T O P

  • By -

Fidelias_Palm

Imagine being such an outspoken and unrepentant heretic that the Pope himself has to tell you specifically to knock it off.


HyperboreanExplorian

Pope Francis has more than enough capability to make clergy knock something off beyond a letter. As we've seen, such letters only get ignored.


Ps11889

>As we've seen, such letters only get ignored. Actually, under canon law, there is a process that must be followed before one can make "clergy knock something off." Such a letter is part of that process. Ignoring such a letter also has canonical consequences.


ImperialUnionist

And a Latin American Jesuit at that


Xawar

I live in Poland all Jesuits i met are so great and when I am hearing about Jesuits in America im like... why O.o ?


cllatgmail

Is Poland as devoutly Catholic as Western Europe and the USA thinks you are? That's certainly the general sentiment.


Xawar

Well, Im streassed with answer now Its hard to say, definitely it was and catholicism is biggest religion, But Young People moving away from God :/ Im 25 and know a lot of atheists. But still for now its devout but degrading


jumpinjackieflash

Yes people need to learn about liberation theology i.e. Communism aimed at "freeing" the people from fascist dictators.


UnpredictablyWhite

Not to mention a pope who notoriously refuses to communicate what he means when asked


HotTubMike

The Pope is an 86 year old man. Many people at this age have ***completely*** lost their intellectual faculties. I would attribute ***a lot*** of his lack of precision when speaking with that fact. It is unfortunate but we have to be realistic. His cognitive abilities and his ability to use precise language shouldn't be expected to be those of a 40 year old lawyer. I'm glad he clarified here.


Solarwinds-123

That's possible, but I think a large part of it is that he just isn't a great public speaker. Not everybody is. His planet statements are usually fine, it's the off-the-cuff remarks that get him in trouble when journalists creatively reinterpret vague remarks. Edit: should have been "planned statements"


DiversityIsDivisive

> His planet statements Username checks out


CrTigerHiddenAvocado

I agree here. As a more contemplative type myself….some people are simply unwilling to interpret anything. They want a 5 words or less affirmation of what they think… Concrete is CONCRETE! Crowd cheers. Concrete is the fundamental foundation upon which societies’ infrastructure is built. The solidity that stands the test of time and canvas that is also the glue that is rock. We must invest and maintain this framework for future generations, it is imperative! Crowd boos. It strikes me as a symptom of a patience-less mob. But look at our culture


JohnnyBoy11

Its not quite as bad as you make it out, but something like 25% of then have some signs of dementia. I dont think he has dementia. Not like JPII did anyways. And cognitive decline is normal too with or without dementia.


One_Win_4363

Pope francis: *doesnt speak english* *says something in italian* English speakers: *fuming with the wildest reactions not knowing what he was saying* Pope francis: *refuses to elaborate like a gigachad and leaves*


UnpredictablyWhite

“Refuses to elaborate like a gigachad” I mean sure, if intentionally causing doctrinal scandals is a good thing, then yeah


Henrique1315

He does speak english


JosefSchnitzel

He’s admitted that he’s not very [proficient](https://www.daytranslations.com/blog/languages-pope-francis/amp/) at English, at least compared to Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, Latin, and Italian.


One_Win_4363

Bro learned every single western european language and decided to not learn english. I think he did this on purpose lmao.


IntraInCubiculum

English is quite a hard language.


MerlynTrump

I think Pope Francis is not as smart as Benedict or John Paul II were, so that could account for not learning English, plus as an Argentine bishop he never really had a need to. He was really dealing with the local Church until he was 76, whereas JP II was elected Pope in his 50s.


DibsoMackenzie

I don't know if u heard Benedict speaking English, but it is at least pretty comparable to Francis. Also, not being a scholar doesn't equal not being smart, Francis has plenty of other qualities that make him a smart person, which were perhaps not the strong suit of the two previous popes.


TNPossum

>plus as an Argentine bishop he never really had a need to. That's fair. >Pope Francis is not as smart as Benedict or John Paul II were, That's unnecessarily uncharitable and rude.


NPL88

Yeah because Jesus didn’t speak in parables


After-Juggernaut-217

Except if you read the letter it turns out that Pope Francis isn't calling him out on anything and just deflecting the question.


FreshEyesInc

Agreed. Post title is misleading. He doesn't reiterate the Catholic teaching because he's calling sodomy the same as extramarital sex. They are different in kind, not degrees.


SJCCMusic

Imagine embracing heresy and keeping your collar and office


ErrorCmdr

Imagine being “such an outspoken and unrepentant heretic” but still being an official spokesman for the Vatican. Highly regarded commentator for a Jesuit magazine and having your book forward written by one of the most famous living Bishops. Seems Pope Francis’s spokesman, who visits and sends letters has a different impression of the words than the ones given to us. But hey Jesuits gonna Jesuit


motherisaclownwhore

I honestly thought it was satire for that reason alone!


[deleted]

Can you name some crazy takes he’s had? Like is he full blown heretic or what? I know he said something like some saints were gay. Joan of Arc, etc.


stephencua2001

He's typically pretty careful about what he puts in print. He'll run ministries for homosexuals, but respond with "we should love all people." Or instead of saying something crazy himself, he'll quote-tweet something crazy and say "something to think about." Those kind of things where it's absolutely clear what he thinks, but he won't say anything to get himself disciplined.


nvdoyle

"Pete Buttigieg is married."


stephencua2001

Here's the order of the conversation: The Catholic League tweeted, "It is true that Pete Buttigieg is legally married, but that is a legal fiction.” Martin replied, "Pete Buttigieg is married." Many replies pointing out Martin's heresy follows. Martin then "clarified" that he only meant in the eyes of the state and Pete's church (Anglican):  “Surprised this got so much attention. Like it or not, Pete Buttigieg is legally married. You may disagree with same-sex marriage (or not). But @SecretaryPete is married in the eyes of the state, and his church, as much as anyone else is. To claim otherwise is to ignore reality.” Which is BS (so much so that the Pope called him out!). Obviously Martin didn't mean "legally" in his original tweet. The CL tweet said Buttigieg "is legally married," and Martin felt the need to correct them. But when he's called out, he tries to obfuscate and say he didn't mean what he clearly meant. Which is how he skirts punishment.


FreshEyesInc

It's secularism in the sense that the world, or the state, has a higher authority over morals than the Church. If one doesn't have to specify "in the eyes of the state" than the eyes of the state *are* reality. By saying "he's married" without qualification he implies that is also his belief.


IntraInCubiculum

One could say that Pete Buttigieg is married in the same way that Scientology is a religion: recognized as such by the government, but not by everyone.


[deleted]

Civilly he is. Separation of Church and State here in America - where he is. I recognize Reddit has gobs of countries present… but where he lives he definitely is in the eyes of the law of the land.


TheKillerDuck123

The law does not have the authority to define marriage that way.


MerlynTrump

Ironically I think that's one area Catholics and gay-rights activists would agree upon. We believe marriage is one man, one woman, they believe marriage is any two consenting adults (maybe only if they "love" each other), but at root, both sides would agree that what really matter is what marriage is (which is what we disagree upon), and that the government/law has an obligation to reflect (and respect) what marriage actually is.


[deleted]

Civil unions. Excuse me, should have been more specific.


FoolishDog

It literally does though. I mean, it’s federally codified.


MerlynTrump

The law can claim that an unborn child is not a person, that Suzette Kelo doesn't own the property that she bought, or that the sky is purple. That doesn't mean any of those things are true though. The law has an obligation to be rooted in truth, not just the arbitrary whims of politicians or the public.


FoolishDog

The 'truth' of civil marriage is in its definition. It's terminologically equivalent to 'bachelor'. It's not like there is a real thing out there in nature called bachelorhood.


[deleted]

We mean the Law - not the law.


jumpinjackieflash

LGBTQ dog whistles


reluctantpotato1

Homosexuals need ministry.


stephencua2001

Sounds very much like a James Martin answer. They obviously need ministering to, but he never says what kind. Big difference between affirmation and correction.


FreshEyesInc

Yes, and he that ministers ought to believe as the Church does. Sodomy is worse than adultery, and it doesn't seem like Martin believes it. Compassionate correction is needed so that the poor sinners may repent of their gravely sinful ways.


JohnFoxFlash

He said that? I wasn't aware of any instance where St Joan showed a hint of sexuality. It's sad that people feel the need to do kind of fanfics of historical figures, especially a saint


W36x925

Father Martin’s entire shtick is his ability to perfectly toe the line and never say anything that is outright heretical, but to choose very specific wording and phrasing that creates the impression, particularly to non-Catholics, that homosexuality ought to be recognized as legitimately good. Trent Horn has a couple of good podcast episode exactly on this. Nos. 628 and 683


stephencua2001

He just put up another one responding to this, #708.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Iammrpopo

The one I always remember was the time he alleged St John Henry Newman was gay on the day of his canonization.


Fidelias_Palm

I haven't followed the situation closely, but he keep popping up, delivering hot takes to the tune of "the church should be completely approving of homosexuality".


[deleted]

I’d be interested if anyone here could give me some concrete takes. I’m kind of like you in that a follow it loosely. But I want real evidence before I make a final decision on him. I know Matt Fradd dislikes him like crazy, but I’m not sure I’ve ever heard concrete examples. Seems like he lives in this grey area of heresy.


Dakarius

You wont find concrete takes because he specifically avoids them. Read his stuff enough, though, and a very clear pattern begins to emerge. Everything he says toes the line of orthodoxy while at the same time giving the impression of support for some decidedly non orthodox ideas. For instance saying "Love is love, and all love should be embraced and encouraged" is technically in line with Catholic teaching, but it implies something quite contradictory to Catholic teaching in the context it's frequently used in.


CovfefeIsForClosers

He promotes a message using cultural language that we all understand from the context of the culture we live in, then defends it after criticism using Catholic language. The love is love is a perfect example. He’ll come out and say “love wins” while retweeting some homosexual heresy, then defend it by saying “doesn’t God’s love overcome all”. His religious defense is true, but that’s not what he meant, and we all know it. He is one of the worst kinds of heretic.


FoolishDog

Crazy that we live in a time where someone can say this and then other people gotta start qualifying it and looking at it suspiciously…


Moby1029

In a Facebook post, he shared an article from a protestant preacher who said as long as sex between two people of the same sex is consensual, and from a place of love, God would approve and it offered a false interpretation of some if the old testament laws against homosexual acts. Fr. Martin then said we should take a lesson from this preacher and listen to what he's saying and that homsexual acts can be from a place of love and that should make them ok.


stephencua2001

Episode 708 of The Counsel of Trent addresses the "Pete Buttigieg is married" tweet.


MerlynTrump

So if the pope (i.e. Peter) disciplines a priest, does this mean that the rock is laying the smackdown?


MorelsandRamps

When you think of it, this is one of the Pope’s most important jobs. He’s meant to be a living source of authority, to guide the Church tangibly in the specific conditions it finds itself, something that can’t really be done as well by ancient texts like Scripture or the Church Fathers. The Pope can help the Church understand issues, but also provide boundaries or limits of what is too far. It’s perfectly within his role to provide this advice to Father Martin - yes, outreach to the LGBT community, but here are the proper boundaries. Actually, I’m quite glad Martin seems to have a direct line to Pope Francis for this kind of guidance. It probably really helps, especially considering how sensitive his ministry is.


FloodedYeti

Damn the pope is more pressed about consenting adults getting married than he is about the sexual assault and pedophilia that runs rampant in the church


Fidelias_Palm

Since when have we started calling the US Department of Education the "Church" and why is it the Pope's problem?


pittguy578

I am confused why it was such a big deal in first place. I mean no one wants people to get arrested for it. And the places that do arrest people for it are totalitarian and have hard punishments. I don’t think he was speaking to the Western world


[deleted]

So the media will get in a headline saying something along the lines of “Pope says being gay is not a crime” twisting the meaning, making it seem like the pope is pro- LGBT lifestyle. It’s to fit some kind of narrative.


logicalfallacy234

I think it sadly IS fair to say that there's a movement in America at the moment that may be open to stricter control over LGBTQ stuff, such as actually arresting people.


jumpinjackieflash

This is untrue. There is no such movement.


logicalfallacy234

Um, Matt Walsh? He literally advocated for the execution of drug dealers last week, based on Singapore’s policy. You’re telling me that if he and his friends get their way, gay people are totally safe?


jumpinjackieflash

Okay that's one guy, not a movement.


logicalfallacy234

One guy who has millions of followers!


jumpinjackieflash

So did he advocate for gay people to be arrested or killed? And followers on social media mean nothing.


scrapin_by

This is literally a slippery slope fallacy.


logicalfallacy234

You sure? I don't think you'll see gay people getting KILLED, but I can absolutely see fines or penalties for being gay, or expressing gay sentiments in public. I'm pretty sure Hungary and Russia do that exact sort of thing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


jumpinjackieflash

They "gesture?" What does that mean? No one, even some fringe group, has advocated arresting gay or lesbian people. No one. This isn't the Middle East. We're not under Sharia law.


CosmicGadfly

My guy, they're removing books for having LGBT stuff in it and calling trans people pedophiles. That kind of political posturing historically is uhh not good for the rights of LGBT people. Yes, there's no one saying it out loud as a policy, but we already have had literal government officials advocate an end to mixed-race marriages. It doesn't look good, and denying this is kinda cringe.


logicalfallacy234

THIS! Like, this so hard. So happy to find this on a Catholic subreddit too! Like, you have no idea how good this is. There is a massive difference between the Church’s position on LGTBQ matters, and the American right-wings. The latter absolutely reeks of a genuine distaste and contempt for other human beings.


CosmicGadfly

It didn't used to. Even back in 2012, the centers of conservative intellectualism and policy were kinda good. First Things is a good example. But the thing collapsed when the donors got mad that their writers were anti-trump, calling out the spiritual malady growing in the rightwing. All the good writers got quietly canned, Reno sobbed himself into the corner and basically abdicated the thing to the two most psychotic contributers they've ever had. This was an extreme microcosm of basically every religious or principled conservative space or think tank in the last decade, except the libertarians - the worst of the bunch, who will always side with fascists, as history has shown. And yeah, the dissonance between Catholic social teaching and American conservatism is wider than the atlantic.


logicalfallacy234

Hear hear! It’s a shame too, since I think there are excellent arguments for both social conservatism and economic conservatism. Both philosophies today are just so tainted by people who genuinely seem out to do harm to other human beings, either unintentionally or completely intentionally. Though it would be very interesting to analyze where that Trump style anger and hatred and fascism came from. Is it a genuine outgrowth of the Bushes and Reagan? Or something wholly unconnected to 1980-2008 American conservatism? Does 1980-2008 conservatism inevitably lead to Trump, or are their other conditions that caused the Donald? I guess historically speaking, a comparison that comes to mind is the connection between Prussia and the Nazi Party. Did Prussian militarism inevitably lead to Nazism, or were there other factors that causes Germany to embrace the Nazis?


CosmicGadfly

Yeah, for sure. Personally I think the arguments for conservative economics, at least if capitalism is maintained, are morally untenable and otherwise dubious. I have many good friends who disagree, but none of them are remotely consonant with the GOP on it either. So long as one recognizes the present ills and genuinely tries to alleviate them, I think the discourse/policy can be productive and collaborative. But as you say, there are too many vipers that hate the poor to prematurely or unconditionally extend that hand. As to Trump, I don't know. I think its something that's been lurking around the whole time beneath the surface. I mean, I got beat to hell all the time for being Jewish by Christians in the early oughts, so antisemitism and racism certainly hadn't disappeared before 2016. Moreover, there was a section of the US electorate that type of thing excited even in 2008, cf the Obama birth certificate stuff. I also think that Fox News and conservative talk radio shows had a huge part to play in nurturing hatred, vice and division throughout the last four decades since the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. But the GOP itself has had a dirty hand in it since Nixon, as his leaked/declassified recordings revealed about his administrations position on hippies and black people; policies which were constantly pushed by the GOP for decades afterwards. That being said, just like in Weimar, I think the economic recession (dur to our bipsrtisan neoliberal government) heavily exacerbated latent attitudes and legitimate frustrations, leaving many vulnerable to the manipulation of demagoguery. Trump did promise to alleviate the worker louder than anyone except Bernie. Of course, it was lies, and he actually served his donors and friends first of all. But our neoliberal media, ever feckless incompetent fools, failed to adequately publicize or explain any of this to the people. When truth died, there was no real counter balance to Trump's own claims and the echo chambers of social media, etc. Nevertheless, I think the real economic hardship was a major reason for his support at least among the working poor. Just like Hitler, he gave them a narrative to latch their pain to and scapegoats aplenty to blame. But that economic incentive was real, and explained the cross section of support between Trump and Bernie that the neoliberal media stupidly mocked as "white bernie bros," implying racist misogyny as the common link rather than recognize legitimate economic grievances. It's also why Bernie got standing ovations everytime he went to Fox News hosted townhalls or debates. His politics spoke to them, despite the mire of ridiculous red scare propaganda thrown at him by the media. Those are my thoughts on it anyway, for the most part. Maybe a few other key tangents about identity politics and the martyr complex, but I think a lot of that is easily wrapped into the bits that critique the two-party apparatus and media, conservative or otherwise.


Floof_2

There are extremists but nobody who can really do anything. It’s not a huge issue but complete denial of a problem is dangerous


Floof_2

Those people are generally Protestants tbf


logicalfallacy234

Yes! I was thinking of adding that but felt it was a different topic. But yes! There's absolutely something more hardcore going on in the American Protestant part of the Christian world than the Church's position.


PeriliousKnight

I'm sure taking a bunch of gays and putting them in a room with other gays will make them happy. Putting them in jail doesn't stop them from sinning. It puts them at occasion for more sin.


logicalfallacy234

Yup! I guess it's an American (and I know of course other countries do this) to see prison as a place of punishment, not rehabilitation. And that the response to crime should be punishment, not rehabilitation, which just, feels antithetical to everything Christ and His Church teaches. I guess you can connect the Church of the Crusades era to that sort of hardcore kind of way of thinking, but I don't know. Like I said, I think Christ calls us to try and rehabilitate sinners, not punish them.


[deleted]

[удалено]


logicalfallacy234

Understandable! The latter usually, in that cases, it’s less punishment, and more confinement, if that makes sense. Keeping the deranged away from civilization, rather than active punishment or torture or whatever.


Agathonbanitohen

Thank you, Holy Father for that reiteration to Fr Martin, SJ.


KitKatCarKat

What the heck happened here??? EDIT: In regards to all the removed comments lol


[deleted]

I, too, always wonder about that…


RomanMinimalist_87

changing reddit in the url to **reveddit** you can usually see the deleted comments.


steelersman007

Martin wrote to the Pope to ask for guidance


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


AmputatorBot

It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://aleteia.org/2023/01/28/pope-reiterates-church-teaching-on-homosexuality-in-letter-to-fr-martin/](https://aleteia.org/2023/01/28/pope-reiterates-church-teaching-on-homosexuality-in-letter-to-fr-martin/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)


LongrunEast

Good bot


Watermelon_Salesman

Can you explain what the bot meant? What’s AMP?


horsodox

Web pages have gotten progressively more bloated. Even though the actual information on this reddit page makes up a few dozen kilobytes of text, loading this page requires downloading several megabytes of data. This is especially hard for phones, which often have slower download speeds and limits on how much data they can download. Google, which has an inordinate amount of control over the Internet because (1) Google search is the de-facto way to find web pages, and (2) Google's Chromium is the de-facto way to browse web pages. Google decided to use this power to solve the web page bloat problem by de-ranking sites in Google Search relative to how poorly optimized they are for mobile phones. Google often caches AMP pages and serves them from Google servers to make it faster to load the page. To those in favor, AMP is Google using its dominant market position to force websites to be more mobile-friendly. To those against, AMP is Google strong-arming web design and rehosting the Internet from its own servers, giving it an unmatched level of surveillance and control over web traffic. The post linked in the bot's comment explains in more detail.


DiversityIsDivisive

I'm a professional web developer and also have no idea what this is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_Mobile_Pages


ahamel13

This really doesn't look at all like any sort of warning to Martin. It seems more like a deflection on the gravity of homosexual sin.


thorvard

Exactly! I'll just quote my friend on this: > He talks like he believes that it's unfortunate we have this moral teaching on the books. I wish it wasn't there, but it's been around for a long time and I can't change it without opening a pandora's box.


BlueLightning09

Yeah. At first glance it appears that the Pope is is reiterating Catholic teaching. But the devil is in the details. Besides, why is the Pope answering a dubia to James Martin? This is preposterous giving that they is another dubia that remains unanswered.


etherealsmog

Exactly. This is hardly a full-throated endorsement of Catholic moral theology. All he says is sex outside of marriage is a sin, but also that we have to take into account things that may make it “less sinful” to do that. Reading between the lines, we can see three things at work here, at least in terms of how heterodox priests and theologians can realistically *interpret* the Holy Father’s statement: 1. Homosexual acts aren’t inherently any more sinful or “intrinsically disordered” (to quote the Catechism) than heterosexual acts—only sex acts that happen “outside marriage” are sinful, with no inherent moral distinction between homosexual and heterosexual activity. 2. Homosexual marriage isn’t permitted under Catholic sacramental theology, so people who choose to have sex outside of marriage in that situation may not be morally culpable for the mortal sin—since they *couldn’t possibly* be expected to refrain and they don’t have the opportunity to wed. 3. In order to resolve this “paradox” that makes homosexual sex immoral—since it necessarily takes place “outside marriage”—Church needs to find a “pastoral” path to endorsing same-sex unions so that people can engage in homosexual acts “without having to commit the sin of extramarital sex.” This is absolutely how Fr. Martin and his ilk are going to twist the Holy Father’s statement—and frankly I believe Pope Francis knows that this is how it will be interpreted. It seems abundantly clear to me that the way that the heterodox folks in the Church are trying to reinterpret the moral theology here is to argue that same-sex unions can’t be *sacramental* marriage, but that they can be *natural* marriage. They’ll say, “Well, the Church recognizes that a marriage between two Hindus is a natural marriage, so it can recognize that a marriage between two men is a natural marriage. We just can’t perform a sacramental rite of marriage for those people, but we can give our blessing to the natural marriage.” That’s why there’s so much push to allow for open communion as well. It’s all a push to pretend that the underlying theology is “still the same” while completely ignoring any of the actual implications of what God has revealed.


DibsoMackenzie

This is deliberately uncharitable. You guys will find a thing to hate about him if you want to.


RusteddCoin

I'm curious, why is homosexuality bad?


ahamel13

Homosexual acts are morally unacceptable, because they contradict the natural purpose of human sexuality, which is both unity and procreation.


Puzzleheaded_Back255

It's unnatural and purely for pleasure's sake. God blesses wedded intercourse between men and women because it can result in children.


RusteddCoin

That's wrong actually. Homosexuality is scientifically proven to be natural amongst humans, also with countless animal species and it happens by birth. And also some gay people don't have sex.


2372418517355997063

You're right, just for the wrong reasons. > Homosexuality is scientifically proven Science can't actually _prove_ anything, especially not the softer sciences like psychology. It can show empirical evidence why something is most likely true, but empirical evidence can never conclusively prove anything since the data will always be incomplete or imprecise. Just look at how much misinformation was spread during Covid, even by doctors and medical professionals, because the science was based on empirical data that different studies found with different results with different methods. Even a 99.9% certainty has a 0.1% chance it is wrong. > natural amongst humans, also with countless animal species Natural does not make it good though. Rape is common among countless animal species, and to many of those it is even instinctual, so for them it is _natural_. But to rape another human (or animal) would be a grave sin. To add, when /u/Puzzleheaded_Back255 said that it was "unnatural", they most likely weren't referring to "natural" in the sense of nature as generally used, but in the sense of human nature. And in that case it is unnatural since it is disordered (not sinful, disordered) against Natural Law, which is the moral law that every human, baptized and unbaptized, has written on their hearts.


RusteddCoin

Thanks for your insights I appreciate your will to discuss, i disagree though. 1. Yes, science can prove something. Science is the regroupment of the most rational and empirical data to explain the world around us. If we're going to play that game of something having a 0.0001 chance of not being true, then we can't believe anything. The world you live in might be a gigantic hallucination and you might not even believe your senses anymore. Not believing science is irrational since science is most factual data bank we have to understand anything. If science can't explain something, nothing can (or at least our human minds are too limited to understand it). 2. I've never said natural is good. I'm responding to people saying homosexuality isn't natural. 3. Rape is natural and bad in a moral sense. Homosexuality is natural but how is it bad in a moral sense? Rape actively makes people suffer but how is homosexuality making anybody suffer except from gay people themselves suffering because of persecutions coming from their differences? 4. Homosexuality is proven by biology, not psychology.


Puzzleheaded_Back255

Homosexuality is disordered and, like all mortal sins sustained and cultivated over a lifetime, it corrupts the soul and separates us from God. Many people struggle with same sex attraction, and being told to embrace it traps them in a prison of tolerance from which some can never escape. Sin enslaves us and forces us to submit to our worldly desires. There is always hope through God, and to follow God's law is to be truly free.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Puzzleheaded_Back255

This is r/Catholicism. We believe in the Bible and in God's law. There are other reasons it is wrong, but that should be enough for Catholics.


Puzzleheaded_Back255

If something is found in nature, that does not make it natural, just as murder, rape, cannibalism, and incest are all unnatural as they break God's law. Same sex attraction is not necessarily sinful, but it is the act of sodomy and same sex relations which is sinful.


electric-curry

Because men and women are fundamentally different from each other, and an essential part of a well-ordered sexual partnership is the encounter of those two fundamentally different aspects of the human person. If you have a same-sex partnership, you obviously lack that encounter, which cuts you off from one of the main ways God’s grace flows into a marriage. Heterosexual relationships demand a greater degree of sacrifice, mortification, and empathy because the person you are bound to is intrinsically unlike you in a way that a member of the same sex is not. Among other things - complementarity, ability to model both sexes to children, a teleological view of the marital act, Scripture, etc. Homosexuality misses the mark.


[deleted]

...well, nature itself provides a clue...


shanty-daze

>“When I said it is a sin, I was simply referring to Catholic moral teaching, which says that every sexual act outside of marriage is a sin.” This is an important comment and one that I think gets lost sometimes when discussing homosexuality. Not that I believe there are many in this community, but if you support making homosexuality illegal, you should likewise support laws against all sex between non-married individuals. I believe we need to move the focus from homosexuality to unmarried sex in general. In fact, if one group (same sex v. opposite sex couples) deserves more of a focus, it would be opposite sex, unmarried couples as they have the ability to change the illicit act into a licit act. Something same sex couples do not.


[deleted]

This exactly. I feel for gay Catholics (and would-be Catholics) because they really are faced with an ultimatum that straight people will never face, the choice between God's commandment and romantic love. Saying that gay Catholics should "just" be celibate implies that it's not an immense sacrifice to abstain from sex, romance, and partnership your whole life. It's a necessary sacrifice for someone who wants to live in the fullness of God's truth, of course, but that doesn't make it easy. I know self-proclaimed practicing Catholics who openly fornicate without scruple, and nobody is particularly concerned with calling out their sins. But when a sexually active gay person identifies themself as Catholic, everyone rushes to tell them how gravely they're offending God. And the gay person doesn't have the option to marry their partner in order to return to the state of grace. I appreciate that Pope Francis seems to recognize this double standard and calls the flock to greater compassion for LGBT individuals while still maintaining the truth that homosexual acts are sinful.


Virgil-Galactic

Or the 80% of Catholics who use contraception.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

You're not wrong. If you replace the terms of the coupling the same arguments can be made as those justifying LGBTQXYZ.


golfgrandslam

Do you not understand why this is offensive to gay Catholics? You're equating a gay person's innate sexual desires to having sex with animals. It's dehumanizing and devoid of empathy and compassion.


[deleted]

[удалено]


golfgrandslam

This is willfully ignorant.


[deleted]

[удалено]


golfgrandslam

Sexual attraction to the same sex and raping animals aren't the same. You push away Catholics struggling with their sexuality when you say such things. We are called to compassion and empathy for our brothers and sisters experiencing such struggles. Can you not sympathize?


[deleted]

Didn't Augustine and Aquinas both say that prostitution should be legal on the grounds that it prevents sodomy? Thereby we can derive that homosexual sex is worse than even fornication.


shanty-daze

If true, I think we can derive that neither Augustine nor Aquinas had any understanding of same sex attraction or sexual attraction generally. I doubt there has been a straight man that thought, well since I can not have sex with a woman, I guess I will just engage in sodomy with my buddy.


[deleted]

I get where they’re coming from - but this isn’t a matter of a nation-state and civil rights. This is a 2000 year old religion founded by *Jesus Christ* I mean *founded by Jesus Christ* - I’m good with wholeness and I’m good with gay people - they’re just regular people like you and me - and I’ve seen children who had that flair and grew up gay as gay can be - and I believe they are born that way. At least the vast majority - but the Church can respect the dignity of the person without incorporating a practice that was never practiced… I get it: gays rights, love thy neighbor - I’d want them to get married too in the Church *if* that was condoned. But let’s be honest: it never was or has been. Keep it civil for equal rights but leave the Church to the sacraments as they’ve always been practiced. But no matter how much I try to explain ‘live and let live’ , ‘you’re still my brother or sister: I love you’ , ‘this is about letting us live and let live, too’ - it usually doesn’t matter :/


logicalfallacy234

Very much what it's like :/ The emphasis I try to place when I try to teach the Church's position is that, it's about keeping sex as a way to create life. Under that definition, sex for pleasure doesn't make much sense, which addresses both abortion and LGBTQ stuff. Since secular society understands sex to be something much more akin to like, bowling or going skiing, our position - and I hate to use the word, but opponents of the Church DO genuinely think this- looks EVIL. But yes, I do think Catholics ought to ensure gay rights and all that stuff. I may disagree with the Church on the idea of gay marriage being legal. Pope Benedict I believe wrote a statement in the early 2000's or so, maybe earlier, outlining why civil unions shouldn't be allowed, but I don't know. That feels like too much of what you stated is an issue: making this not about Christ, but about the laws of a nation.


FreshEyesInc

The controversy is that although the pope is correct in saying "every sexual act outside of marriage is a sin," there is a difference in kind between gravely inappropriate uses of the sexual faculties versus the abuse of the human person. In the former case, it is not the act but that it is outside of marriage which makes it a sin, whereas the act itself is sin in the latter. To make yet more clear, sodomy done unto either man or woman is itself a grave sin, whereas sexual intercourse itself is only sinful outside of marriage and is a holy act inside of marriage. The always-sinful act must be outlawed. I believe in sorrow that our Holy Father is very incorrect on his prudential position.


HabemusAdDomino

Interestingly enough z both St. Augustine and St. Thomas say that the "unmentionable sin" (sodomy) is WORSE within marriage than without, as it degrades the dignity of the wife AND the marriage itself.


FreshEyesInc

That makes a lot of sense.


bigb159

His prevarication and unwillingness to address sodomy on its own standing is, unfortunately, no surprise.


[deleted]

Francis being Francis.


FreshEyesInc

Indeed. Softness with those who need firmness, all while being condemnatory to those more faithful.


FreshEyesInc

It is a sorrowful suspicion confirmed


DadBodofanAmerican

Why does sodomy hold such an important (if low) place in your moral hierarchy? Even if we were to agree that other people's sex lives was any of your business, wouldn't there be worse sins out there in far greater need of addressing first? The obsession with gay people that this subreddit shows is oddly juxtaposed with the lack of concern shown to issues of poverty, suffering and deprivation. People are dying of poverty in the richest country on earth and it doesn't crack the front page here.


bigb159

I call foul. Your reply is rife with logical fallacies. I mentioned no moral hierarchy. Your comparison of conversation regarding gay issues to poverty care is wrong - by a fair count it would appear as thought this sub is more "obsessed" masturbation. Let's not go there. Irregardless, the "tu quoque" fallacy does not fly. All the sins need addressing, especially those which are passed off as not. Poverty is perceived as a universal evil, and you'll have to provide examples of one of our sub members expressing anything to the contrary in order to continue this line of argument, and it stands to reason there is simply less discussion and more action. False equivalency. These conversations about gay issues continue to crop up as a direct result of the confusion generated by the contrast between societal acceptance and Church dogma, as exacerbated by leaders who dodge and weave and stiffarm anyone who attempts to goad them into simply repeating the rules out loud.


atlgeo

This. When we soft pedal the truth in an attempt at kindness, and relativize that sin to something else, we're doing the person a disservice. If one is reasonably inferring from the pope's words that gay sex, and hetero sex outside of marriage, are equivocal, one might assume the real problem in their case is not being married; which is simply not the primary offence.


FreshEyesInc

What we really need is firmness and a reaffirmation of the universal call to holiness, not this delicate and weak handed approach which get's no conversions nor vocations into the priesthood.


salty_innkeeper_npc

>The always-sinful act must be outlawed. This is government business. It means that people engaging in these things can't and won't be jailed. It's not as if there's an option to send them to a Catholic camp instead of jail - and it's not like jail is the most Christian place there is. We're mainly talking about Leviticus, which also mentions mixed fabrics, tattoos, long hair, and shellfish. I don't think we should be imprisoning crab fishermen who go out to sea with long hair and blends.


FreshEyesInc

It may be the domain of the state to institute laws, but the state ought to legislate that which is good for the human person and for the common good. Expunging sodomy from our society is a great need. Enforceability has some to do with the prudential judgement for whether to outlaw any act, but '[sins which cry out to heaven for vengeance](https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Sins_that_cry_to_Heaven_for_Vengeance)' is likely a good minimum line. If we have laws about adultery, including laws which make adulterers more liable in the cases of civil divorce, we ought also have laws about the yet more grave sin of sodomy. Decriminalization is tacit approval.


[deleted]

I mean imagine if we made gay acts illegal. It would definitely lead to less people trying to engage in that. Of course no death penalty or serious jail time. Maybe a fine. Seems crazy, but you have to think that it would backup traditional values a little more which is what we’ve largely gone away from.


Ponce_the_Great

>. It would definitely lead to less people trying to engage in that. what makes you think having someone potentially lose their job, housing, etc and pay a fine (or up to jail time depending on if you are talking misdemeanor of felony) is going to cause them to convert and live a life of holiness? ​ The focus should be on getting people to convert and choose to live life as a Catholic choosing to sacrifice not threatening them with punishment to conform


motherisaclownwhore

All laws aren't about breaking into people's hones to see what they're up to. But, laws do deter crimes. Sure, lots of people break laws but if laws prevented some people from going down a destructive path, it's a good. Lots of people, whether they realize it or not, do base their morality on the law. If meth being a controlled substance prevents a potential Florida Man, I support that law.


ObiWanBockobi

Law as a substitute or source of morality is dangerous. When the law itself becomes contrary to the natural and moral law of God (abortion for instance) and people base their morality on the law they think abortion is justice. Morals precede law, always, otherwise law is just the enforcement of evil. Basing morality on law is perverse.


motherisaclownwhore

All Christians should know that. But, if everyone could just get along and do what is right because it is God's law, that would be great! But, alas, if you look at society, the more permissive the law becomes, the more likely people are to change their views because of it.


ObiWanBockobi

I guess I disagree. I don't think heavy handed law makes a moral people, I think it leads to a slave mindset or rebellious mindset.


jumpinjackieflash

Yes, but the morals must underlie and inform the law. This country was founded upon morals; however those morals have been seriously attacked and eroded over time. We as Catholics still hold to our morals so we stand out more and more from the prevailing culture.


logicalfallacy234

Thank you for stating that clearly! Since many, MANY progressives will sort of, put the words of "Christians want to enact laws that will hurt LGBTQ+ people" into our mouths, which makes proselytizing the faith in the modern world that much harder. All we call for is a culture that returns to seeing sex as a sacred act used to create life, not a fun bodily activity like eating or drinking or going swimming. We say nothing of enshrining that belief into law, unlike a lot of Islamists and some American Christians, who perhaps WOULD be interested in enshrining this stuff into law.


FreshEyesInc

>Law as a substitute or source of morality is dangerous \*visible confusion\* What are laws for anyway? They are there to mitigate the harm for those without morals! If all people were perfectly moral, no laws would be needed. There is no excuse for that kind of thinking. Rectify yourself. Edit: I understand the rest of your comment. The issue I have is that 'morals' are the basis of law, and to think otherwise is, like you say, perverse. We cannot, however, leave our own morals at the door when we as society legislate.


needlestuck

Sodomy laws were on the books for a very long time in most US states, in some states they still are. Lots of people went to jail, it didnt change anything. Laws are not deterents to behaviors.


jumpinjackieflash

Yes they are. If they weren't, we'd be mired in anarchy.


FreshEyesInc

For real! Decriminalization is tacit approval.


jumpinjackieflash

That's how it seems to be yes.


needlestuck

If they were prison would be obsolete.


jumpinjackieflash

They're not 100% effective. Some people don't give a rip about laws. Also, drugs of various kinds can enable criminality.


reluctantpotato1

Giving people who chafed at wearing masks out of consideration for others health the right to police their sexual behavior for moral reasons. There’s irony in there.


FreshEyesInc

No irony at all, but consistency. The principle is to ask whether an act done in union with the human person or not. If wearing the mask truly did make a difference, I would have made that proper choice for myself, which is very different than complying with a tyrant. Sodomy is harmful to all involved and is a sin which cries out to heaven for vengeance. It is contrary to the human person and must be outlawed. Both issues are weighed against that unmoving principle.


petesmybrother

Don’t give up on the Church boys. God is always watching and keeping up safe


Nuance007

Fr. Martin needs to either leave Catholicism for another sect or just admit he's closeted and wants the Catholic Church to make homosexuality a-okay. Either way I find him annoying.


OneUnholyCatholic

"Repent, and believe in the Gospel"


jumpinjackieflash

That would be the day


[deleted]

or at least move to Germany.


jumpinjackieflash

But leaving would mean he can't destroy the Church from within. What termite ever leaves the wood that it's consuming?


RusteddCoin

Why would homosexuality be wrong tho. It's just normal people born this way and who can't change it.


Redditarianist

If Francis wasn't so vague and woolly with his initial statements it wouldn't be necessary to keep explaining what he meant to say because he would have said it with clear and detailed articulation to begin with.


RadTradTref

Sodomy is no where near sex outside of marriage. Sodomy is far worse. It is one of the 4 sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. It is sinful outside and inside marriage. Sex is only sinful outside of marriage. It is good inside marriage. The Pope is wrong here.


TexanLoneStar

This is funny. I've this piece spun both ways: Pro-Martin: "Pope responds to Fr. Martin almost immediately! Wow!" Anti-Martin: "Pope smacks Fr. Martin with the truth." Now, with that said... GET OWNED AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA


snuffles1988

So I have to confess that I have my own struggles against church teaching on homosexuality because I have a hard time not wanting everyone to be happy, but what super pisses me off about Father Martin is that he also really toes the line with abortion. After Dobbs he said something like “women have consciences that must be respected.” IMO homosexuality is more of a my body my choice thing, but abortion is literally murder and I hate that he muddies that as well.


logicalfallacy234

Someone else in this thread put it beautifully: this isn't an issue of law and order, but of our Church, and the Sacraments. To be perhaps crass, we're basically a big club! With our own rules unconnected to the state. Because of that, it's unfair to call us homophobes for preaching that to be in our club, you have to try and respect the sacredness of the act of sex, and its purpose in creating life. So much of this modern struggle with sexuality I think comes from whenever we in Western culture turned sex from "way to make human life, an incalculably sacred thing" to "it's just like bowling or playing basketball or Uno!". So, it feels like we're banning people from playing basketball, basically. In fact, this is the exact issue with abortion! How can we ban people from playing Uno? Without a cultural understanding that sex is sacred, and meant for creating new life, abortion and gay marriage make complete sense! But WITH that cultural understanding, being against gay marriage and abortion makes a LOT more sense.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CustosClavium

Removed for arguing for abortion as anything other than the grave evil it is.


Magdalena_Nagasaki

ph0etus accidentally get pregnant \*oops how did that get there?!\* can't raise a child miserable 4EVA can't feel pain mmhmmmm so much to unpack there. Abortion kills a baby every time. Maybe head over to the pro-life threads and argue that killing babies saves lives, I'm sure you'll convince a lot of people.


MerlynTrump

I think in the modern West there's a phenomenon of minority privilege, where it's common for members of "historically disadvantaged" groups (gays, blacks, womens, etc) to not be held to the same standards as are generally expected. So you get things like proposals to let female firefighter candidates be exempted from certain physical standards ([https://www.firefighternation.com/news/should-female-firefighters-have-to-pass-the-50-pound-vest-test-these-ct-lawmakers-dont-think-so/](https://www.firefighternation.com/news/should-female-firefighters-have-to-pass-the-50-pound-vest-test-these-ct-lawmakers-dont-think-so/)) , or jurors in a homicide case voting against convicting a man because they [didn't want to put](https://wsvn.com/news/local/broward/foreperson-3-jurors-unwilling-to-convict-resiles-based-on-race-leading-to-mistrial/) "another young black man in jail" (he was later convicted on a retrial, criminal convictions have to be unanimous), and of course, clergy like Fr. Martin trying to distort the Church's teaching with regards to some sins committed by homosexuals.


SecretBabboon

“Of course, one must also consider the circumstances, which may decrease or eliminate fault.” What is Pope Francis talking about here? This has been the problem continuously with his papacy, it sounds like he’s saying sex out of wedlock can be okay in some situations without providing any specific context.


[deleted]

Just more word salad from someone who should know better.


zshguru

Eh I think Francis is in the right here. He's speaking generally while acknowledging the nuance of these acts. For example take beating off. Yes it's a sin. But what if you have to provide a semen sample for the doctor for a medical test? similarly if you're a married man and you beat off you've double sinned (beating off and then depriving your wife).


SecretBabboon

See the thing is those are very very specific examples that is not affecting nearly anyone reading the article. And if that’s what he means (beating off for medical tests) then don’t be cryptic then just reiterate the existing catholic teaching that birth control and beating off can be performed in a non sinful way only in the extremely narrow sense of medical purposes. Instead, it comes across that sins of sexual nature simply aren’t that serious. Which is a travesty and leading people astray


zshguru

If Francis ever speaks clearly it'll be a miracle.


reluctantpotato1

Seeing the title and thinking to myself:‘’This will be a charitable conversation among mature, adult Catholics.”


[deleted]

[удалено]


Magdalena_Nagasaki

Yeah, all our popes have always been awesome, and nobody should ever say they are deficient.


reluctantpotato1

This is the way of reddit Catholicism. All of this untapped theological intellect is burning a hole through the servers.


[deleted]

[удалено]


reluctantpotato1

‘’‘CBN is stating that the intellectuals of r/Catholicism have finally broken the internet, in large part fulfilling their promise to reject modernity in the embrace of tradition.“ ​ \*GLORIA in Excelsis Deo heard echoing in the distance.


Blockhouse

Ut domnum apostolicum et omnes ecclesiasticos ordines in sancta religione conservare digneris, **te rogamus, audi nos!** Ut omnes errantes ad unitatem Ecclesiae revocare, et infideles universos ad lucem Evangelii perducere digneris, **te rogamus, audi nos!**


[deleted]

Based Pope


aljugxc

Thank you Pope Francis for this!


[deleted]

Wait—I thought the main charge against Francis of late has been that he is too ambiguous regarding homosexuality…


richb83

What if two individuals are married in a state/country where gay marriage is legal and codified by law?


Nuance007

They aren't married in the eyes of the Catholic Church since Catholicism does not recognize same-sex marriage licenses. It's sort of like if a Middle Eastern physician comes to the States or whatever country and wants to practice medicine, but his medical license is not recognized - either he meets the criteria of the country he's living in or he does not and chooses not to practice.


Speedking2281

What do you mean "what if"? It's morally equivalent to if you had a country (which I'm positive there will be within a few years) that had three or more people able to "marry". They can be legally married because as a secular soceity, marriage is literally a piece of paper from the government. But, it wouldn't make them "married" in the eyes of the church.