Pope Francis clarifies same-sex blessings,
takes swing at closed-minded conservatives
Pope Francis is continuing his tradition of leaving both sides frustrated when it comes to stances on the LGBTQ+ community, but this time, he's taking conservatives down a notch in the process.
Over the weekend, the pope sat down for a rare interview on 60 Minutes, touching on a number of topics, including clarifying his stance on blessing same-sex unions.
"What I allowed was not to bless the union," he said. "That cannot be done because that is not the sacrament. I cannot. The Lord made it that way. But to bless each person, yes. The blessing is for everyone."
His comments come just months after a controversial decision by the Vatican to allow priests to bless same-sex couples, so long as it doesn't resemble a wedding. This left some people frustrated that the Catholic Church was still positioning LGBTQ+ couples as inferior to heterosexual couples and others furious that they weren't being shunned outright.
Pope Francis has frequently caused this kind of disruption, pushing for LGBTQ+ people to be treated as people while also still categorizing same-sex relationships as a sin. He previously declared there to be no place for gay clergymen within the church. Yet last year, he made it permissible for trans Catholics and children of same-sex couples to be baptized in the church and spoke out against laws criminalizing homosexuality.
He acknowledged the latter during Sunday's interview, agreeing that being gay isn't a crime, but rather, "It is a human fact."
Perhaps one of the most interesting moments in the interview came when he had fairly scathing words for conservative bishops in the United States who have criticized his stances.
"You used an adjective, 'conservative.' That is, 'conservative' is one who clings to something and does not want to see beyond that," he said. "It is a suicidal attitude, because one thing is to take tradition into account, to consider situations from the past, but quite another is to be closed up inside a dogmatic box."
Earlier this year, Pope Francis also took the time to point out the hypocrisy of those who act "scandalized" by the idea of blessing LGBTQ+ people when they don't have that same energy when the church extends blessings to other people considered sinners under Catholic teachings.
"Nobody gets scandalized if I give my blessings to a businessman who perhaps exploits people, and this is a very grave sin," he said. "But they get scandalized if I give them to a homosexual."
Oh, God, Gene, stop it - I can't take you posing as open minded like this. These words of the holy Father are aimed straight at your bigoted, two-faced soul:
ReplyDelete"You used an adjective, 'conservative.' That is, 'conservative' is one who clings to something and does not want to see beyond that," he said. "It is a suicidal attitude, because one thing is to take tradition into account, to consider situations from the past, but quite another is to be closed up inside a dogmatic box."
Earlier this year, Pope Francis also took the time to point out the hypocrisy of those who act "scandalized" by the idea of blessing LGBTQ+ people when they don't have that same energy when the church extends blessings to other people considered sinners under Catholic teachings. Nobody gets scandalized if I give my blessings to a businessman who perhaps exploits people, and this is a very grave sin," he said. "But they get scandalized if I give them to a homosexual."
In the meantime, let us not forget what this blog is really about - taking apart and destroying your dirty minded prejudices.
I have already acknowledged - TWICE - once at 00.01 PDT today and once yesterday, that I was incorrect to say that you had claimed Jesus condemned sodomy in the gospels. As follows:
"You are correct to correct me: you never said
"Christ condemned sodomy in the Gospels".
You said only that Christ condemned sodomy, a claim you have repeated and maintained.
A claim you have repeatedly failed to justify with textual evidence. The sooner you admit your complete failure to do so, as well as the sheer preposterousness of your using the same "argument" to evidence support for a point of view and condemnation of it, the sooner I will stop pointing out the humiliation you have undergone by making a statement with no basis in fact and then failing to evidence it. As well as these two other humiliations.
FACT ONE : the criminal negligence of Joseph Ratzinger in refusing to laicise Fr Stephen Keisle in 1985, such that he was enabled, with Ratzinger's connivance, to go on buggering small boys and raping little girls for a further three years. You have tried everything you know to refute this fact, but you have failed.
FACT TWO: in connection with fact one, you attempted to prove that people on the left wing of British politics supported and still support paedophilia. In this self evidently preposterous enterprise you failed, not least because you claimed that anyone who had not condemned the Paedophile Information Exchange must have supported it. Worse that that, you persisted in this self-evident fuckwittery when it was put to you that, as you yourself had never been known to condemn driving while drunk, you must therefore advocate drivers' drinking a bottle of Scotch and then driving their cars into queues for the school bus.
"There is no textual evidence from the Gospels - and this was the basis of your original claim that we do not know the view of Jesus on sodomy."
It is a fact that we do not know the view of Christ on consensual anal sexual intercourse, whether heterosexual or homosexual, because he never pronounced on the matter.
On the other hand, because it chimes with your dirty-minded bigotry, you infer that he condemned it, thus:
"We certainly do know that Christ condemned sodomy along with bestiality and paedophilia although none of these are mentioned in the in the gospels."
which is a demonstrably nonsensical statement. All you are doing is using the ultimate logical fallacy of the Appeal to Authority, in this case the word of the Son of God in order to give your own spurious and bigoted prejudices a bogus validity.
You used the same fallacious crap in connection with same sex couples adopting children, with same sex marriage, and now to oppose your own Holy Father's liberalising policy towards blessing couples in same sex marriages.
It was bullshit then and it still is.
"When self-indulgence is at work the results are obvious: fornication and sexual irresponsibility; idolatry and sorcery; feuds and wrangling, jealousy, bad temper and quarrels; disagreements, factions, envy; drunkenness, orgies and similar things. I warn you now, as I warned you before: those who behave like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."
ReplyDeleteA poor lookout for Gene, then:
he is a fornicator [having married a second wife while his first wife is still alive, never mind the bogus work-around of "annulment" - where in the Gospels did Christ sanction that, I wonder - probably in the same text as he condemned sodomy - oh, wait...
he is sexually irresponsible - what sort of example does it set to Catholic youth if one of their teachers is a serial groper and peeping tom?
he is an idolater - there can be no other word for something who claims that the appalling Joseph Ratzinger is a saint;
he believes in sorcery - his unquestioning acceptance of the prolific and bogus nonsenses of Medjugorje proves that;
And his blog - that small portion of it which he has not stolen from other and better writers - consists of little else than feuds and wrangling, jealousy, bad temper and quarrels; disagreements, factions and envy.
I reckon it would need three quarters of a million Hail Marys and walking to Mass on his knees for the next five years to do penance for that lot.
Still, there is some good news. "Granny Barkes shat her pants in C and A" [or whatever its blithering title was] is riding high in the Amazon best sellers list at number 2,765,816, beaten in sales only by two million, seven hundred and sixty five thousand, eight hundred and sixteen books, including such page turners as "Five ways to wipe up spilled paraffin", "A history of nail scissors" and "573 and counting: Christ's foreskins, a definitive reliquary".
It has also been, albeit posthumously, been reviewed by the late Gore Vidal, as follows:
"What the fuck is this shit?"