I still say Pope Francis needs to hire a team of translators. Seems that if he leaves that job to the press Reporter Bias is invincible. But if I read a translator that I actually trust to be impartial I quickly find the Pope himself contradicting the interview that the Jesuits just released.
Or is it truly a contradiction? In the interview, he asked the Bishops to be more pastoral with gay people and less concerned with the subject of abortion. In the second article I linked to, he's talking to a different audience- to medical professionals whose very vocation is rightly the Gospel of Life.
Maybe the contradiction doesn't exist in Italian or Spanish. Perhaps it only exists in American English- tainted by the divisiveness of the culture war.
-----
Update:
They changed the name of the 2nd article on me.
I'm Outside the Autistic Asylum!
RSS Feed link
The crazy stuff I can't post anyplace else
Introduction to Wonko the Sane and Outside the Asylum, which this blog is named after.
22 comments:
The second link takes me to a page that says that the article doesn't exist. Also, simply because the pope is more focused on other issues as far as the general public is concerned, doesn't mean that he still isn't addressing the issue of abortion when talking to the people who those things immediately concern and effect, namely, doctors. He's stressing a call to charity, love, and mercy currently, however, that is probably in part because the last two popes both stressed justice and condemnation of sins, so now comes the talk of mercy towards the sinners. It's not that the sin isn't still condemned, it's just that people in recent years have focused so much on justice that they've forgotten to show mercy and understanding as well.
True enough, and link updated: Zenit changed the name of the article on me.
Catholics are no longer known for their understanding and mercy mostly due to their rejection of the gay lifestyle. Whether they truly feel that way or not, their religion requires that they condemn it and not condone it. This position is unchangeable and Pope Francis is stuck with it.
Just because we don't think that every single action is okay doesn't mean that we're not able to show understanding or mercy. We just don't show support for things that are wrong. Which also means that none of use should be showing support for actions that are actually homophobic, such as the bullying of homosexual teens in schools or other places. It's a condemnation of behavior, not a condemnation of the people.
Gays need you to also stop condemning the behavior if it is done in private. We have to stop judging what goes on between consenting adults in private. If you believe in an all knowing God, then just let him do the judging.
Except to not condemn something that is wrong is to condone it. It doesn't matter whether anyone else knows about it or not, it should still be condemned, because it is still wrong.
Besides which, it's not like the issue is just in the bedroom, or just with the sin of lust, it's a problem with trying to hold up a relationship between two people of the same sex as being equal to marriage, which is completely unsound. Furthermore, it infringes upon the rights of citizens to exercise free practice of religion, without due cause. If we were going about murdering people, then coming down with the law makes sense, however, refusing to offer our services and property to help with something that is taught to be inherently wrong is not right, anymore than you consider our condemnation of homosexual acts to be.
Except to not condemn something is to condone it.
You practice a religion that does not allow you to eat meat on Fridays during Lent or marry another woman. That is the religion you have chosen to follow but those who don't follow it are free to eat meat on any day they want and marry anyone they want as long as it is sanctioned by the applicable civil authority. You don't have to worry about "condoning" something that is a sin to you but to the people involved. And you can't discriminate against them if that is illegal where you are.
Correction: but NOT to the people involved
If the behavior is done in private, truly in private, how does anybody know what happened to condemn anybody about it?
Yes Bill, the people who want to do wrong usually want everybody else to claim it isn't wrong.
Every parent of a three year old child knows this.
Why should marriage be "sanctioned by the applicable civil authority"? What does government have to do with marriage at all?
There is no reliable authority claiming that gay marriage is wrong. Religious authorities are not reliable.
That's a silly question. You people constantly condemn acts that others do in private. Private doesn't mean that no one knows it is happening. It is just no one else's business.
"There is no reliable authority claiming that gay marriage is wrong"
Of course not Bill, because for you, there is no reliable authority, full stop. There is no right and wrong in your world.
If Religious Authorities are not reliable, the neither are you. I am not about to buy into your lies about homosexuality, and nobody else should either, especially not your poor son whom you have damaged beyond repair.
What I am questioning is your definition of the word Private. Private to me means nobody else knows about it EVER. As soon as you tell another person, that data is now public. That's how it is used in the computer world.
"Private" is no one else's business. Something no one else knows about is "Secret". I can go to a private funeral and tell you all about it. If I go to a secret funeral (for whatever reason), you will not hear about it from me.
Ha! You don't know the first thing about my son. He is far from damaged. If anyone is damaging anyone, my money would be on you raising a paranoid, homophobic bigot for a son.
If it is nobody else's business, why would you tell anybody about it? As soon as you tell another person- you make it their business.
Except that we are allowed to eat meat under certain circumstances during that time period, including if a person is pregnant, sick, or even just if it's exceptionally rude not to accept meat from someone else under the circumstances. Also, Catholics giving up meat during Fridays during Lent is specific to the religion. Marriage, however, is not. Historically speaking, marriage has always been between man and woman, occasionally with polygamy involved as well. However, even in cultures such as ancient Rome, where homosexuality was condoned, such a union was never held as being equal to marriage.
Also, other people eating meat on a Friday in Lent doesn't affect Catholics like issues such as same-sex marriage does. Currently, people are being sued because they refuse to provide wedding services to same-sex couples. However, a Catholic-run deli can close its doors on Fridays during Lent, and no one bats an eye.
I guess all I have to say is that your best bet is to just argue that the Church should not let its members enter into same sex marriage. To try to make any other point about anything other than what Catholocs should or shouldn't do is a useless exercise. Catholics have no say in anything that non-Catholics and non-practicing Catholics can think, do and say.
Except we're not just Catholics, we're citizens, and as such, if we view something as being morally wrong, it's our duty as Catholics AND citizens to oppose it being legalized. We do the same thing with abortion, with the death penalty, and so on. The fact is, moral stands on issues effects how people vote, and what people will want in their nation. To try and stop a person from using their resources to influence their nation through any means other than useful and intelligent discussion, and legal process, is to violate their rights as citizens.
Yes. I suppose you are right about what you are saying is your right as a citizen to do what you can to influence votes, legislation, etc.
I enjoy debating with you. You are a worthy opponent and a formidable foe.
Post a Comment