In new book, Pope Francis says he is worried about homosexuality in the priesthood

  Pope Francis is pictured as he leaves his general audience in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican Nov. 21. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis has been quoted in a soon-to-be published book as saying that having gays in the clergy "is something that worries me" and remarking that some societies are considering homosexuality a "fashionable" lifestyle.

Italian daily Corriere della Sera's website Saturday ran excerpts of the book in the form of an interview that Francis gave about religious vocations. Francis was quoted as describing homosexuality within the walls of seminaries, convents and other religious places where clergy live as "a very serious question."

Advertisement

Francis was quoted as describing homosexuality within the walls of seminaries, convents and other religious places where clergy live as "a very serious question."

"In our societies, it even seems homosexuality is fashionable. And this mentality, in some way, also influences the life of the church," Francis was quoted as telling his interviewer, a Spanish-born missionary priest, Fernando Prado.

The book, based on four hours of conversations the two had in August at the Vatican, will be published in 10 languages next week. Its Spanish title is "La Fuerza de la vocacion," ("The Strength of Vocation").

Francis reiterated past Vatican pronouncements about the attention that must be given to selecting men for admission to seminaries, saying "we must very much take care of human and sentimental maturity" when training future priests.

Separately, the Italian news agency ANSA quoted Francis in the book  as commenting on a clergyman who had told him that having gays in Catholic religious housing "isn't so grave" because it's "only an expression of affection."

"In our societies, it even seems homosexuality is fashionable. And this mentality, in some way, also influences the life of the church," Francis was quoted as telling his interviewer.

That reasoning "is in error," Francis said. "In consecrated life and priestly life, there is no place for this kind of affection."

He said candidates with "neuroses or strong unbalances" should not be accepted "to the priesthood nor to (other forms of) consecrated life."

Still, Francis, as he has in the past, stressed that gay Catholics contribute to the life of the church. He said the church must always remember that "they are persons who will live in the service of the church, of the Christian community, of the people of God. Let's never forget this perspective."

Francis in his papacy has sought to stress that while obeying church teachings, the faithful must also be compassionate and open to others with different views.

Catholic teaching considers homosexual activity sinful, and that everyone, except married heterosexual couples, should abstain from sex.

Tim O'Leary
1 week 3 days ago

Frank - I do not know of any connection between Vigano and the Ruth Institute or the PA Grand Jury. Perhaps, you have information that has not yet reached the public? Note the leader of the Ruth Institute has said: “Some of the holiest men I know are men who have experienced same-sex attraction as an ongoing inner reality in their lives. They have made a decision not to act on their same-sex desires. Their holiness stems precisely from the challenge this decision presents. They know they need God. And like Mary Magdalene, they love much because they have been forgiven much.” Jennifer Morse https://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/50-shades-of-gay

Karl Miller
1 week 4 days ago

Speaking of which, Pontifex, any word on Cardinal McCarrick?

I thought so.

Fred Keyes
1 week 3 days ago

Meaning what, Mr. Miller? Are secular institutions the only ones allowed not to comment on personnel matters, for obvious reasons?

Tim O'Leary
1 week 4 days ago

Nothing new here. Pope Francis is just being faithful to the Catholic teaching and inspired Scriptures. He has always been clear in his statements that homosexual acts are unacceptable for a Christian AND that all people are called to chastity, heterosexual and homosexual. As his past statements against gay marriage have also stated, he very much believes that no matter what orientation a person feels or claims, they are bound by the moral law, which clearly stipulates that sexual acts can only be confined to a licit marriage between a man and a woman. He has long taught against the LGBT or "gay ideology" that turns the experience of same-sex attraction into an identity. This is incompatible with the Catholic priesthood. A longer excerpt of the interview is linked below.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/in-new-book-on-clergy-and-relig…

Tim O'Leary
1 week 4 days ago

The aptly named Daily Beast now calls Pope Francis a homophobe (link below), as I too have been called. But, Church teaching has always excluded men from the priesthood who would have a special difficulty living their vocation. If one is already a priest and discovers SSA (it seems to frequently arise late in life), then, as long as the person can and will remain celibate, I agree with the statement by Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute: "Some of the holiest men I know are men who have experienced same-sex attraction as an ongoing inner reality in their lives. They have made a decision not to act on their same-sex desires. Their holiness stems precisely from the challenge this decision presents. They know they need God. And like Mary Magdalene, they love much because they have been forgiven much." The big issue for SSA is falling for the LGBT ideology, that normalizes what is not normal, that turns a personal temptation into a badge of pride, and that calls it sinful to be opposed to sin (homophobia). This is what Pope Francis means by calling it "fashionable." https://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/50-shades-of-gay
https://www.thedailybeast.com/pope-francis-goes-full-homophobic-now-ver…

Robin Smith
1 week 4 days ago

The only people who call homosexuality "fashionable" are the ones who say it's a choice. Gay people call it just who they are.
The bigger issue is pedophilia & relocating to ignore abuse.

Tim O'Leary
1 week 4 days ago

Robin - Pedophilia makes up less than 20% of the abuse of minors. 80% is post-pubertal. Homosexual acts are chosen, just as heterosexual acts or chosen. Otherwise, you are saying that homosexuals are enslaved to their temptations. In any case, Pope Francis is speaking about sexual acts between priests that is a betrayal of their vows.

lynne miller
1 week 4 days ago

Acting on one's sexual desires is indeed a choice, but whether the object of that desire is of the same or opposite sex is innate. One is born gay. One need not act on it.

Tim O'Leary
1 week 3 days ago

Lynne - The American Psychiatric Association (DSM) does not agree with you. Here is their wording: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." The Cathechism follows this (CCC #2357) "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained." Then, the Church adds: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

Michael Barberi
1 week 3 days ago

Tim - A correction. Homosexuality is addressed in Catholic moral theology under two forms: homosexual orientation is considered an "objective disorder" because Catholicism views it as being "ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil", but not sinful unless acted upon. The American Psychiatric Association does not consider 'homosexuality' to be an intrinsic disorder.

Tim O'Leary
1 week 3 days ago

Michael - I never said the APA said it was a disorder. My point is they do not support the popular "born-that-way" meme. I just quoted from their current website. Their most recent controversy in this are is with gender disorder or gender dysphoria and calling pedophilia an orientation (distinguishing it from pedophilic disorder). Their DSM changes with the times and they are now on DSM-5.
As I'm sure you agree, they have no competence when it comes to interpreting Christian morality.

Michael Barberi
1 week 3 days ago

Tim - I read a doctoral dissertation on Homosexuality. It covered almost all the studies on the etiology of this condition/inclination/orientation. There is no respected socio-scientific organization that has concluded precisely the cause of homosexuality. Nevertheless, there is much evidence that it is innate, something that is genetic, something that people are born with. It is not "chosen". Homosexual act are chosen and follow the person's natural innate sexual inclination. Some studies believe that the environment is a contributing factor but the consensus among experts is that most homosexuals are born that way. I know many homosexuals. Many have confided in me that they did not want to be that way. So while you are entitled to argue your point, we cannot say that just because the APA did not explicitly say "they support the popular 'born-that-way' meme", this does not mean that the APA has concluded that 'born that way' is false and misleading. They see evidence but pro and con but at this time they don't know the answer with certainty. What the APA did say, and this was my point, was that homosexuality is not an innate intrinsic disorder that the Church asserts without, by the way, any evidence to support their conclusion.

Tim O'Leary
1 week 3 days ago

Same-sex attraction comes in many different types, and is not binary at all. The evidence does indicate that many do not believe they have any choice, but not all. Some believe they are bisexual, gender non-conforming, transgender, etc. Some experience it very early in life, some much later. For some is is intermittent, occurs only in their youth or in later life, and only in some environments. For others, it is unavoidable, nearly continuous and overwhelming. All this is consistent with how the APA and the Catechism say it is. It is very diverse and definitely a hardship for those who struggle with it. But, all sin is a hardship for those who struggle with it. The Church, instituted by Jesus Christ to save souls, has always taught that SSA acts are always morally unacceptable, and bad for everyone's soul, whether they realize it or not. They also demand that everyone with SSA be loved, even when they attack Christians whole hold to the truth, and are hated, ridiculed, and excluded because of it. The Church also holds that SSA acts are unnatural in the sense that they frustrate the design and demands of the Creator. SSA acts cannot produce children. Every act is contraceptive in essence. Also, many acts, particularly anal intercourse are severely unhealthy, in terms of infections and many other ways. Some SSA people are literally heroes and saints and amazing witnesses. Joseph Sciambra's describes his life in Castro and the horrors he has lived through. (https://josephsciambra.com) and is much hated by the activists. Same for Daniel Mattson and many in the Courage group.

Michael Barberi
1 week 1 day ago

Tim - Even Pope Francis said to a homosexual that God "made you that way" and loves you....so do I. The argument you are making that some are gay, lesbian, bisexual etc misses the point. Consider that the lived experience of the overwhelming majority of homosexuals support studies that conclude that homosexuality is something that people are born with. It is a natural innate inclination/orientation, much like being born left-handed. The issue I have a big problem with is this: Homosexuals are required to live a lifetime of sexual abstinence while at the same time they are denied a marriage or permanent, faithful and loving union. If a heterosexual was required to be celibate for their salvation, think about the burden this would create for such a person. Yet when it comes to homosexuals, they simply must do it because that is the law of the Church. Such a mandatory requirement for one's salvation is an over-whelming burden. Let's get real: At least heterosexuals have a 'choice' between marriage and remaining single, but not homosexuals. It now appears that if a homosexual has a true calling to serve God, they cannot join the priesthood either.

If the only message to homosexuals is "they have an intrinsic disorder" and the Church can discriminate against them in terms of employment, adoption and lay ministries (the current practice), and also deny them a marriage or permanent faithful and loving union, then the Catholic Church as an intrinsic disorder relative to this issue. I admit this issue is complex, but reading them the 'law' without rethinking how we can treat them with respect, compassion and sensitivity is not the answer.

Tim O'Leary
1 week 1 day ago

Michael - There you go presuming again. We have no proof that Pope Francis said to Juan Carlos Cruz that God "made you that way." Only that Cruz said he said it. The Vatican refused to confirm this. In any case, it doesn't have much relevance in knowing what is moral, since God made everything, including alcoholics or any disability, and He inspired the Holy Scriptures that says homosexual acts are gravely immoral, and founded the Church who wrote the Catechism! It is not the inclination that is sinful, but the actions. As to the left-handed comparison, I do not know if the CDC collects data about handedness, but HIV and STDs are 40-fold higher in MSM, so it is preposterous to equate a minor attribute to something that is very dangerous and that prevents the begetting of children.

Michael Barberi
1 week ago

Tim - It is you who always argue against anything that gives pause and encourages a rethinking about a teaching like homosexuality or what Pope Francis said. I find you argument ridiculous when you imply that Pope Frances did not say to a homosexual that God made you that way and he loves you merely because the Vatican refused to confirm it. They also did not deny it either! Pope Francis and the Vatican does not have to confirm or answer every question of journalists who are more interested in creating hyper-negative and controversial headlines and speculation. For example, Pope Francis did not have to answer the infamous 'dubia' by Cardinals and Bishops who were trying to destroy his views on the Church and some pastoral changes in some of its teachings. His supporters and the Curia did respond to questions about AL, but not specifically on the dubia questions because AL did not change doctrine!! It changed the pastoral application of doctrine and this has been explained by may theologians and Curia bishops. Ironically, you have argued in the past that Paul VI did not have to accept the recommendations of 75% of his pontifical birth control commission and 70% of Synod bishops who were asked for their opinions before he issued HV. As to the reference to 'left-handedness', this is an example that many moral theologians have used to try to explain something that many people are born with, when discussing SSA. I did so in this light, so please don't exaggerate the use of this example in an illusion to make your argument and denigrate mine. People who follow these things can see through specious arguments.

Tim O'Leary
6 days 19 hours ago

Michael - the APA position today is there is no one or settled cause of homomsexuality, just many theories. You are right that many use left-handedness as a comparison, but this is disinformation to hide the life-altering effect a life of gay sex might entail. Imagine if someone described a condition that would have such negative consequences for health, have an increased suicide rate, a 40-fold increase in STDs, a 100-fold increase in dying of AIDS, several anorectal disorders, an inability to have kids, apart from adoption or in vitro methods. Would anyone trivialize that condition as just like left-handedness. So, apart from the moral and spiritual arguments (which are definitive for eternal life), let's keep it real.

Michael Barberi
6 days 12 hours ago

Tim - It preposterous to say that using left-handedness to describe something that a person is born with when discussing homosexuality....is "disinformation to hide the life-threatening effects of a life of gay sex might entail." This erroneous statement on your part is both disingenuous and irresponsible. It is a loaded statement because it implies 'habitual sin and eternal damnation' and exaggerates things by claiming that it "trivializes" other heath related consequences.
Apart from this, you constantly miss other argument I make. There is a big moral difference between homosexuals in a permanent, faithful and loving relationship (e.g., married in civil ceremony, married in a Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue) and having pre-marital sex. You can say the same thing of heterosexuals who practice premarital sex and heterosexual adults who are divorced and remarried. There are no significant physical, psychological or emotional differences between the degree of sexual attraction between members of the opposite sex and the degree of sexual attraction of members of the same sex. The only significant difference is that homosexuals are born with the reverse of the heterosexual sexual attraction. Few homosexual 'choose' their SSA. If God created 2%-5% of the population with an innate and natural SSA, to what calling and purpose would this serve in God's kingdom on earth? According to the Church, this calling is to live a lifetime of sexual abstinence and never enter into any type of permanent, faithful and loving relationship. The calling is also to live a life full of loneliness because they cannot love another person of the same sex in the same way that a heterosexual loves their spouse of the opposite sex. Additionally, homosexuals must accept discrimination in Catholic employment (when it becomes known), Catholic adoption and many Catholic lay ministries. No wonder they don't feel welcomed but condemned.

Your arguments often use exaggerated and morally misleading comparisons to suit your ideology by claiming that using left-handedness is to trivialize other conditions like an increased suicide rate, a 40-fold increase in STDs, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are many reason for suicide and STD. Keep in mind Tim that the overwhelming majority of Catholic homosexuals experience an unwelcoming Church where all they hear is the message "you have a intrinsic disorder that leads you to commit grave sin", along with all the other requirements imposed on them from the hierarchy I previously mentioned.

All you want to focus on Tim, is the law. In this view, which is the current Church's viewpoint, homosexuals must bite the bullet, muster up the courage to carry their imposed requirements for their salvation (e.g., lifetime sexual abstinence), and suffer discrimination in employment, adoption and lay ministries, and don't get their hopes up for a merciful pastoral pathway for their salvation (e.g., along the pastoral approach approved by Pope Francis for the Argentine Bishops for Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried...I gave you this) or any hope that priests and bishops will treat them with respect, compassion and sensitively.

Tim O'Leary
4 days 19 hours ago

Michael - I stand by my arguments that using left-handedness (or race, hair-color, or any non-behavioral-altering genetic trait) is totally inappropriate as an analogy for such a body-and-soul-altering life an exclusively homosexual orientation does to an individual. You are also wrong about my focus. It is not on the Law, but on saving souls. It is not my opinion (even if coated in conscience language), but the Truth I seek, the only Truth that saves. I want to see you and all I argue with in Heaven some day. I want no one to be lost. That is my only goal. You seem to have reduced any concern for eternal life, in favor of sexual satisfaction in this short, brief and difficult world. Your method of argument is really no different from your original departure from orthodoxy - contraception. every other error stems from that fault. But, I am glad to see you now want to preach adherence to the Magisterium - if only you were consistent!

Michael Barberi
4 days 14 hours ago

Tim - You always try to paint yourself as the one who has the stronger moral agreement, often by using side issues and misrepresenting me or erroneously assuming something I said. You have a habit of forgetting things and I am being kind. Here is my last response to these over-lengthly exchanges.

1. We agree to disagree about the appropriateness of using left-handedness as a way to try to understand something that someone one is born with. Read on.
2. Your claim about "a body and soul altering life" is replete with harmful and irresponsible assumptions about sin, culpability and salvation. Homosexuality is not a sin Tim. That is what we are talking about when we use analogies like left-handedness. Homosexuality Tim does not have has anything to do with salvation. We were talking about a innate natural condition that people are born with. This is something that people do not "choose". The analogy of left-handedness is appropriate.
3. Your focus on 'saving souls' are grounded in your rigid belief on the doctrine and teachings (e.g., the Law). This applies to any teaching, not just homosexual relations. You belief that a sexual relationship between homosexuals in a permanent, faithful and loving relationship is evil, sinful and will lead to eternal damnation...is based on the Law, pure and simple. So, please don't try to persuade me that you are not focused on the "teachings, doctrine or the law" here. Make no mistake about what I am saying Tim. I believe you are a sincere person who loves God and neighbor. However, we have very different viewpoints. However, you must recognize that each of us are both searching for the truth and God's Will. You are not standing on the morally higher ground merely because you believe very teaching of the magisterium is right and I am wrong, misguided and causing scandal.
4. I also hope to see you in heaven Tim and I don't want anyone to be lost. We both want the same thing. However, just because I argue for a rethinking of certain teachings does not make me inflicted with some type of evil that is misleading Catholics, undermining the Church or inappropriately denigrating the teachings of popes. If everyone in history agreed with every teaching of the Church we would still likely be living with slavery, usury and no freedom of religion. We certainly would not be witnessing an emphasis on the pastoral application of doctrine/teachings (e.g., in AL) and the integration of the informed conscience in the praxis of the Church.
5. Shame on you for claiming that I have reduced any concern for eternal life in favor of sexual satisfaction in this short and brief world. Shame on you! That is insulting and highly irresponsible. You let your emotions overwhelm your sense of respectful debate between two people who are searching for the truth. In other words, anyone that disagrees with teachings of the magisterium like contraception (HV), in your opinion, must stem from a departure from orthodoxy...give me a break.
6. Lastly, my arguments about AL or HV have never been based on adherence to the magisterium. Never. Read my essay on HV and show me how your preposterous statement is valid. I am completely consistent in my moral arguments and always have been. What is clear to me is your constant habit of misrepresenting and misunderstanding my arguments....as usual.

Tim O'Leary
4 days 8 hours ago

Michael – I have never seen you couch your arguments in terms of saving souls or eternal life. You don’t post about how people can live a holier life or reform their lives. I can imagine you don’t keep on about this in your private life and seek personal holiness. But, your blogging obsession is about sexual satisfaction in this life, from contraception, to sex among divorcees, to sexual identity, to homosexuality. It is your big thing, your cause célèbre. Even side issues, such as the historical handling of slavery or usury, are never about those issues, but only to argue that the Church has changed its teaching and so should do so about sex. It’s always sex, sex, sex.

I know you will not listen to me. But, please listen to the warnings of Jesus. His teaching is replete about the narrow gate, the many who are lost, and His exclusivity as the Way the Truth and the Life. His Church, the Catholic Church, is His mystical body, the only place that teaches the fullness of the faith, despite the waywardness of many of its children, who chase after every fad and fancy and cannot be satisfied with the unadulterated truth.
I never said that having same-sex attractions, or even attractions to minors, or attractions to other people’s wives, or bondage, or other fetishes, are in themselves sinful, as long as they are not justified or excused or nurtured, or worse, paraded as goodness itself.

Michael Barberi
3 days 18 hours ago

Tim - You often resort to foolish and hate-filled comments when you can't keep an argument respectful. When this happens you denigrate my motivations, ends and intentions as well as my well-reasoned, honest and moral arguments.
All moral arguments are about doing the right thing in circumstances, and having good ends and intentions. What Catholic person does not want to save souls and have eternal life? More importantly, every disagreement with a teaching of the magisterium does not mean that the person making the argument does not want to save souls. Shame on you for casting dispersions that I am putting sexual satisfaction in this world ahead of eternal life or I am obsessed with sex. sex, sex. It is your "obsession of belief" that anyone that disagrees with a teaching of the magisterium and argues for a change is, in your distorted opinion, leading souls to hell. Shame on you Tim. Respectful and honest debate is healthy for the Church. If you cannot control your emotions and stop chastising and denigrating your interlocutor's character, motivation and ends in argument, then stop blogging.

I don't question your personal holiness, so pleas don't question mine merely because I blog and write about sexual ethics. I am a published author and have studied moral theology for 7 years. Sexual ethics is a focus of mine and Humanae Vitae was my first published essay that took me 4 years of research to write with Joseph Selling. I do practice my faith as best I can. I am a Knight of Columbus, participate in several ministries, fund the education of 4 poor Cambodian children, attend weekly Mass, have a daily prayer life, and try to live a life where I can be a light to my family and friends as Christ has asked us. Honestly Tim, you need to reflect on your choice of words and arguments because they are ad hominem and far from what Christ expects of us. You say my comments are 'blogging obsessions", "all about sex and sexual satisfaction". None of my arguments are about "sexual satisfaction at the expense of salvation". It is true that I argue about sexual ethical issues because they are my interest and central to the teachings that most Catholic disagree with, as well as many bishops, priests and moral theologians. Please note that moral theologians have been having a respectful, robust and contentious debate about sexual ethics for the past 50 years. More importantly, all Catholics have a responsibility to speak up and participate in respectful debate. This has been going on for centuries Tim. Ever heard of the theological magisterium Tim, or the lay magisterium? Unfortunately, you only see the papal magisterium, full stop.

All good-intentioned and informed Catholics who spend time educating themselves about Scripture and theology want to follow Christ, seek and embrace the truth and save souls. In your world view anyone who disagrees with a teaching of sexual ethics are not interested in saving souls, are misleading Catholics and offending God. Shame on you Tim. You don't see how hateful your comments become when you let your emotions and rigid adherence to teachings over-whelm your reasoning and cause you to engage in denigrating attacks on the character of your well-intentioned interlocutors.

Lastly, please don't lecture me about the warnings of Christ. Your comments often condemn anyone who argues or even whispers that a teaching should be the subject of a rethinking. You also distort every argument I put forth. Go back and read my comments on slavery and usury Tim. They demonstrate that the Church has changed and reformed these teachings. Even during the time of Christ, Paul and Matthew made exceptions to the law. These facts are not the central argument I make. Yes these teachings were taught as truth for centuries but were reformed. However, these arguments I made were only in response to your distorted view that every teaching of the magisterium is the absolute moral truth as well as your constant denial that slavery, usury and freedom of religion were never reformed. So, please be honest here Tim and stop twisting my past arguments to suit your ideology.

I don't argue that following every teaching is wrong or that following every teaching will not lead to salvation. Salvation is more complicated than 'following the law'. You can disagree and remain a faithful Catholic. Everyone who disagrees is not going to hell Tim. They are interested in saving souls, even when their arguments call for a rethinking. A rethinking Tim, not a demand or anarchy. That is what respectful debate is all about.

This is my last comment. I have no desire to continue debating you especially when you start to question and denigrate my character, motivations, personal holiness, and intentions, not to mention deliberately distorting my words and their meanings. Trust me, I will speak my mind again as circumstances permit.

Tim O'Leary
3 days 16 hours ago

Michael - I never denigrated your personal faith life (" I can imagine you...seek personal holiness") and I think your list of good works in paragraph 2 are exemplary. So, why do you spend so many words chasing a phantom charge never made, imagining hate when I am just complaining about your exclusive focus on sexual ethics? I can only assume you read this too quickly before you understood what I said (that seems to happen a lot). Nothing hateful is intended by saying you obsess about sexual morality. As you say yourself "It is true that I argue about sexual ethical issues because they are my interest..." I have never said you are going to hell for anything you said. My simple complaint is you mostly blog against well-established Church teaching, and never about how people can be holy or the salvation of souls - you don't. I don't contend that everyone who disagrees with the Church or me is going to hell. I never said you were going to hell. So, why write that? It is true that you disagree with the Magisterium on many ethical issues, and some doctrinal ones (like Mary's perpetual virginity or the male priesthood). My complaints have never been about your personal life, but with your blogging mission against orthodoxy. Please consider if this is the mission best for those who are reading what you write.

lynne miller
1 week 4 days ago

deleted duplicate post

bill carson
1 week 4 days ago

Someday, the Church will actually, you know, make a genuine effort to prohibit homosexuals from becoming priests and especially bishops. But that "someday" might be 50 years from now. For now, it's all talk and NO action.

Proper procedures should have been in place 100 years ago, if not 500 years ago.

Frank Elliott
1 week 4 days ago

Five hundred years ago your Church was burning homosexuals to death in Venice. Normal homosexuals avoid the church like the social disease that it is. Only the abnormal consider becoming priests.

Tim O'Leary
1 week 4 days ago

Frank - It was terrible that anyone would be burnt for any crime or sin, and you don't have to go back 500 years to see that many millions were burnt for just being Christian or Jewish, in the 20th century, under the atheistic Nazis or Communists. But, past injustice should not blind us to the truth. Sex cannot save anyone from death, physical or spiritual. True salvation comes from the Truth. The Church cannot abandon that for the sake of sentimentality or fashion, or anything. If she did, we have the word of Jesus that we would all be going to hell, where the fire in unquenchable.

Gail Bederman
1 week 4 days ago

Historically, sometimes people have seen "homosexuality" as an act--sex between men. In other times and places, people have seen "homosexuality" as an identity--people are "homosexual" whether they act on their attractions or not. If one reads the entire interview (including the bits quoted by other commentators) it is really uncertain which definition Pope Francis is drawing on. By saying that "homosexuals have no place in the seminary," he might be saying that people in the seminary must not engage in sexual acts with one another--which,as other commentators say, here, is nothing new as nobody in the seminary should engage in sexual acts of any kind. Conversely, he might well be saying that people with same-sex attractions have no place in the seminary even if they never act on those attractions. Either interpretation fits his word, since it's not at all clear which of the above definitions (each of which have been common in different times and places) he is using even in the Italian, much less in the English translation. I personally hope he means the former, but we will see.

Reyanna Rice
1 week 4 days ago

Since the interviewer was Spanish and that is also the pope’s native language, Italian being second, and he is more comfortable speaking in Spanish, the original is more than likely in Spanish.

Tim O'Leary
1 week 4 days ago

Gail - Pope Francis has been very sympathetic to those who, despite an attraction to illicit sex (homosexuals, married individuals who divorce to have a new sexual relationship, etc.) are trying to live a faithful chaste life. He has been equally harsh on the gay lobby or the LGBTideology that denies the reality of sex as God made us and that promotes pride in what is in reality a deadly sin. More recently, he is finding that the problem of homosexual priests has resulted in double lives and cover-ups and even abuse of minor teenagers and he has been burned several times when he gave homosexual priests the benefit of the doubt (like McCarrick, Fr. Inzoli (Don Mercedes), Monsignors RIcca, Charamsa & Capozzi, Bishop Barros & Cardinal Godfried Danneels). He may be finally getting it, although it has taken a long time. We will see if he can reform the Church.

lynne miller
1 week 4 days ago

Once again, being homosexual is not a sin, deadly or otherwise. For a priest to have sex, whether gay or straight, is a violation of his vows, and is, therefore, sinful.

Šime Skelin
1 week 3 days ago

Being homosexual is not sin but engaging in homosexual acts is a sin. Church says.

Cathy Severns
1 week 4 days ago

I would worry about pedophiles in the clergy!

lynne miller
1 week 4 days ago

Exactly!

Bev Ceccanti
1 week 3 days ago

The pedophilia issue is and will continue to be an issue that secular laws address,especially now.. The adultery among men in the priesthood is an issue that only the Church can address. This is the real issue. No person should put themselves in a situation that is an occasion for adultery, which is a deadly sin, to occur. In other words, The Church would not condone heterosexual men to share housing with women. It follows that homosexual men should not share housing with men, period. Putting oneself in the near occasion of sin is a sin itself.

Jim Spangler
1 week 4 days ago

When did you come in out of the storm Pope Francis? Now it is time to dry off, and work on the problem. Get busy and root out those who are actively homosexuals, including Bishops and Cardinal. They have broken the sixth Commandment, as well as their vows of celibacy. The issue is homosexual aggression against young men, either forced or powered by rank. These Priest, Bishops, and Cardinals need to be shown the door and expelled. Then and only will the Church become trusted and gain its credibility back! As of now, until they take action, nothing will change, and those who bring shame and darkness upon the Church will continue to commit the sins of carnage and shame.

Fred Keyes
1 week 3 days ago

Jim, Pope Francis has never been in any such a storm. Conservative Catholics have tried diligently to say that he does not reflect true Catholic teaching, but they simply stubbornly fail to understand him, IMO.

J. Calpezzo
1 week 4 days ago

The Pontiff is as clueless on this issue as he is on the clergy sex abuse scandal.

Crystal Watson
1 week 4 days ago

I think the problem is complex. There is a problem with the sex abuse of children. There is a problem of priests having sex with adults (some say abut 50% at any given time). There is a larger than average number of gay priests, perhaps because, especially in the past, the priesthood was one of the safe places for men who were gay. It's time to allow men and women to be married priests and to accept gay relationships and marriage as wholesome .... that would help the problem.

Jim Spangler
1 week 4 days ago

No, no, no Crystal. Homosexuality has no place in the Church, unless they can keep their chastity celibacy vow. The Bible ban homosexuality, it breaks the 6th Commandment. You shall not commit Adultery with another women or another man!

Paul Hierholzer
1 week 3 days ago

Yes, agree Crystal, it would help/solve the problem.

Fred Keyes
1 week 3 days ago

Well yes, Crystal, it would solve the problem if you believe the Catholic Church needs to be destroyed.

Crystal Watson
1 week 3 days ago

Recent scripture analysis has shown that the bible doesn't address LGBT relationships as they exist today ... Sodom and Gomorrah, for example, is about breaking rules of hospitality, not about gay relationships. Other Christian denominations have decided there is no conflict between the bible and LGBT relationships (Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC, Quakers, Episcopalians, etc.). The Catholic church is wrong on this issue.

Tim O'Leary
6 days 19 hours ago

Crystal. In the Epistle of Jude, the inspired author wrote: "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7) All mentions of Sodom in the bible, beyond the Gen 19 text, imply the city was destroyed for sexual perversion. Moreover, Isaiah 3:9 even references the Pride associated with this sexual perversion: "The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves." Don't be fooled by the heretics.

Michael Barberi
5 days 16 hours ago

Crystal - You are correct. Current scholarship has demonstrated that the Sodom story is about inhospitality and the desire by some male heterosexuals to gang rape the male visitors who have come under the hospitality of Lot. It is not about gay relationship. Also, there is another scholarly reading of Paul's Romans that disputes the current interpretation. The point is this: Scholars are critically re-evaluating Biblical Scripture based on the culture, context and beliefs at that time and are concluding that what has been accepted as an iron-clad interpretation to date is very likely misleading. I suggest the two books by Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler, 'The Sexual Person' and 'Sexual Ethics' for a detailed explanation of the Scripture texts and homosexuality.

Tim O'Leary
4 days 19 hours ago

So, current scholarship gets to overrule 1) the inspired authors (St. Jude, St. Paul), 2) all the Church Fathers, 3) Thomas Aquinas and all scholasticism, 4) the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2 millennia, including today, 5) all Christian faiths up until a few decades ago, 6) the plain reading of the text, 7) common sense. Where in the list of the sins that cry out to heaven and bring fire and brimstone upon a people is inhospitality. Here is the definition of inhospitality from Webster: "not generous and friendly to guests or visitors. : having an environment where plants, animals, or people cannot live or grow easily. : not ready or willing to accept or consider something." it would be so laughable if it were not so tragic for the gullible.

Michael Barberi
3 days 17 hours ago

Current scholarship does not ipso facto overrule teachings of the Church Tim. Their purpose is to cause a rethinking about certain teachings for good reasons, which is healthy for the Church. As far as inhospitality is concerned, you need to education yourself about what hospitality meant during ancient times. Hospitality demonstrated loving thy neighbor and loving thy neighbor also demonstrated loving God. Ancient Israelis held strong to hospitality. It is not like a definition in the dictionary or how current culture views it. The only thing laughable is your ignorance of such things and your intellectual unpersuasive arguments. Google hospitality in ancient Israel and read several articles about it. Then you will understand how important it was.

Tim O'Leary
3 days 3 hours ago

Ridiculous. There is a whole order of difference in being inhospital by any definition, in any era, and violent homosexual rape of visitors (aka sodomy). In Sodom, the would-be rapists were blinded so the visitors could escape their violent rape. They weren't blinded so the visitors could now be given hospitality. St. Jude understood it clearly. So did Jesus and St. Paul. St. Jude's epistle would have to be removed from the canon if the modern revisionists won the argument. But, I guess this difference escapes the ruminations of the so-called scholars. Notice that they always come up with a theory to deny the bleedin' obvious. And, always to excuse more sex - the obsession of a faithless and feckless academia and its sycophants. It might fool the gullible Episcopalians and fringe Catholics but the humble penitent in the pew, and the Magisterium of the True Church are not buying it.

Michael Barberi
2 days 17 hours ago

Tim - your understanding of hospitality and its relevance in the Sodom story is completely wrong. No scholar or informed Catholic is saying that homosexual rape by a mob of heterosexuals is morally justified under any circumstances. Lot offered his daughters to this mob in exchange for the protection and safety of his visitors. Lot likely knew that the mob would not touch his innocent and virgin daughters, but he willingly did this because he wanted to protect his visitors that his hospitality demanded. Note 'hospitality" in ancient times was very different from modern times.
More importantly, the Bible does not say God destroyed Sodom because of homosexual acts. Sodom was likely a city where the people worshiped idols, were sexually permissive, lawless and a haven of evil. More importantly, even if this was true the Sodom story was about a mob of heterosexuals wanting to commit homosexual rape on innocent visitors. Therefore, there is a "moral difference" between homosexual rape of innocent people by heterosexuals, and homosexual acts in the service of a permanent, faithful and loving relationship. "Moral difference" does not mean morally permitted for any reason Tim.
To be crystal clear again Tim: I argue about sexual ethics because my theological education is focused on this subject. Sexual ethics interests me, like an engineer who focuses on civil engineering and not aerospace engineering. I am not an expert in moral theology, but a very well-informed Catholic who is also a published author. Therefore, sexual ethics is not an obsession of mine but a specialty and interest of mine, pure and simple.
Think about what you are doing Tim and ask yourself if you are obsessing over something?....and please don't bring 'faith' and 'salvation' into this discussion. We both seek the truth and want to save souls.
To be clear, I blog and write about sexual ethics when I find arguments that justify a rethinking of a teaching. A 'rethinking' does not mean a full reversal of a teaching. As I said many times before when it comes to homosexuality, I am not convinced the Church's teaching is the sole and last word on this subject, in particular the requirement to live a lifetime of sexual abstinence while denying them a marriage, union or permanent, faithful and loving relationship. So, please don't exaggerate my arguments.
Lastly, most moral theological scholars are not feckless academia because they put forth a reasoned alternative reading of Scripture that is in tension with the Church's teaching. You can disagree with such an argument and an alternative reading of Scripture, but to say that such scholars have an obsessively faithless and feckless argument is absurd and disrespectful. To also say that the scholars putting forth an alternative argument or reading of Scripture is to 'excuse more sex' and is ridiculous. The objectives of moral scholars and alternative readings of Scripture is not to fool the gullible, or the humble penitent in the pew Tim. The objective is to respectfully challenge the current view and cause a rethinking regardless if a rethinking results in no change or a welcomed materially change. This is what respectful debate is all about. Most, if not all, faithful Catholics and moral theologians are seeking a better understanding of truth, a more merciful and loving pastoral response to the disadvantaged such as people born with a SSA.

Advertisement

The latest from america

The act of planting a garden is the easier part: It’s the small daily acts of caring over the long haul that can be a challenge.
Elizabeth Kirkland CahillDecember 15, 2018
So what is it about these cheesy, mass-produced films that make them so irresistible?
Colleen DulleDecember 14, 2018
Last year, 'America' published “An (unconventional) Advent Playlist.” This is my (much more conventional) Advent playlist.
Molly MattinglyDecember 14, 2018
Jeff Daniels in ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ (photo: Julieta Cervantes)
Two starry new Broadway productions have no qualms about speaking their mind.
Rob Weinert-KendtDecember 14, 2018