Pope Francis says 'Being homosexual is not a crime', but still thinks it's a 'sin'

How odd.

God made me gay.

Acting against what God made me is a sin?

This man always keeps contradicting himself: one day he says that God loves you, even if you're gay and then next day says you're a sinner. One day he trashes communism and then he says he's against "private property".

He's an old guy. He's trying to have it both ways and it doesn't really work but at least he's trying to be a kind and compassionate human being. It's a better deal than we've had from the last few Popes.

Does the Pope think it's a sin for Priests to suck and fuck little boys?

It'sa justa misademeanor.

[quote] This man always keeps contradicting himself: one day he says that God loves you, even if you're gay and then next day says you're a sinner.

That’s hardly a contradiction. Hid loves everyone, sinners included. Don’t you think that we’re all sinners?

[quote] Does the Pope think it's a sin for Priests to suck and fuck little boys?

Yes, definitely.

[quote]Being homosexual is not a crime.

He could have and should have stopped there.

Well, Catholics see sex as intrinsically sinful unless it is for purposes of procreation. On the bright side, a few Hail Marys and you’re good to go.

I've always admired this pope

Pay my bills, Pope, live my life.

[quote] I've always admired this pope

He seems to be desperately pulling the church into a more modern stance to save it, but I fear it's too late. The world has caught on the BS that is religion

[quote]Does the Pope think it's a sin for Priests to suck and fuck little boys?

Absolutely - he said this plenty of times. Do your homework !

[quote]This man always keeps contradicting himself: one day he says that God loves you, even if you're gay and then next day says you're a sinner.

Everyone's a sinner in the eyes of the Pope and his Church.

I don't know r12. There are still over 1 billion Catholics. Not sure how much of that is "true, true believers" but still, it's a lot of people that potentially could be influenced in the right direction here. Good for him, even if it's only partway toward real acceptance. It's certainly better if there aren't a lot of assholes around the world outlawing gay people. Or at least fewer.

The “it’s a sin” comment was taken out of context. He actually said “Some people say it’s a sin.”

Catholics really don’t go in for sexuality as an identity. Sexuality for Catholics is a set of desires and actions related to an individual’s human need for intimacy with others, which need stems from the biological imperative to survive and reproduce.

Umm, no.

"Being homosexual is not a crime," he said. "It's not a crime. Yes, but it's a sin. Fine, but first let's distinguish between a sin and a crime."

[quote] Does the Pope think it's a sin for Priests to suck and fuck little boys? Yes, definitely.

And yet the Church is quickly sweeping that under the rug and hoping desperately that we all forget

[quote] Catholics really don’t go in for sexuality as an identity. Sexuality for Catholics is a set of desires and actions related to an individual’s human need for intimacy with others, which need stems from the biological imperative to survive and reproduce.

And yet it was the condemnation by religion that made gay into an identity.

I think you are right r18, but the question then becomes if you aren't a true believer Catholic, do you give a damn what the Church thinks is a sin? When it comes to laws, yes, absolutely, even if they are stupid or wrongheaded you have to pay attention to them and all over the world the laws against gay people ruin lives. When it comes to sin, well that comes down to what you believe and don't believe. If you don't believe in Judaism you simply don't have to give a damn if kosher makes sense or doesn't or if it's stupid or not. It simply doesn't matter to you, except maybe as some philosophical debate. It would matter if people start deciding that legally everybody has to keep kosher dietary laws or be punished for it.

I am not a Catholic, but I give a damn because a lot of people are.

R22, but most don't care what the Pope says about anything

R22, millions and millions of people care. Catholicism is very important in several countries (eg, Most of southern Europe), so his comments have great impact. This is also why the most conservative part of the Church truly hates him but cannot say much out loud (see the latest wars with his predecessor and his staff).

I am an atheist and was irritated when i saw this comment today, especially because they usually distinct between being homosexual (which is who you are ) and doing homosexual acts (which is what you do and can avoid). But all said and done he is significantly preferable to all those who came before and, i fear, who will come after.

The sin is not being gay, but having sex. He does not approve of same sex marriage and sex outside of marriage is a sin for everyone.

R25, Isn't that convenient that he believes that gays shouldn't marry and thus any time we have sex, it's a sin?

Seems like PR to me: within 15 years, the Roman Catholic Church will no longer view homosexuality as a sin.

With Pope Francis leading the Church, it could have been sooner but the RCs are losing congregants to Pentecostal movements at a rapid clip. Baby steps because at the end of the day, the numbers bring in wealth which brings in sustained power.

Ugh.

What if you're a [italic]beady-eyed[/italic] homosexual?

Are you saying r27 that Pentecostals are less homophobic and therefore the Catholic Church has to catch up to them to keep up its numbers? Cause I suspect the opposite is true.

I would also say that "numbers bring in the wealth" really depends on where those numbers are. Converting the entire continent of Africa is probably less important than getting 10% of North America and Western Europe when it comes to actual wealth.

Even so, I think Francis' motives here (and of course could be wrong) are actually more compassionate than pure cynical politics. I think he's stuck in a dilemma. He heads a Church that has hated gay people for at least 1700 years (no idea what the earliest Christians actually thought about anything, so being on the safe side here). At the same time, he can see that that hatred is causing real pain and problems for a lot of people and would like to do something about that fact. The same way the Anglican church just apologized basically for being an asshole to gay people pretty much forever. There really are people in those religions, even in leadership, who kind of hate the way their churches have acted. But they are still constrained by things like, you know, the Bible, tradition, doctrine, canon law. Slowly, some of them are trying to maneuver toward sanity and actual morality as much as their faiths allow.

It may not work, but I certainly prefer the ones who try over the ones who simply love the shitty aspects of Christianity.

[quote]Even so, I think Francis' motives here (and of course could be wrong) are actually more compassionate than pure cynical politics.

Yes, I think he does have compassion for gay people and he would go further in adjusting the Church's stance if he felt he could get away with it. As it is, though, a not-insignificant number of traditional Catholics think he's basically the anti-Christ for what he's said so far.

Am I supposed to know who that is in R28?

No idea.

Agree r30. You get far more pushback for being merciful or compassionate in Christianity than for clinging desperately to the asshole parts. People, so many people, love the asshole parts of Christianity, or most religions really, and hate when somebody tries to take those parts away from them.

R32 "You get far more pushback for being merciful or compassionate in Christianity than for clinging desperately to the asshole parts."

YES!!! It's so fricking weird and creepy. Not at ALL where Jesus was coming from.

[quote] Well, Catholics see sex as intrinsically sinful unless it is for purposes of procreation.

That’s not true. The Catholic Church teaches that within the context of marriage, the ends and purposes of the sex act are twofold:

A communion of love at the service of life.

One is not better than the other.

But the Church does teach that every sexual act must be open to the possible transmission of life. Even if we know it to be unlikely or even impossible. For instance, because of old age or because a woman is not ovulating. It just needs to open to the [bold] possible transmission of life. [/bold]

Like the couple that recently got arrested r4? Yes. In all cases he thinks it's wrong.

I doubt Latin America will go for that r27.

[quote]It just needs to open to the possible transmission of life.

Homosexual acts are just as open to the possible transmission of life as sex between two 70-year-old straights. In either case, God would have to perform a miracle to make it happen.

this bitch should just shut the fuck up

I never trust anyone who wears white after Labor Day.

Francis needs to find a way to open the gay coffers without pissing off the hard core.

I consider myself Christian and I think it is possible Jesus was a gay man. The beloved disciple was his twink and you cannot convince me with all those men roaming around the desert together at least some werent hooking up.

I dont think it is blasphemy to say this. Jesus’s message doesnt change irrespective of his sexual preferences. Plus gay men are closer to perfect than the straights are

[quote]The beloved disciple was his twink

Just the one, dear?

At least he's an improvement over Pope Benny

Fuck you Francine.

it is often those that are the least religious that have the most to say about religion... likewise the same extends to the religious that finds itself engaging in areas it should not.

We all know what scripture says, however, scholars, theologians widely disagree on specifics.

People should accept this as "progress" in the same way they would have voted for Hillary or Obama, who had a lifetime of believing that homosexuality is less than heterosexuality and likely for the most part, still do. . . regardless of current party politics, that being more cynical, I don't doubt for a second wouldn't de-evolve their positions if they thought it would secure a win. They pushed one too many fundies last year in the selections, former republicans turned democrats overnight in red states... while risking us all in their own elections by platforming the worst on the right as well. And I feel they're playing too fast and loose with our issues, among others... but alas, even bringing up such concerns get screeches of being an enemy to the cause and told I should vote republican or the various destructive things that should happen to me.

If one is interested in changing the policies of the most fundamentalist or orthodox religions, it helps if one is or becomes a part of those communities. Where it's much easier to point out the hypocrisies and have them taken seriously than approaching from the outside agitated and hostile.

perhaps boost gay religious organizations working to change that or bridge the hostilities rather than setting crosses on fire?

[quote]But the Church does teach that every sexual act must be open to the possible transmission of life. Even if we know it to be unlikely or even impossible. For instance, because of old age or because a woman is not ovulating. It just needs to open to the possible transmission of life.

I'd probably describe myself as agnostic. But the fact over a billion people around the world hang on the views of an Argentine squatting in a tax haven created by Mussolini is quite literally Jesus Christ why?

Love thy neighbor.

judge Not.

Sounds like the good Pope is judging gays for their “sin”

Why can't these slobbering religious cunts just fuck off?

What gives them to right to constantly and viciously vilify other groups of people?

He and others like him should STFU and devote the extraordinarily large amount of time they spend denigrating homosexuals and concentrate on the very serious issues within the churches they are responsible for. But no of course that isn't even on their radar. Fuck all of these people. The sooner the churches die out the better.

The Bipolar Pope.

No, R29. I’m saying Pentecostals are more regressive than the Church.

Western societies don’t give as much as you think, either. Their currency and economies are stronger but in the developing world, there is a stronghold on gathering of funds/assets that is unheard of in the West.

There’s active pressure to tithe properly, bazaars/fetes/building projects entirely funded by one family, donation of land (these people may not have physical cash but almost all of them have land, which they’re encouraged to donate via their wills or and/or offer to be used during their lifetimes), free labor ranging from administrative to farming to medical, etc. There’s a reason Western prosperity preachers love proselytizing in developing countries: it’s a guaranteed money maker.

For instance, my local Cathedral has a visiting Priest that has been gifted with 3 brand new cars in the past year from various parishioners. Once given, these assets belong directly to the Church which means vehicles don’t need to be purchased for the clergy.

Cash is provided in baskets during Thanksgiving services and there can be as many as four during one Mass; there are at least two services on Sunday. One of those collections will be expressly collected for the Rectory. We’re not factoring in the smaller amounts from twice daily Mass during the week, the money/offerings piled up at the grotto/shrines following group novenas, and so on.

The West isn’t going to fall for that but the global south will and continues to do so. It’s harder to see because the Priest wears a collar vs a Jermyn Street suit and shoes but it’s the same damn thing.

The Church is allowing the closure of parishes and parochial schools in the West because there’s no way to keep these places going without dipping into the Church coffers; it’s an expense with little hope of return. In the developing world, their parishes are practically self-funded/run.

I’m continually surprised at how insular DL has become; just saddened, really. The assumptions made…man.

R36, Latin America would be more open to this than Africa and Asia because Christianity as a whole is predominant in Latin America. In other regions, you’re dealing with a smorgasbord of religions, ethnicities, cultures, histories, etc that muddy the waters but the Church’s PR campaign will work. It just will take time.

R52, you're just confirming that the Catholic Church is one big grift

The control over the parishioners is definitely exploitative, R53.

In return, schools are built, cottage industries created and healthcare services are provided but the Church benefits far more than the community.

With traditional grifts, only one side benefits.

Catholicism has no mandatory giving requirement. The people give what they want. Canon law 537 requires every parish to have a finance council with competent laity included as members.

R54 is full of shit.

…and the Roman Catholic Church is akin to voodoo, just a lot richer and much much more dangerous historically. But I guess this is progress.

Here is what the Pope actually said (you have to read all four parts of the tweet).

The Pope said Homosexuality makes men want to dance to the rhythm

[quote] In return, schools are built, cottage industries created and healthcare services are provided but the Church benefits far more than the community.

Care to explain how the Church benefits far more from the community in the case of schools, hospitals, social service agencies, shelters, etc?

The Catholic Church is the largest nongovernmental supplier of social services in the United States. Each year, parishes, schools, and ministries serve millions of people in need, regardless of race, ethnicity or religion.

And people think that the money in the Church is centralized, therefore the Church is rich. Not the case. Parishes receive no money from either their diocese or the Church in Rome. In fact, parishes have to pay a certain percentage of what they receive to a diocesan assessment tax. And every year every parish in the world is obliged to take up a collection that will go to the Vatican to support the charitable works of the pope.

Parishes need to be financially solvent on their own. That means each parish has to pay their own salaries to both clerical and lay staffs.

Hospitals, schools, and other charitable endeavors are usually owned and operated by religious orders and they do not give any money to Rome.

As Harvard says, "Every tub on its own bottom."

[Quote] The Catholic Church is the largest nongovernmental supplier of social services in the United States. Each year, parishes, schools, and ministries serve millions of people in need, regardless of race, ethnicity or religion.

It’s hospitals get billions from the government in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, and grants—and yet they wont provide birth control or abortions. Many didn’t want to provide HIV care at the start of the epidemic

[quote]In return, schools are built, cottage industries created and healthcare services are provided but the Church benefits far more than the community.

And small boy's arses are raped repeatedly. And once again, the church benefits far more than the community

[Quote] The Catholic Church is the largest nongovernmental supplier of social services in the United States. Each year, parishes, schools, and ministries serve millions of people in need, regardless of race, ethnicity or religion.

All with the ultimate aim of getting more people into the church

Old guy in a dress said what?

[quote] It’s [sic] hospitals get billions from the government in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, and grants—and yet they wont provide birth control or abortions. Many didn’t want to provide HIV care at the start of the epidemic

St Vincent’s Hospital in the West Village was well known for having cared for HIV/AIDS sufferers:

[quote]In the 1980s, as the gay population of Greenwich Village and New York began succumbing to the AIDS virus, [bold]St. Vincent's established the first AIDS ward on the East Coast[/bold] and second only to one in San Francisco, and soon became "Ground Zero" for the AIDS-afflicted in NYC. [bold]The hospital "became synonymous" with care for AIDS patients in the 1980s, particularly poor gay men and drug users.[/bold] It became one of the best hospitals in the state for AIDS care with a large research facility and dozens of doctors and nurses working on it.

Source for the above:

Yeah, in my city it was the Catholic hospital that provided AIDS care and ran the HIV clinic.

Same here, R67. Of course a Catholic hospital won't provide abortions. Are you for real? It's considered a grave offense to human life and to the Creator.

The Catholic Church takes care of many people in and out of hospital. Some of you guys are just stupid.

R60, I clearly stated in the developing world the Church benefits more and yet you ask me how my comment is true in relation to the United States.

We must remember that while it is actually not a sin to be gay, it is a sin to engage in homosexual acts. When one is gay, one is called to live a life of celibacy.

I remember the days of living in sin. I was 27, I’m 34 now. That life is over now.

[Quote] Of course a Catholic hospital won't provide abortions. Are you for real? It's considered a grave offense to human life and to the Creator.

Nor will Catholic hospitals provide birth control but they’ll happily take tax money

[Quote] We must remember that while it is actually not a sin to be gay, it is a sin to engage in homosexual acts. When one is gay, one is called to live a life of celibacy.

That is a BS compromise the right has come up with to pretend they don’t hate gay people.

God made you gay and wants you to have gay sex

[Quote] St Vincent’s Hospital in the West Village was well known for having cared for HIV/AIDS sufferers:

This was mainly because of its location, its history of taking care of gay patients, and having a staff that was very gay—and less about the fact that the hospital was Catholic . In fact, officially, the hospital refused to have collaborations with gay groups to fight HIV.

Having sexual desire and having sex is a natural human function. Gay people are attracted to the same sex. Thus we want to have sex with the same sex. That's the fucking point. Straight religious people got married young mainly just to have sex. Gay religious people don't have that option. Oh and of course masturbating is a sin. So what does that leave us? A life of loneliness and depression. Being pressured to marry the opposite sex and hide who we are. Religious people don't understand how cruel that is.

He’s nauseating. And he is NOT an ally.

[quote]In fact, officially, the hospital refused to have collaborations with gay groups to fight HIV.

Please provide official support for this fact you assert.