier this month.

Francis said that he's aware of the criticism, but he is not going to change.

"We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods," he told his Jesuit interviewer. "I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that."

But the pope said the church's teachings on those issue are clear, and he clearly believes in those teachings, so what else is there to say?

"It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time," Francis said.

False prophets and quick decisions

Only false prophets claim to have all the answers, Francis said.

"The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt," he said. "You must leave room for the Lord."

But church leaders, including himself, haven't always practiced humility, the pope admitted.

Many of the bad decisions he made while leading Catholics in Argentina came about because of  his "authoritarianism and quick manner of making decisions," the pope said.

That won't happen again, Francis said, as he begins to steer the church in a new direction.

He didn't offer an exact course, but he said change will come. Sooner or later.

"Many think that changes and reforms can take place in a short time," he said. "I believe that we always need time to lay the foundations for real, effective change. And this is the time of discernment."

[Sheilbh]

I still can't get over the Pope doing an interview, far less the two hour press conference on the plane

[Tamas]

Well I can only repeat the previous posts in this thread: if he is speaking otherwise than previous Popes, while Popes have like the hotline to God than either:

a) this Pope is false, and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
b) the anti-gay Popes were false,  and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
c) they have no clue what God`s intentions are, so Catholicism is fake

[Tamas]

so my point is that you cannot be preaching divine intentions than suddenly change your mind. You reveal that you and your ilk have been full of shit.

[The Brain]

Catholicism is organized pedophilia. Hardly fake.

[Caliga]

 

Tamas, he's still not saying being gay is a good thing and it's awesome to be gay as far as the Church is concerned.

[merithyn]

Well I can only repeat the previous posts in this thread: if he is speaking otherwise than previous Popes, while Popes have like the hotline to God than either:

a) this Pope is false, and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
b) the anti-gay Popes were false,  and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
c) they have no clue what God`s intentions are, so Catholicism is fake

The sky is blue and the grass is green, so Catholicism is fake.

[Tamas]

Tamas, he's still not saying being gay is a good thing and it's awesome to be gay as far as the Church is concerned.

fair enough, but than any previous Catholic dignitary who wanted to condemn/prosecute them was in the wrong, or this mild Pope is. Either way, they can be wrong, and you cannot be wrong when teaching the moral guidance of divine supremacy, because to be not 100% correct means being full of shit.

[Caliga]

What he has done in my view is considerably soften the Church's rhetoric on the topic, which is good but not really any sort of material change.

Still, I haven't yet decided if Pope Francis is an exceptionally good Pope or Pope Benedict was just an exceptionally bad Pope (who makes Francis look good in comparison).

[Tamas]

Well I can only repeat the previous posts in this thread: if he is speaking otherwise than previous Popes, while Popes have like the hotline to God than either:

a) this Pope is false, and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
b) the anti-gay Popes were false,  and since this could happen, Catholicism is fake
c) they have no clue what God`s intentions are, so Catholicism is fake

The sky is blue and the grass is green, so Catholicism is fake.

Well as Viking wrote earlier, I haven`t seen any "we might be wrong though, so take it with a pinch of salt" disclaimer on any Catholic teachings, so no, they have no room to change their mind or doctrine or stance on anything.

[The Brain]

Still, I haven't yet decided if Pope Francis is an exceptionally good Pope or Pope Benedict was just an exceptionally bad Pope (who makes Francis look good in comparison).

He deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Tamas]

What he has done in my view is considerably soften the Church's rhetoric on the topic, which is good but not really any sort of material change.

Still, I haven't yet decided if Pope Francis is an exceptionally good Pope or Pope Benedict was just an exceptionally bad Pope (who makes Francis look good in comparison).

He is changing the rhetoric to fit the times, which is what the Church has been doing since Day 1 I guess, and if that`s what keeps people going, then I am fine with it. I am just pointing out that if you adopt what you teach as divine truth to fit the contemporary marketing lines, then you are by definition full of shit.

[Caliga]

He deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

No he doesn't.  He's done a lot to promote world peace already.  You only get the Nobel Peace Prize if you haven't actually done anything yet, but the Nobel dudes really really really want you to.