Pope Francis in Favor of Gay and Women Priests?

Those who complain that the mainstream media doesn’t report on church matters should stop complaining….or should they? CBS, CNN, the BBC and the Daily Telegraph all report on the Pope’s conversation with reporters on his flight back to Rome. All have the screaming headline, “Pope Francis: Who Am I to Judge Gays?”

One of the articles has the subtitle, “Pope answers questions on the possibilities of gay and women priests”….as if there were such possibilities. In fact Pope Francis spoke most clearly and firmly about the possibility of women priests saying, “The church has spoken on this matter. The door is closed.” When it comes to people with same sex attraction Francis simply re-affirmed the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that homosexual people are not to be treated badly in any way, but welcomed as all are welcomed. However, homosexual actions remain objectively disordered and sinful.

What is sinful is the way the journalists twisted his words. All the headlines screamed “Pope says ‘Who Am I to Judge Gays?’” Several journalists again set him up against Benedict XVI who said that men with deeply seated homosexual inclinations should not be admitted to seminary. Francis didn’t repudiate that advice, but the journos once again set the gentle, scholarly Benedict up as “Nazi Ratzi”, “the Enforcer” and the “Former head of the Inquisition.”

The journalists are either fools or knaves. They either do not understand the full teaching of the Catholic Church or they twist it on purpose, and I believe they are the latter not the former. They threw rocks at Benedict for being Emperor Palpatine while they will give Francis the Judas kiss. They will kill him with kindness. They will use his “peace and justice” message to promote their left wing agenda while they twist his traditionalist teachings to suit their own aims just as they have done in this display of articles today.

They remind me of Middle School bullies who use “mock friendship” to bully others. Anybody who has worked with Middle School kids has seen it. The boys gang up on poor little Franky, and when they are called on their bullying they switch tactics and when they see Franky they cry, “Franky old buddy!! Howareya?” They rush up and give him bear hugs that are too long, slaps on the back which are too hard and high fives that hurt.” They know they are bullying him. He knows they are bullying him, and everybody knows they are bullying him, but there isn’t anything much the teachers can do about it.

So if you think the mainstream media are pleased about Pope Francis the rock star pope. Think again. They’re hopping mad….

…but they’re not going to show it.

UPDATE: More detail on the “gay” part of Pope Francis’ inflight entertainment from Jimmy Akin here and The Anchoress fumes about the stuff and gives lots of links here.



  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    It’s yellow journalism. They twist it on purpose. They are after the sensational. Real journalism has died.

    • ponerology

      “Real” journalism never existed. The real trick was making the general populace think that it ever did or does.

    • geoffreysmith1

      That’s the reason why I NEVER buy a ‘newspaper’.

  • Ka’tchen Schell

    Not quite; he also stated that “The Catholic Church teaches that gay people should not be discriminated
    against; they should be made to feel welcome. Being gay is not the
    problem…” Notice the words “BEING gay is not the problem” — this is a very different understanding relative to the homosexual condition as a intrinsic disorder.

    • ponerology

      “being gay” means acting gay; or in other words, nurturing intrinsically disordered thoughts as well as acting upon them. If someone is being black, caucasian, or asian, they are not nurturing disordered thoughts and acting upon them. There is no ‘gay’ gene despite what corporatist ‘scientists’ purport due to their well-paid/funded ‘research’.
      Gays are not to be made to feel welcome AS gays. They are welcome as fallen creatures who are in need of a change of heart/mind/soul.

  • jaybird1951

    I think you are on to something there. However, we must not underestimate the sheer ignorance of so many who write about the Church in the media and their unwillingness to learn…or in the case of the reports from the in-flight interview, a heavy dose of wishful thinking on their part.

  • DeaconJohnMBresnahan

    The pope teaches right out of the catechism. Maybe more reporters should read it before reporting on what he says.

    • Howard

      Several years ago, I was the faculty sponsor of the Newman Club on the campus of a small Texas university. One day I was emailed by the student newspaper, who wanted to know what our position was on some gay rights issue. I assumed that they knew what the position of the Church was on this, but were not sure whether we agreed or disagreed with the Church, but I answered carefully to make sure I explained both what the Church teaches and that we agreed with it. Sure enough, my explanation was cut down to one sentence and slightly distorted. On top of this they reported my name as “Herbert Robertson”, garbling both my first and last names, even though THEY had contacted me and used my name correctly in that email exchange. I was actually glad they had not gotten my name right under the circumstances, but it confirmed many of my suspicions about reporting.

    • ponerology

      The job of ‘reporters’ is not to read the Roman Catholic catechism but to dsestroy the catechism; or hadn’t you noticed? They have no loyalty to the Roman Catholic Church or the magisterium or Sacred Tradition. Their loyalty is to their next paycheck and to those who run the system. They couldn’t care less about the Faith, the Church, OR the Faithful OR their souls. And the Pope(s) haven’t taught out of the traditional catechism for many, many decades. There may be a reason for that….? Perhaps…? [Engage brain; read "Fifth Column".] The substance of the Faith has been eaten out from under you.

    • John

      I tend to agree with you and they have that opportunity but won’t take it. They love the darkness instead of the light because their deeds are evil.

  • Guest

    If there’s one thing the media wants, it’s for people to not do their own thinking. The way Benedict is nearly always painted as a backwards thinker is truly shameful.

    • ponerology

      The fact that media portrays Benedict as a ‘backward’ thinker, in and of itself, is a telling ploy. Media knows Benedict is, and has been, a modernist/progressivist. Benedict was a “Peritus” at Vatican II (wearing a business suit) and has consistently praised the work of Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, et.al.
      “We are all debtors” to the Fathers of Vatican II”, Benedict wrote, in a message to participants in an international conference on the pontificate of JPII. Noting that his predecessor had devoted himself to the implementation of Vatican II, Benedict-Ratzinger said that the Conciliar documents “have shown themselves to be especially pertinent to the new exigencies of the Church and the present globalized society.”
      IF anything, the ONLY thing to “globalize” society should be the Kingship of Christ, the Traditional Roman Catholic Faith, the traditional Latin Mass, Sacred Tradition, and the traditional language of the earliest apostolic fathers which was Latin, when the primatial See was moved from Antioch to Rome.
      Benedict is as ‘forward’ thinking as was Luther.

  • James Patton

    Neither intellectual atheist nor educated Catholics are concerned over the media coverage of the head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis. “Who is he to judge gays?” Easy, he is the Pope who is not saying or doing anything other than what is expected of him as the leader of Catholicism on Earth.

  • Hendo

    The bullying analogy is excellent, for like middle-school bullies, the journalistic and political critics work from a position of weakness and insecurity. They need our prayers.

  • mr retirement

    I for one sure wish Pope Benedict never resigned and was still in charge

  • Arthur Kooyman

    It is true that what pope Francis said, is what the church always said, but he said it in a different tone of voice. He emphasises the love we have to feel for our fellow human beings, be they gay or straight. Let us forget whether we are progressive of conservative: let us care for a new spring for the church. I feel a period is about to end. There is a new period coming. This pope, with his enormous charisma, that extends also outside the church, is the messenger of a new Christian spring. Let us try to unite on what we share, whether we are conservatives or liberals.

    • Oldscore

      There is no such thing as progressive or conservative Catholicism. There is just Catholicism.

      • mally el

        Yes. Jesus is the same – yesterday, today and always. And so is his Church.

      • geoffreysmith1

        ‘Progressive’ Catholicism is a euphemism for heresy.

      • johnnyc

        Tell that to the National catholic Reporter.

  • johnnyc

    Liberals in and out of the Church are having a field day with this and this…..http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350567?eng=y

    • JackB

      I would like to know more about what Sandro Magister has written in the article you link here. I am not a Traditionalist, but its becoming clear that, from their point of view, the SSPX was right to reject Benedict XVI’s generous offer.

      • Howard

        Just as Martin Luther was “right”, from his point of view, to reject Leo X’s generous offer?

  • Jack

    I’m in full agreement that the members of the mainstream news media are knavish, but let’s not divert from the more important issue here, namely, that Pope Francis is a bit of a loose cannon. Examples: 1) He mocked the group who sent him a spiritual bouquet because they quantified the number of rosaries they prayed or promised to pray for him. Why is such mockery necessary when they’re so sincere? 2) Despite Francis now saying, “Who am I to judge…” he had no problem in a weekday homily judging those who have raised some legitimate criticisms of the documents of Vatican II. 3) In now saying that we shouldn’t hold homosexuals’ past sins against them, he tells us that even God forgives and forgets. While Francis makes a legitimate point about not holding someone’s past sins against them if they’re contrite, I have to ask, since when does God forget? Does Francis presume to stamp out the Church’s doctrine on God’s justice and temporal punishment? Will God have nothing to say at the particular and general judgments because he’s forgotten everything?

    Now as to his overarching question of “Who am I to judge?” Well, we could start with the “Vicar of Christ” and the bearer of the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. I only wish he would recognize that he is not simply Bishop of Rome and first among equals, and begin speaking and acting like the Vicar of Christ.

    • Deborah

      “Pope Francis is a bit of a loose cannon” – my very thoughts all afternoon. Praying for him and the grace of increased wisdom, understanding and discretion.

    • ManeeVee

      Amen, brother!

    • David Finkelstein

      God forgets our sins as a result of confession, any mark left by them is only retained to give Him glory for His mercy. At least that’s how I understand it.

      • ponerology

        Only partly true. Temporal punishment is due.

  • ponerology

    So why does the ‘Pope’ keep using words that can be twisted so terribly?? Is he incompetent?

    • Rebecca Fuentes

      Over at The Anchoress, someone pointed out that what the US media often reports on are poor, slap-dash translations of what Pope Francis says. I would guess that it is less his incompetence than it is hasty translation and taking things out of context. The interview was given in Spanish, I believe.

      • ponerology

        Sorry; I just don’t cut media the slack you seem to cut them. How many hundreds of millions of people speak Spanish and English nowadays and we can’t get a correct translation? I don’t buy into the accidents and co-incidents, etc. Besides, if we are to believe it’s simply ‘hasty’ translations and since the Vatican must be aware of this ‘hastiness’ you’d think that for the good of the doctrine of the Catholic faith, they’d very, very, carefully and cautiously permit only certain media access to the Pope and have the Pope utter only a very limited, theologically and doctrinally accurate, amount of information so as not to be ‘taken out of context’. Media is not anyone’s friend, especially not a friend of the true Catholic faith. And one must wonder why that is and why it is that those in the Vatican permit this type of thing to go on…..,

        • Rebecca Fuentes

          I was not cutting the media some slack, but responding to your accusation that Pope Francis might be incompetent. The media is using the quickest translation possible, not taking into account shades of meaning that might not translate and reporting what fits best with their narrative. It would be great if the Vatican would give us official translations more quickly.

    • Howard


  • ponerology

    The journalists are either fools or knaves. REALLY? Fools or knaves?? How about minions of the new world order aka freemasonry/bugnini types??

  • Genty

    Not forgetting that Benedict was traduced by, er, Catholics who set the media tone and kept at it throughout his pontificate. The collateral damage, as usual, was the Catholic in the pew and it continues.

  • http://nathaniel-campbell.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel M. Campbell

    I think you read too much into the subhead, “Pope answers questions on the possibilities of gay and women priests.” He was, in fact, asked a question on the possibility of women priests, and he answered that question: it is not possible.

  • EdwardHu

    Well the Pope may have accomplished his real goal…to give the appearance of change and flexibility on one topic, while totally shutting down conversation on another topic, women’s “ordination”.

    • Howard

      There really was no “conversation” on women’s “ordination”, so the strategy you propose does not really make any sense.

  • Charles Mac Kay

    Well said Father

  • phillyfanatic

    Well Father, I agree with your assessment but I suggest that people like you in the Church, should make sure that all the Catholic churches in the USA especially get this column as well as the liberal media outlets noted. You simply cannot expect the media to tell the truth about either Protestant or Catholic Christianity since 86% of them are not interested in the faith nor do they have an objective view of Biblical truth or standards. They are brainwashed leftists and they abide by the agenda of the Democrat Party which is liberal. Until the Church really gets that and tells the voters in the parishes that the above is true, the Church will always have to face that type of lie even if the Pope is a bit idealistic in facing a press which is waiting for some slip and a cave into popular sociology.

    • Howard

      The scary questions, of course, are, “What fraction of priests favor the media interpretation over what the Pope actually said? And what fraction of bishops?” Or to paraphrase phillyfanatic, “What fractions of priests and bishops are not interested in the faith nor have an objective view of Biblical truth or standards?”

  • cta

    Fr. please explain what this new is really all about? Thank you.

    Title of the news: “Congregation for Religious orders group of Franciscans to stop offering Traditional Latin Mass…”

    This is the link: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350567?eng=y

    Part of it says:
    “But what is most astonishing are the last five lines of the decree of July 11:

    “In addition to the above, the Holy Father Francis has directed that every religious of the congregation of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is required to celebrate the liturgy according to the ordinary rite and that, if the occasion should arise, the use of the extraordinary form (Vetus Ordo) must be explicitly authorized by the competent authorities, for every religious and/or community that makes the request.”

    The astonishment stems from the fact that what is decreed contradicts the dispositions given by Benedict XVI, which for the celebration of the Mass in the ancient rite “sine populo” demand no previous request for authorization whatsoever:”

    • ponerology

      The current Pope, Pope Francis, is removing the “motu” or the access to(albeit extremely limited and only at the whim of the local bishop, which meant most Faithful didn’t have access) what is referred to as the Extraordinary Form of Mass (or the Tridentine Latin Mass), which Pope St. Pius V infallibly taught was to be the ONLY Mass to be offered by a Roman Catholic priests IN PERPETUITY). Further information may be gleaned at traditional sites on the web. There has been one site out there since 1994 that you may wish to look at, if you haven’t already. May God bless you.

  • Ricardo

    Father, perhaps you can clarify one thing he said about divorced and remarried being allowed to go to communion. I read the original Spanish interview and it was bothersome that he said that without much clarification as it goes directly against the CCC.

    Here is the link to the transcript: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/07/29/actualidad/1375093487_146875.html

    and here is the quotation in Spanish itself:
    Reporter: En cuanto al acceso a los sacramentos de los divorciados vueltos a casar, ¿existe la posibilidad de que algo cambie en la disciplina de la Iglesia y que estos sacramentos sean una ocasión de acercar a estas personas y no una barrera?

    Pope: La Iglesia es madre, debe ir a curar a los heridos con misericordia. Si el Señor no se cansa de perdonar, nosotros no tenemos otra elección que esa. Primero de todo, curar a los heridos. La Iglesia es mamá. Debe ir en este camino de la misericordia, encontrar una misericordia para todos. Pienso que, cuando el hijo pródigo volvió a casa, el papá no le dijo: “¿Quién sos? ¿Qué hiciste con el dinero?”. No, hizo una fiesta. Quizás luego, cuando el hijo quiso hablar, habló. Pero el padre no solo esperó, fue a encontrarlo. Esto es misericordia, esto es kairós. En cuanto al problema de la comunión a las personas en segunda unión —porque los divorciados sí pueden hacer la comunión—, creo que esto es necesario mirarlo en la totalidad de la pastoral matrimonial.

    CCC: 2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

    I am afraid I can’t reconcile these two.
    Thank you!

  • crossdotcurve

    There’s definitely some middle-school thinking going on in this post.

  • Don’t Forget

    Homosexuality is an abomination to God. Is that the kind of person God would want as a priest? What have such priests brought to the Church? SCANDAL!

    • Caoimhin

      People like you are just a great a scandal. You are an ‘abomination’ of an order of your own. Hypocrite. Look in the mirror and see how and why.

      Oh and he did also say to get the priests off the pedestals. People like you put them on pedestals- keep them there – and as such are complicit in any abuses.

      Shame on you and may God forgive you.

    • Declan Kennedy

      There have been many great priests who have been of a homosexualist persuasion, but who have been true to the teachings of the Church, including on celibacy. There have also been many great priests of a heterosexual tendency who have done the same. Just because there are sinners in both camps doesn’t mean that you should damn the whole lot.

  • Sharon Mallon

    I think that the Holy Spirit is alive and well in Pope Francis and pray for him daily to give him the courage to speak the truth openly. Those who cannot accept him and criticize, will always have the same twisted thinking and nothing better to do with their time. Pray, pray, be in continual conversation with the God who created all of us.

  • David Brandt

    The press is inadvertently affirming an aspect of church teaching they formerly overlooked. In doing so, they are contributing to an image of the church as a loving and accepting place. This is good.

  • Dan C

    “However, homosexual actions remain objectively disordered and sinful.”

    Did he say that? I did not read that.

    In fact, that is the point. A conversation on gays without Catholic right wing propaganda. No special vocabulary (SSA). No “God loves them even if they are defective.”

    Homosexuality gets especially singled out. Was especially singled out by Benedict. Both in the Catechism and in his proclamation against gay priests.

    The press covered the Benedict proclamation. They covered this too. The NYTimes did well with both. As did John Allen. I think this blog has done less well with the actual import, leaving the suggestion that in this interview Francis made a note of homosexuality as “objectively disordered.” He did not seem to say that in the interview transcripts I read. Francis affirmed gay priests. And did not say anything negative about gays. A Catholic Church leader, in fact, the Pope, had a conversation on gays and avoided the negative. Its about time.

    As far as the dramatic nature of this comment, ask a gay priest how much today is different than late in 2005.

    • jaybird1951

      My question to you is: What is a “gay” priest? Does that connote someone who has homosexual tendencies but remains and/or fights to remain celibate or someone who acts out his sexuality? It seems to me that being gay means being part of the sexually active homosexual community, one who identifies himself by his sexuality. I do not believe that Pope Francis had such priests in mind.

    • vox borealis

      What, precisely, is a “gay priest”?

  • Bondservant

    i am not Catholic although I am a Christian. i consider gays serving in a place of leadership alongside someone having an affair or a pedophile serving. would any God fearing church allow these type of people to lead their flock? I hope not.

    • BHG

      Here’s the problem I see. We tend, these days, to conflate “gay” with “Same sex attracted.” Gay implies a living out of the secularly-described “gay lifestyle.” SSA simply means that one is attracted to the opposite sex. So yes, I would have trouble with someone, unrepentant, living a secular-style gay life in leadership (as I would a notorious adulterer, tax cheat or ruthless businessman)–but not a person who had SSA and was trying, however imperfectly (as we all are) to live a life in accord with the teaching of the Church. It is time to stop using the two terms interchangeably and to refuse to buy the idea that SSA always means living in a sexual relationship, outside marriage, with another person.

      • ponerology

        Your premise is fine in theory but is utterly impracticable in a seminary setting. And the seminaries have been, for the past 60 years, purposefully flooded with the “same-sex attracted” men. This does not make for a good priest. In fact, the enemy (which “hates the cassock”) knows that it makes for a very twisted priesthood that will only bring the Church to ruin – which has been the objective for hundreds of years. The facts are difficult but they are the facts no matter how much one would like to bury ones head in the sand about it.

  • Guest

    I find it fascinating that the Catholics who, over the past decade, have been so unyielding in applying a rigid adherence to the positions of the Magisterium are the very same Catholics who now criticize the Holy Father. What a bunch of Hippocrates. Pope Francis is a breath of fresh air; I can’t wait to see what the next few years bring and what he has in mind for developing a deeper “theology of women”.

    • ponerology

      Look no further than the Blessed Mother for your ‘theology of women’.

    • vox borealis

      I don’t understand your fascination. The pope is not above criticism, but that has little to do with rigid adherence to the magisterium. One can (indeed should, must) adhere rigidly to magisterial teaching, including e cathedra papal statement, and also not be a fan of a given pope’s style. One can be strictly orthodox and not agree with a given papal policy, though we must all obey the pope’s legitimate authority. There is simply no conflict.

      And the word you’re looking for is hypocrite.

    • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

      Which Catholics are criticing the Pope? I haven’t seen anything significant. That’s a strawman argument. And unyielding as far as the Magisterium has been going on for two thousand years.

    • cestusdei

      If you are waiting for gay marriage and women priests then you will be waiting till the eschaton and then some. The Pope said nothing different from Pope Benedict.

    • Phil Steinacker

      It’s not at all clear that you know what you are talking about. How is it that you would know who was so “unyielding in applying a rigid adherence to the positions of the Magisterium” so you are able to now catch them criticizing the Holy Father?

      Really? There’s so much wrong with your comment I can understand why you signed in as “Guest.” Your wrong-headed use of the word “positions of the Magisterium” implies the teachings of the Church are “policies” subject to change with political winds blowing in a new direction. Not a chance.
      “Common teachings” are fallible and changeable, but most Catholics are completely unaware of the distinction between these and the infallible “ordinary and universal Magisterium” which not even a pope can change. Do YOU know the difference?
      Only a so-called progressive Catholic could possibly suggest that rigid adherence to the Magisterium is a negative and ignore the reality that Catholics must adhere to it and unyieldingly so.
      As for Pope Francis; be careful. The National Schismatic Reporter (NCR) is salivating over what’s to come like you seem to be, but you are both going to be very disappointed. Some liberal writers are already getting this and saying so.

    • Howard

      “What a bunch of Hippocrates.” I’m more of a Hipparchus myself, though I suppose some people might think I’m a hippopotamus.

      But you’re misunderstanding what Magisterium is. It does not mean “the whims of the current Pope.” It is the Teachings of the Church, and those may develop, but they cannot contradict each other. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from false teachings from a Pope on important issues, but NOT from INEFFECTIVE or CONFUSING teaching. Many people, myself included, are concerned that Pope Francis has too informal a style and does not prepare adequately or anticipate how his words will be used.

      There’s nothing mysterious about this. I frequently teach introductory physics, as do the other members of my department. We all teach the same physics, and we teach it truthfully; but we each have different styles, and some of them are more effective than others.

    • Uncle Pat

      Well said Guest! As for the critics of “the media” what a gift they have to be able to discern the motives of the journalists/reporters/editors and to condemn them! Much as I dislike using the hypothetical question – If Jesus were alive today, I wonder what He would do? – I think He would break bread and drink wine with our present day scribes and communicate with them as a fellow human being with Good News to impart. OK so He would be misreported, reviled even, but His Love of God the Father would drive Him on. The Spirit is like the wind, it blows where it wants to.

  • gschaffter

    I remember when I read the article on a news site and was completely confused(in fact it scared me). Then I learn what he truly said and came to a relief. Dumb yellow journalism is at it again.

  • Graeme Sutherland

    NWO agenda promote homosexuality and feminism in order to break the family unit.

  • Jim

    I worry about the terminology of “homosexual actions” . Catholics might want to step back and ask if such wording is proper and tactful. Do we have heterosexual actions? The point is that the Church does not define itself by identifying others by their sexual orientation but by Gods creation. To say homosexual action is almost as if we define the homosexual by their action, not their being. We should merely say “sexual actions between two people of the same sex” and leave homosexual actions on the sideline.

    • ponerology

      What? Not following you at all. Why would we leave the definition of the word homosexual on the “sidelines” when, in fact, it means the actions of 2 people of the same sex have sexual relations?
      Likewise, if one is a prostitute (male or female) that person is engaged in selling sexual favors for money.
      Likewise, if one is a heterosexual the “action” is that one man and one woman engage in action that can lead to procreation (if not impeded in some unnatural way).
      I’m not following your thinking here. We are all God’s (fallen) creatures. What we do with out free will is a different matter.

  • BrendonBrown

    I’m reading through these comments… a lot of people “holier than the Pope” think they could do a better job leading the Church. I’m just glad election is up to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and a (mostly) holy college of cardinals.

    • vox borealis

      I’m pretty sure that papal elections are not simply a matter of inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI commented on this a couple of years ago. The Holy Spirit protects the church from teaching error. He hopefully guides the Cardinals when they vote, assuming they are open, but that is no guarantee.

      • BrendonBrown

        So basically its “up to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and a (mostly) holy college of cardinals.”

        • ponerology

          Wrong. You are ‘basically’ wrong.
          Ex cathedra. Ex cathedra. Ex cathedar. Ex Cathedar.

    • ponerology

      Unless the Pope speaks ex cathedra regarding the Faith and morals he is not speaking infallibly. There have been plenty of Popes who’ve stated things that were not theologically and/or doctrinally accurate (and in fact, some Popes uttered heterodox and heretical ideas and were later formally corrected) and there is absolutely no compulsion for a Catholic to obey (or to believe) what was said. Catholic doctrine is unchangeable.
      Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus sanctus promissus est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut eo assistente traditam per apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum sancte custodirent et fideliter exponerent. (Constitutio Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi [Pastor Aeternus], cap. 4, “De Romani Pontificis Infallibili Magisterio”)

      For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter NOT so that they might, by His revelation, make known some NEW doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously GUARD and FAITHFULLY EXPOUND the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.

      Not even every doctrinal teaching of a pope is, of necessity, infallible. Only a very narrow category.

      • BrendonBrown

        Not my point at all, but at least you got to enjoy your teaching moment.

        • ponerology

          Clarify your point please. The ‘holier’ than thou notion has nothing to do with the question(s) at hand. A total incompetent can be elected Pope and he can spout completely inaccurate falsehoods about the Faith, which has nothing to do with the fact that the Pope is merely a CUSTODIAN of Sacred Tradition and of the magisterium. No Pope has any right to change what Sacred Tradition has taught. His job is to hand down the Faith as it has been transmitted to him by 2 thousand years of Tradition.

      • BrendonBrown

        I see you belabouring the point that any fool could hypothetically be nominated Pope. I’ll make things easy for you. I agree with you. Completely. A Pope can in theory be incompetent and incorrect. Again, I agree, and history has shown this to be true. Not one of these issues here addressed was brought up in my original comment. I spoke not of infallibility or of inaccuracy, not of orthodoxy and custodianship.

        Your choosing to beat the drum of orthodoxy – and in its original Latin for effect – is in this instance both unwarranted and beyond me.

        In my original 3-liner I used “holier than the Pope” IN QUOTES with reference to an old and well-worn colloquial describing individuals who criticize and reject the Pope’s actions. Essentially the phrase is used to ask a person “who are YOU to question the Pope?”. The emphasis is not on the person’s ability – and in some cases imperative – to question the Popes teachings and actions, but it is a call to reflect on whether or not they possess comparable education, capacity and endorsements to the man with whom they have taken issue.

        Few of the comments upon which I originally remarked show any evidence to support that their authors possess these qualities. With reflection to this, I am still “glad election is up to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and a (mostly) holy college of cardinals”.

        • ponerology

          You believe we agree. I believe, at bottom, that we don’t agree. The old and well-worn colloquial (“holier than the Pope”) is trotted out to describe individuals who have the temerity to reject a Pope’s utterances and/or actions and is used to make many individuals MISTAKENLY believe that a Catholic does not have the right, duty or “imperative” to reject heterodox or heretical utterances and/or actions no matter who utters them–and most especially a member of the hierarchy or the Holy Father. A Catholic with a basic understanding of Catholicism, has the right, duty and imperative to not only NOT obey, but to also criticize heterodox or heretical utterances or actions of a Pope or, for that matter, any other cleric. A Catholic’s “pedigree” is of no importance to the fact that the right, duty and imperative exists for every Catholic with a basic understanding of true Catholicism. A Catholic has no duty to obtain a theology degree in order to know when Sacred Tradition is traduced. The Pope however, does have the responsibility before Almighty God to know when his utterances will be abused, twisted and misused to the detriment of the one true Faith and Church.

  • DJT

    The media took the Pope’s words out of context. The Pope did not only say “who am I to judge” but rather “If they [priests] ACCEPT the Lord, and have goodwill, who am I to judge”. And the priest has to accept one of the vows is “CHASTITY”. So as long as the priest is keeping his CHASTITY vow by abstaining his sexual orientation, it would be irrelevant for such priest is “gay or straight”, or to be judged by any one. So the Pope’s message is consistent with CHRIST’s love that we don’t condemn a gay priest as long as he gives up his sexual orientation and having a goodwill to follow CHRIST.


  • Caoimhin

    Pots n’ kettles. The backdoor Catholic priest is just as great a judge and hypocrite.

    You should have stayed where you were rather than bringing your own corrupt agenda in the cat flap with you.

  • David Zelenka

    My 2c: People are obsessed with sex–doesn’t matter what type of sex. The media is just a manifestation of the gossip-side of human sin. To the media “gay” means sex. Now doesn’t gay mean happy?

  • Fr.Duffy Fighting 69th

    Wake up people! Francis is a unrepentant socialist, liberation theologist and homophile. And he is lurching the Church into heresy. Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. And catholic leaders need to identify it as such. Francis is building a case for openly homosexual priests and religious. Disgrace!

    • UAWildcatx2

      Sounds like “Fr. Duffy Fighting 69th” bought the media narrative hook, line, and sinker! Heaven forbid you actually READ what was said. Or ANYTHING he’s said. You’re making some pretty weighty accusations, without a single shred of evidence to back it up. Might you be a sede vacantist? SSPX?

      • Fr.Duffy Fighting 69th

        First of all I NEVER buy the MSM narrative no matter what the topic. And as far as my analysis of Francis, his actions speak louder than his words, although his words are bad enough. Take a look at his clerical history. If you have decided to become a Papal sycophant that is your business. And no, I am not a Sede Vacantist. We HAVE a Pope. His name is Benedict. And as far as my accusations, just watch closely in the coming months. Mark my words. Francis will systematically dismantle catholic teaching on abortion, sexuality, homosexuality, euthanasia, the True Presence, Mary’s role in salvation and the Divinity of Jesus.

        • UAWildcatx2

          Looks like you made Fr. Longenecker’s most recent article! Kudos. Or not. It’s odd that you call me a papal sycophant, yet insist that Benedict is still the Pope. That means you don’t take him at his own word in that he wished to resign. He did it of his own free will. By denying that Francis is the legitimate Pope, you become a nouveau (Novo?)-Sede Vacantist. The Seat of Peter is held by Francis, the most recent in a line of the Vicars of Christ dating back to Peter himself. I’m sure that Pope Emeritus Benedict would agree. I’d continue the discussion, but when you say that “Francis will systematically dismantle catholic teaching on abortion,
          sexuality, homosexuality, euthanasia, the True Presence, Mary’s role in
          salvation and the Divinity of Jesus” you’re just being crazy. Like, tin-foil hat crazy.

          • Fr.Duffy Fighting 69th

            Listen flower. You can believe what you want to believe. God gave you free will. But Benedict did not resign of his own free will, but was forced to exit by the illuminati/Masonic cabal in the Vatican. Francis’ residing in the Chair of St. Peter is merely de facto, not de jure, proof that he is the legitimate Pope. And why am I not surprised you resort to calling me crazy. That is usually the first resort for a person who has no other argument to present. Time will be the final arbiter in this, so you and I can revisit this around April 2014.

          • UAWildcatx2

            Oftentimes, my friend, when people resort to the Masonic/Illuminati connection, without evidence, they have nothing further than pure conjecture. It was uncharitable for me to call you crazy. I apologize. All I ask for is evidence. This is the second time I’ve asked. I have no doubt that there is a masonic force working against the Church. But the illuminati has been thoroughly, thoroughly debunked. But, Dan Brown does what Dan Brown wants. As for de jure, Pope Francis was duly elected by the College of Cardinals in a legitimate (though you might disagree) Conclave. Whether you want to accept that is on you, but I’m saying that if you refuse to accept it, it de facto (like that?) makes you a sedevacantist. Just regarding Benedict XVI instead of Pope Pius XII.

          • Fr.Duffy Fighting 69th

            I wil defend the One True Church to the DEATH – The Divinity of Jesus Christ, The True Presence, Jesus as Lord of the Sacraments, The Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth. And the Gates of Hell will not prevail against these truths. However, I differentiate between these pillars of our Faith, and the institutional construct in Rome. The forces of evil have grabbed the tiller as prophesied. And the Abomination of Desolation is upon us. Because there is no “legitimate” election without the presence of the Holy Spirit. Benedict was forced out according to plan. He is too weak and old to defend himself. The Illuminati are alive and well, And forget Dan Brown, he is a masonic shill. Malachi Martin, God rest his soul, knew the the truth of how far the masonic infiltration of the Vatican has progressed, and he paid for that knowledge with his life. Listen, there is no proof that would convince you. As I said, watch what happens over the coming months and make up your own mind. Peace

          • Terri Hemker

            He’s still waiting for the helicopters or the aliens spaceships to pick him up. Unfortunately for him, they’re only looking for intelligent life….

  • me

    ones orientation has nothing to do with it..regardless
    celibacy is that sacrifice..either way

  • Christian LeBlanc

    The local Fundiegelicals on talk radio were making fatuous remarks this morning faster than the Catholics could call in and correct them.

  • geoffreysmith1

    There is a school of thought that regards the homosexual condition as a diriment impediment to ordination, since Christ was a perfect man and definitely a heterosexual. Hence, a gay cannot act ‘in loco Christi’ as a priest.
    From this it would follow that those gays in the priesthood who abused boys and young men, a homosexual act, were not in fact ordained and therefore not priests.

  • Joe

    Perhaps if he is going to be misunderstood, he should stop talking. Put it writing.

  • Nancy

    EVERYONE, and I do mean EVERYONE, knows that the “LAMESTREAM” media are bought and paid for Prostitutes! I still have my own feelings regarding Pope Francis, but I would NEVER out and out lie about him. That’s alright, the media have to go before the Father one day, maybe these BULLIES will have a visit with one of the Father’s chosen before it’s too late for them. One can only hope.

  • Perelandra

    This Pontiff is truly frightening. There is much to discern and much to contemplate. I pray to God I am wrong about him, but I feel such discomfort and a strange sense of fear when I hear his words for he seems to be all flash and no substance. Every time he speaks it is as though his statements are all things to all people. Jesus spoke clearly, succinctly, without guile, may we follow Our Lord and His Sacred Scripture and not the dictates of a man who seems as though there is a thinly veiled agenda from the seducer. Our Lady, pray for us who struggle here, Lord Jesus, protect us from the evil one !

  • Deb Daily

    Whatever the media portrays of Francis, it’s not working because all I read from secular sites in the comment section are atheist and protestants giving him praise. They think Francis is one of them but in Truth he is just expressing the Catholic faith in a more simplistic way and its working. If it brings them closer to this Truth and not the one they think they know, then God has truly worked His miracles in Francis. I also believe it’s up to the rest of us Catholics to make certain media does not abuse their position by creating these false headlines.

    • ponerology

      Many days late and very many dollars short.

  • OneTimothyThreeFifteen

    It seems to me journalists and Protestant preachers are hard to tell apart when it comes to talking about the Catholic Church.

  • Mrs_Snoopington

    The pope stepped in it! Protecting the pope from the press isn’t necessary. The Pope said what he said! Catholics can read between the lines; we know the dogma about homosexuals and priestesses. But most do not. He ought to be reined in. His style is too strident for my heart. He’s flippant about a very serious matter — he said he’s never seen a business card with the phrase “gay lobby” on it. The Lavender Mafia has brought The Church to its knees!

    He’s also a showman, throwing a dove into the air. He feigns humility (living in an apartment, etc.) but shows signs of pridefulness.

    The liberals read National Catholic Reporter and favor priestesses and full acceptance of homosexuality, transgenders, and homosexual “marriage.” Just read the comments … “Pope on Homosexuals: Who Am I To Judge?” http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/pope-homosexuals-who-am-i-judge

    Read the comments there: “That I live to see this day. Wow!! First time ever I hear a pope (or bishop for that matter) speak on gays in this non-judging way. Wowowow!”

    • ponerology

      Hold onto your chair; hang onto your soul. There is an awful, horrendous, terrific amount more to come, to be lived through, to be suffered because our forefathers and we, have allowed this to thrive, to grow, to be glorified, and to continue.

  • Richard Stevens

    I have tried, really tried to give our new Pope my support. I have anxiously looked up every traditional “explanation” and rationalization for some of his actions and remarks. However, he keeps saying things that play straight into the hands of the secular media who hate traditional Catholic teachings.

    At a time when the Church has been racked by internal pressure from a “gay” lobby, when so much of the supposed priestly child abuse was in fact homosexual activity involving homosexually inclined priests and young or adolescent boys, it is unbelievable that the Pope would make vague and easily misunderstood remarks that seem to excuse homosexual behavior.

    Scripture is absolutely explicit in its condemnation of homosexuality. The words of Scripture could not be stronger. How they contrast to what the Pope said.

    The Pope started his ministry by violating the Church’s own explicit rules about who could have their feet washed at the Maundy Thursday liturgy and since then he keeps saying and doing things that traditionally minded Catholics (i.e. those who simply follow the Church’s teachings as given in the Catechism) have to try and find excuses for.

    • ponerology

      Is it really “unbelievable” that the Pope would “make vague and easily misunderstood remarks that seem to excuse homosexual behavior”. I think we all know better than that. We just have to stop being naive. No Pope has done anything of substance, of real value, regarding the homosexual scandals that have decimated and continue to decimate the Church in the last 20 years. And again, we must ask ourselves the difficult question: WHY?? Why has nothing of substance and value been done to rid the Church of this filth?? The answers may be sad and gut wrenching but not really difficult to discern if one employs God-given common sense. Talk is cheap. Actions are the true mark of a person’s heart and intent.

  • LongIslandMichael

    Thanks Father for posting another great piece.