NY Times article: On Gay priests, Pope Francis asks, "Who am I to judge?"

by adamah 12 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • adamah

    From NY Times:

    ROME — For generations, homosexuality has largely been a taboo topic for the Vatican, ignored altogether or treated as “an intrinsic moral evil,” in the words of the previous pope.

    In that context, brief remarks by Pope Francis suggesting that he would not judge priests for their sexual orientation, made aboard the papal airplane on the way back from his first foreign trip, to Brazil, resonated through the church. Never veering from church doctrine opposing homosexuality, Francis did strike a more compassionate tone than that of his predecessors, some of whom had largely avoided even saying the more colloquial “gay.”

    “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Francis told reporters, speaking in Italian but using the English word “gay.”

    The rest of the article is here:


    Seems the Pope has received "new light" (which actually isn't "new" at all, but just a use of weasel-language to give the appearance of change, much like the atheist statement he made a few months ago).


  • slimboyfat

    If this is the same old "we don't mind people being gay as long as they never act on their wicked desires" line then it's nothing new.

  • designs

    Exactly, oh and women forget about being priests.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    This is exactly what I mean I mean by JW culture as opposed to the religion. The Witnesses could retain many doctrines if they humanized them a bit. We were not taught to separate the sin from the sinner. Jesus would or so I believe.

  • WTWizard

    Somehow I think this scumbag is going to do what so many others have done before. When trickery fails, use force. And this force will be abrupt, as it was during the first inquisition. Once people no longer fall for this thing's illusion of softness, the Great Smackdown begins. The going into the poor areas (essentiallly shunning material riches, so it makes it easier to spread the astral poverty cancer), offering indulgences, and taking a soft outward stand lowers people's defenses and makes them think a smackdown is impossible. Then, when their defenses are down, they lower the boom suddenly.

    And, unlike hyperinflation, you cannot properly prepare for this. Anyone else remember hearing about how, during the original inquisition, they went door to door and if you were even thought of possibly knowing ancient religions, you and your whole family was slaughtered? Whole villages were wiped out this way. They then destroyed the truth and put lies in their place, so it is now impossible to prove the truth. They imposed mandatory church attendance--you were hounded, tortured, and slaughtered for not going. (Besides the hellfire threat once you did go.) Today, they could install cameras in every house and apartment so you would be caught with information (which could be destroyed). They would even check your pay stub for tithing, and your boss could check for a signed statement that you went to church that week and are in good standing (and the correct church, of the correct religion you are assigned) or you can't work or buy anything that week.

    I think I would rather have hyperinflation. And the energy crisis. At least they can't destroy my true spirituality with those, nor can they destroy the value of silver, gold, and barter or energy efficient appliances, batteries, and chargers.

  • adamah

    WOW! What a cynical group this is! Don't get me wrong: I LIKE it!

    designs said:

    Exactly, oh and women forget about being priests.

    Yeah, Pope Francis didn't feel the need to even attempt to offer a faux illusion of a policy change on THAT issue, since he probably couldn't deliver the message while keeping a straight face.

    You've got to love how religious leaders carefully use the words of legal profession ('weasel words') to create a sense of movement or change without actually altering anything and providing themselves a loophole.


  • mP

    Its sad just how similar all religions are. JW claim to be different from Catholics, but they are nearly all the same. No women in position of power, pedophilia scandals and attempts to cover up zillioons of cases, anti homosexual stance and so on. Its prolly much easier to find similarities than differences.

  • adamah

    mP said:

    Its prolly much easier to find similarities than differences.

    Yup, and hence why Freud pointed out how religions often like to make mountains out of molehills by pointing out the minor differences; he labelled the phenomenon "the narcissism of small differences", where believers of some religion will say, "My oh MY! We do THIS, and we'd NEVER do THAT!" (applied to many rituals and practices, whether communion, refusing blood transfusion, etc).

  • HarryMac

    I liked the comment I read on the BBC HYS...

    ~ "Who is he to judge anybody? He's just another bloke with an imaginary friend"

    Can he get an 'Amen'? .... oh yeah.

  • ThomasCovenant


    A GAY man has said that although Pope-ish acts are bad, a Pope-ish orientation is not.

    In what his friends claim is a softening of his stance on Popes, 38-year-old gay chef Tom Logan claimed he was fine with them as long as they didn't do any Pope stuff.

    He said: "If a person is a Pope but has good will, who am I to judge them?

    "And it would be even more ridiculous if I were to say that then continue by telling Popes how to behave.

    "After all I am just a bloke, albeit a bloke with a funny hat - a chef's hat. Actually that does make me a bit special, so listen up."

    Speaking from behind the vaguely pulpit-like oven at the restaurant where he works, Logan said: "It's fine for a man to have Pope-ish feelings, as long as he does not act on them in any way. Or lobby for religion.

    "You could argue that telling a Pope not to do any Pope behaviour, like taking mass or dressing up in robes, is essentially the same as telling them not to be a Pope. But it is not.

    "Don't even try to argue with me, or I will wave this spoon in an intimidating manner."

    Logan's colleague Emma Bradford said: "Because Tom's very sexually frustrated he's gone a bit funny and developed a weird belief system. Basically he thinks he is a spokesman for this invisible being called 'Gorgonzola'.

    "He doesn't realise that for a religion to be proper it has to have been made up a long time ago."

Share this