Did Pope Francis Allow Priests to Bless Same-Sex Relationships?

Samseau said:
You can clearly see that Sed's profess to be Catholics. No assumptions about anyone from me.



No one is telling you to leave your Church. I've said quite the contrary right from the start of this thread.

But as far as Catholic "dogma" goes, it seems like anything goes. Vatican I dogma is replaced by Vatican II dogma and it looks like pretty soon LGBT will be dogma.

I'm not saying these things to judge your Church. I'm genuinely concerned and pray for Catholics, as I have many Catholic family and friends. This stuff horrifies me, quite frankly. Many Catholics are rightfully disgusted, but rather than hear their concerns it seems most Catholics try to deny or hide from reality, which makes the problem 10x worse. Denial will lead to massive schisms within your Church. I know PurpleUrkle, a Catholic, has called this Pope a fag right in this thread, and while I generally do not like to call gays fags, I know PurpleUrkle is far from alone in his feelings as some of my closest Catholic friends also have said the exact same thing to me.

Orthodox stand up to their clergy if they start doing heretical things, and even bad Patriarchs have been tossed out before. All of these things I've mentioned in this thread. I can't understand why for the life of me Catholics will not do the same when you've got blatant heresy being pushed - Catholics shouldn't be getting defensive here, this is way bigger than that, you guys should instead be thinking of ways to defend your Church. Contacting Bishops, speaking out in your Church, etc. I think there is a cultural difference between how Orthodox and Catholics handle heretical clergy, and it offends Catholics.

I know I wouldn't sleep if LGBT stuff started to creep in my Church. You know it won't stop once it starts.
Click to expand...
Interesting thoughts Samseau.

I can not speak for all Catholics, but I'll try from my perspective.

Orthodox stand up to their clergy if they start doing heretical things, and even bad Patriarchs have been tossed out before. All of these things I've mentioned in this thread. I can't understand why for the life of me Catholics will not do the same when you've got blatant heresy being pushed
Click to expand...
I think, a Catholic would not so easily say "this is heresy". From personal experience, I'm often wrong, sometimes I think 100% this is wrong, and 2 years later I can see there was value in it. The Catholic church is large and broad, some very horizontal orders, some very vertical. I have been very critical on Jesuits but I learned to value then. God is broad in his workings with us.

I have my opinions on the pope, but I might be wrong, I don't know it all, I would not call him a heretic.

Some call that weak, some call it wise.

People that feel called to be a Catholic, like myself, accept that broadness, and yes in private we are more open on our opinions, but we feel that being accepting, and thinking that we may be wrong, is of greater value.

That doesn't mean we are sheep led to destruction, we are setting up new churches, go to priests we value.

So yes, most Catholics silently revolt, rather set something up in silence, live and let live, and we don't know the heart of the other and God's plan with him.

And there are for sure 100 different opinions on this, but I think in general this is the sentiment.

It is easily said the pope is a heretic, but you could also see him as Jesus walking with the faithless to Emmaus. Listening to their stories first.
What is their experience? To bring a message you need to listen first.

Maybe the pope is doing the right thing reaching out to sinners, connecting with the sinners, to make them feel welcome for the Lord.

I don't consider this a very strange thought, logical even.

We don't know. And maybe it's just our fears (the devil) talking, that says he turns the church in a gay temple while he is doing God's work.
 
Last edited:
Samseau said:
PurpleUrkle, a Catholic, has called this Pope a fag right in this thread, and while I generally do not like to call gays fags
Click to expand...

One member. Please keep counting until we get to the "majority" of Catholics you referred to. Also, there is still time to remove your "crying laughing" reaction to his post.
 
Patricius said:
One member. Please keep counting until we get to the "majority" of Catholics you referred to. Also, there is still time to remove your "crying laughing" reaction to his post.
Click to expand...

You think Purple is alone when the Catholic Church has lost 5% of it's American membership in the past decade? Brother I've heard Catholics voice their complaints to me constantly throughout my entire life, including some of my closest friends. That's why I put the laughing emoji there. The heresy puts them off from Church and they do not go to Church often, if at all. Then their kids grow up without any Church and the decline of your Church gets even worse.

Even in Latin America, once a Catholic stronghold, has seen within the past 40 years Protestantism explode.

How do you guys square the circle with the decline in attendance and the Pope not pushing heresy? Paternos I also ask you as well - I agree with you on one hand, Paternos, that perhaps we are in the wrong and the Pope is right, but on the other hand, you see the Catholic church suffering from apostasy and, biased as I may be as an Orthodox, I cannot help but see a direct connection between the two.

Heresy and apostasy go together like peanut butter and jelly. You expect to see them together, and when one does, how does one say, "Oh those who are leaving the Church are in the wrong?" Why would normally faithful Catholics, who lived the dogma against homosexuality for thousands of years, be in the wrong when a Pope that replaces a retiring Pope (which was weird, to say to the least) comes in and starts pushing LGBT nonsense?

Can you all not see why people would be extremely skeptical here?
 
Samseau said:
How do you guys square the circle with the decline in attendance and the Pope not pushing heresy? Paternos I also ask you as well - I agree with you on one hand, Paternos, that perhaps we are in the wrong and the Pope is right, but on the other hand, you see the Catholic church suffering from apostasy and, biased as I may be as an Orthodox, I cannot help but see a direct connection between the two.
Click to expand...
I think the state of Catholic church was quite bad before the 60s.

If within 10 year half of the people walk away in the 60ps and 70s it shows people didn't have a strong connection. They preferred weed and easy sex over God when they were given the choice.

Most here were cultural nominal Catholics, from what I heard it was more a societal pressure church, people went, because everyone went. People did the rosary because they had to.

It's different from now, most people now that I see go to church really want to follow Christ. We want to be changed in the light of God.

Speaking to people in their 80s in the church they miss the full churches, but the like the new depth of faith.

In a positive view Vatican 2 opened the door to a more personal relationship with Christ I think. Roots are growing deeper, while on the outside we see less and less bushes.

The descent of the church I think is less due to the internal church, but more the world around. The new world order developed a new faith after WW2. Of easy sex, materialism, "freedom", space ships, unlimited growth and potential, careers, "the american dream" and many fell for it. I think we might be the first generation seeing the downfall and downsides of secularism.

In my country region protestantism declined just as hard as Catholicism. I think many idealize the full churches, but many of the old people I have spoken to didn't like the old church all that much. I often hear back then the Priest was seen as God, and treated that way, which caused all sorts of problems, today I feel we restore the old relationship, more like shepherds.

The churches are smaller, today I was at an intimate Tridentine mass in a small chapel with just 10 people. Getting to our core again. Core of the faith.
 
Samseau said:
You think Purple is alone when the Catholic Church has lost 5% of it's American membership in the past decade?
Click to expand...

This is a typo here; it's much more than 5%. I meant 5% as a total share of Christians in America; that translates to probably anywhere from 20-30% of Catholics in America.
 
You are now discussing Catholics nationally. The original comment, from my view, was discussing the treatment of this issue amongst the members of this forum. I don't see a majority of Catholics bashing the Pope here. I see the one you named and LOLed, and one or two Sedevecantists (who are taking in this thread similar shots at Orthodoxy). Interesting that you refer them to Sedes and not Catholics in those posts.
 
Patricius said:
You are now discussing Catholics nationally. The original comment, from my view, was discussing the treatment of this issue amongst the members of this forum. I don't see a majority of Catholics bashing the Pope here. I see the one you named and LOLed, and one or two Sedevecantists (who are taking in this thread similar shots at Orthodoxy). Interesting that you refer them to Sedes and not Catholics in those posts.
Click to expand...

I did not say a majority of Catholics here are bashing the Pope. I said the majority of those bashing the Pope are Catholics in this thread. I do not consider any of the Orthodox here, with our theological criticisms of the Pope, to be "Pope bashing." You may disagree, but theological arguments are polite arguments.
 
Pope Francis continues to double down.


"Conservative is one who clings to something and does not want to see beyond that. It is a suicidal attitude," says Pope Francis.
Click to expand...

"There is an important difference between taking “tradition into account” and being “closed up inside a dogmatic box,” Francis emphasized."
Click to expand...

So rich:
"The pope has not been afraid to call out his critics, describing some of his opponents in the US as “backwardists,” saying they have replaced faith with ideology. "
Click to expand...

Love how CNN frames this:
"His remarks to CBS come at a time when a spotlight has been thrown on an extreme socially conservative trend in the US Catholic church, highlighted by Kansas City Chiefs Kicker Harrison Butker’s recent commencement address at a Catholic school. Butker described Pride Month as “evil” and suggested women would find the most fulfillment as homemakers."
Click to expand...

It's going to be an interesting interview with 60 minutes. I always marvel at his talent with doublespeak:



EDIT

It appears the interview is out there:


"What I allowed was not to bless the union. That cannot be done because that is not a sacrament. I cannot. The Lord made it that way," he said during the interview. "But to bless each person, yes. The blessing is for everyone. For everyone."

"To bless a homosexual-type union, however, goes against the given right, the law of the Church. But to bless each person, why not?" he added. "The blessing is for all. Some people were scandalized by this. But why? Everyone! Everyone!"


He speaks as if he's being withheld from blessing gay unions, interesting way to put it.
 
Last edited:
Samseau said:
So bless them as individuals. Why bless them as couples? Completely avoids the controversial subject matter at hand...
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't think he delineates this in his interview. The way he puts it here makes it sound like he's just blessing them as individuals ("each person").

I sometimes wonder if people take classes to speak like this? train themselves? does it come natural?

It's pretty amazing to be able to say something and simultaneously have both the pro-sodomy people and earnest devout Catholic apologists interpret it as a good and fine thing.

I don't like it. He's basically abusing his children by taking advantage of his position as a Father.
 
Samseau said:
Your translation is bad because fornication does not occur in the original text, it clearly states porneia (which is best translated as whoredom). On top of that, Jesus says right above your red arrows that adultery can be committed in the heart, and adultery would qualify as porneia (or whoredom), which would qualify for divorce.

Really don't understand why you think it's okay to skip lines of the King. He explicitly states adultery can be committed in the heart, right before preaching on divorce. He did that on purpose, to give context to what follows.
Click to expand...
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin,
which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Here a man is having sex outside of marriage with a single woman and if caught he has to pay a fine and marry her, and can’t divorce her. That is a punishment by God unto the man.
 
Shaquilleoatmeal said:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin,
which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Here a man is having sex outside of marriage with a single woman and if caught he has to pay a fine and marry her, and can’t divorce her. That is a punishment by God unto the man.
Click to expand...

That's not sex outside of marriage. That is sex with a virgin, and nowadays most women wouldn't want to marry the man they lose their virginity to.

Also, what does this have to do with committing adultery in the heart, as a married man?
 
Samseau said:
That's not sex outside of marriage. That is sex with a virgin,
Click to expand...
So it’s okay to sleep with a woman as long as she isn’t a virgin?

By that logic, let’s look other verses:
23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
Click to expand...
If a man rapes a betrothed women, he is to be put to death. But what if she isn’t betrothed? Nor a virgin? Where does the Bible condemn raping non virgin non married, non betrothed women?
 
Shaquilleoatmeal said:
So it’s okay to sleep with a woman as long as she isn’t a virgin?
Click to expand...

No, that has to do with chastity. Plenty of passages on those, look em' up. Now explain, what does chastity have to do with the topic at hand?

Shaquilleoatmeal said:
By that logic, let’s look other verses:

If a man rapes a betrothed women, he is to be put to death. But what if she isn’t betrothed? Nor a virgin? Where does the Bible condemn raping non virgin non married, non betrothed women?
Click to expand...

There are different punishments for those, what does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?
 
Shaquilleoatmeal said:
So it’s okay to sleep with a woman as long as she isn’t a virgin?

By that logic, let’s look other verses:

If a man rapes a betrothed women, he is to be put to death. But what if she isn’t betrothed? Nor a virgin? Where does the Bible condemn raping non virgin non married, non betrothed women?
Click to expand...
What are you saying?

That rape in the Bible is ok as long as a woman is not s virgin?

This seems to be both odd topic and something that's obviously refuted by other teachings both scripturally and traditionally.

We aren't talking about the Quran here...
 
Get2choppaaa said:
What are you saying?

That rape in the Bible is ok as long as a woman is not s virgin?

This seems to be both odd topic and something that's obviously refuted by other teachings both scripturally and traditionally.

We aren't talking about the Quran here...
Click to expand...
Did you not read the convo? I was using Samseau’s logic against him. He’s trying to justify premarital sex for men.

Samseau said:
No, that has to do with chastity. Plenty of passages on those, look em' up. Now explain, what does chastity have to do with the topic at hand?



There are different punishments for those, what does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?
Click to expand...
I’m saying your logic is flawed. Because the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention a punishment for raping a non married, non betrothed, non virgin woman. However that doesn’t mean it’s ok to rape one. Similarly, the Bible might say “fornication”, which you’ve convinced yourself only applies to prostitution, that doesn’t mean seducing a non virgin into bed without paying her cash straight up is somehow not a sin on the man’s part.
 
Shaquilleoatmeal said:
Did you not read the convo? I was using Samseau’s logic against him. He’s trying to justify premarital sex for men.


I’m saying your logic is flawed. Because the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention a punishment for raping a non married, non betrothed, non virgin woman. However that doesn’t mean it’s ok to rape one. Similarly, the Bible might say “fornication”, which you’ve convinced yourself only applies to prostitution, that doesn’t mean seducing a non virgin into bed without paying her cash straight up is somehow not a sin on the man’s part.
Click to expand...
It´s not rape. Its actually pretty logical and fair.

If she has a man. Your punished and she also under some circumstances. If she hasn´t ´t you have to marry her.
 
magoo said:
It´s not rape. Its actually pretty logical and fair.

If she has a man. You’re punished and she also under some circumstances. If she hasn´t ´t you have to marry her.
Click to expand...
You have to marry her as a punishment, correct, which proves it is a sin. Samseau is so obsessed with thinking he “figured out something” that he is being willfully ignorant about this. His excuse “many women won’t want to marry that man”, ignores the fact that if she does want marriage, he has to marry her, meaning he has no control over the situation, AKA his punishment is being at the whim of the women’s choice.
 
Shaquilleoatmeal said:
You have to marry her as a punishment, correct, which proves it is a sin. Samseau is so obsessed with thinking he “figured out something” that he is being willfully ignorant about this. His excuse “many women won’t want to marry that man”, ignores the fact that if she does want marriage, he has to marry her, meaning he has no control over the situation, AKA his punishment is being at the whim of the women’s choice.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I'm following what's being differentiated here.

Premarital sex is not justified for men any more than women in a Biblical sense.

Unless I missed something, no one is arguing that this is the case from a biblical/theological/spiritual point of view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top