The New Pope

[Tainted Scrolls]

I am not a Catholic but do you feel a certain way about what he said? I am leaning towards this being dead on. Agree or Disagree?

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Francis told journalists, as he flew from Rio de Janeiro to Rome. “The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…They’re our brothers.”


Quote was pulled from the article below for reference:
http://news.yahoo.com/not-pope-said-gays-said-183538032.html

 

[LysanderShapiro]

I am not a Catholic but do you feel a certain way about what he said? I am leaning towards this being dead on. Agree or Disagree?

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Francis told journalists, as he flew from Rio de Janeiro to Rome. “The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…They’re our brothers.”

Absolutely. This isn't anything new for a pope to say luckily. Pope Benedict XVI has also expressed this, as has Pope John Paul II. And I fully agree with them. A tendency to sin isn't the sin itself, it's the pursuing of that tendency that is.

 

[KingJ]

What exactly do you find is dead on Tainted? Care to provide scripture for his assertions / opinion please?

1 ''If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge''.

Someone = A blur / blanket encompassing the saved and unsaved.
he searches for the Lord = Searching for the Lord involves....looking up at heaven? Looking under the bed? or hating evil, and loving righteousness? ie, Gal 5:24. So far his statement can only apply to the unsaved.
good will = True. I can be falling in sin, but if my intentions are good... I will repent and do my best to get out. Guess he cant say that since he said ''someone''.
Who am I to judge = Well you can judge and rebuke them if they (and you) are saved. But he failed to differentiate.

Conclusion: Bad statement.

2 ''The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…They’re our brothers''.

Now he differentiates by addressing the saved gay priests. For the saved, falling in an extremity of unrepentant sin and going to hell is the ONLY problem Rom 8:13. Is there another problem for us? Please tell me what can be a worse problem . Someone needs to read 1 Cor 5.

Conclusion: Terrible statement

1 Cor 5:2 summs it up for me. 'And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this?'

 

[LysanderShapiro]

What exactly do you find is dead on Tainted? Care to provide scripture for his assertions / opinion please?

1 ''If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge''.

Someone = A blur / blanket encompassing the saved and unsaved.
he searches for the Lord = Searching for the Lord involves....looking up at heaven? Looking under the bed? or hating evil, and loving righteousness? ie, Gal 5:24. So far his statement can only apply to the unsaved.
good will = True. I can be falling in sin, but if my intentions are good... I will repent and do my best to get out. Guess he cant say that since he said ''someone''.
Who am I to judge = Well you can judge and rebuke them if they (and you) are saved. But he failed to differentiate.

Conclusion: Ok' ish statement, with a disclaimer that he is currently ignorant of the repercussions of such a general statement.

2 ''The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…They’re our brothers''.

Now he differentiates by addressing the saved gay priests. For the saved, falling in an extremity of unrepentant sin and going to hell is the ONLY problem Rom 8:13. Is there another problem for us? Please tell me what can be worse . Paul was very strict on sexual sin in the church.

Conclusion: Terrible statement

I'm afraid you've misunderstood Pope Francis's statements, as have the people who are taking this as "I'm gay and the Pope says it's OK to live this way." He is by no means saying that pursuing one's sinful nature is not a problem. It is. He has stated many times that living a life that follows sinful tendencies (like homosexuality) is a problem. He called gay marriage “a scheme to destroy God’s plan” and “a real and dire anthropological throwback.” In 2010, he was a vocal opponent of the Argentinian government’s proposed legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. This is one of the biggest reasons why the Argentinian President has totally rebuked him.

The Pope's statement on homosexuality is being warped all over the mainstream media. The New York Times just released an article asking if he is now endorsing gay marriage.

The case of a gay priest is not about their sinful souls, but about being chaste. Just like any straight priest, a gay priest is to live 100% chaste and devoted to a service in God's name. Do they all obey their position of chastity? Unfortunately, some fall here and there--but this is not what is being endorsed.

Of course there is going to be backlash. Since when is there not backlash? When we ever express that we are against homosexuality or abortion, it is often seen read very generally and is misinterpreted as "You hate all gay people and you hate women."

The Pope's position is that homosexuality (not acting on it, but the thoughts and initial desires) are neurological, just as heterosexuality is neurological. Acting on lustful tendencies is the sin.

Before taking the word of the mainstream media, always be sure to look further and find what it really means.

 

[Stan]

It was good to hear Pope Francis say what he did about gays. I think the RCC has had this doctrinal position for some time, as ALL Christians should, but to hear it vocalized, IMO, will go a long to to engendering a better Christ like attitude towards gays. Now if the republican conservative right wing Christians can take the same tack, we will experience many more gays coming to Christ.
PTL!

 

[LysanderShapiro]

It was good to hear Pope Francis say what he did about gays. I think the RCC has had this doctrinal position for some time, as ALL Christians should, but to hear it vocalized, IMO, will go a long to to engendering a better Christ like attitude towards gays. Now if the republican conservative right wing Christians can take the same tack, we will experience many more gays coming to Christ.
PTL!

You're right regarding the Universal Church's position being aligned with what Pope Francis said--unfortunately, listening to the news while I'm working, it seems a lot of people are misunderstanding it his statements.

I found this article <---- very nicely recounted and explained what is being misunderstood.

Heh, as far as politics go...perhaps marriage can go back to being under private contract and not watered down by the State.

 

[Stan]

You're right regarding the Universal Church's position being aligned with what Pope Francis said--unfortunately, listening to the news while I'm working, it seems a lot of people are misunderstanding it his statements.

I found this article <---- very nicely recounted and explained what is being misunderstood.

Heh, as far as politics go...perhaps marriage can go back to being under private contract and not watered down by the State.

CBC has covered it very well, but I understood from the get go, what he was ACTUALLY saying.
Don't get me started on politics in the church.

 

[Stan]

What exactly do you find is dead on Tainted? Care to provide scripture for his assertions / opinion please?

1 ''If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge''.

Someone = A blur / blanket encompassing the saved and unsaved.
he searches for the Lord = Searching for the Lord involves....looking up at heaven? Looking under the bed? or hating evil, and loving righteousness? ie, Gal 5:24. So far his statement can only apply to the unsaved.
good will = True. I can be falling in sin, but if my intentions are good... I will repent and do my best to get out. Guess he cant say that since he said ''someone''.
Who am I to judge = Well you can judge and rebuke them if they (and you) are saved. But he failed to differentiate.

Conclusion: Bad statement.

2 ''The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…They’re our brothers''.

Now he differentiates by addressing the saved gay priests. For the saved, falling in an extremity of unrepentant sin and going to hell is the ONLY problem Rom 8:13. Is there another problem for us? Please tell me what can be a worse problem . Someone needs to read 1 Cor 5.

Conclusion: Terrible statement

1 Cor 5:2 summs it up for me. 'And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this?'

I understood what the Pope meant KJ and you dissection of his statement is NOT productive at all. Paul said the very same thing about gay people if you read your Bible, and I've already done a thread on it.

 

[Major]

I'm afraid you've misunderstood Pope Francis's statements, as have the people who are taking this as "I'm gay and the Pope says it's OK to live this way." He is by no means saying that pursuing one's sinful nature is not a problem. It is. He has stated many times that living a life that follows sinful tendencies (like homosexuality) is a problem. He called gay marriage “a scheme to destroy God’s plan” and “a real and dire anthropological throwback.” In 2010, he was a vocal opponent of the Argentinian government’s proposed legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. This is one of the biggest reasons why the Argentinian President has totally rebuked him.

The Pope's statement on homosexuality is being warped all over the mainstream media. The New York Times just released an article asking if he is now endorsing gay marriage.

The case of a gay priest is not about their sinful souls, but about being chaste. Just like any straight priest, a gay priest is to live 100% chaste and devoted to a service in God's name. Do they all obey their position of chastity? Unfortunately, some fall here and there--but this is not what is being endorsed.

Of course there is going to be backlash. Since when is there not backlash? When we ever express that we are against homosexuality or abortion, it is often seen read very generally and is misinterpreted as "You hate all gay people and you hate women."

The Pope's position is that homosexuality (not acting on it, but the thoughts and initial desires) are neurological, just as heterosexuality is neurological. Acting on lustful tendencies is the sin.

Before taking the word of the mainstream media, always be sure to look further and find what it really means.

I can not buy that my friend. Homosexuality is not neurological. It is sin!

If we accept that it is a neurological problem that means it is a sickness. The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin in Gen. 19:1-13, Lev. 18:22; 20:13 Rom 1:26-27. The fact that it is a sin is not in question at all.
Rom. 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. That is the problem.
Sin is disobedience to God's Word. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God.

Clearly in 1 Corth. 6:9 the Word of God proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.

God does not create a person with homosexual desires. The Bible tells us that people become homosexuals because of sin ( Rom. 1:24-27) and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as some people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person’s choosing to sin by giving in to sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger/rage, does that make it right for him to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true with homosexuality.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html#ixzz2aYtSj8Sx

 

[LysanderShapiro]

I can not buy that my friend. Homosexuality is not neurological. It is sin!

If we accept that it is a neurological problem that means it is a sickness. The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin in Gen. 19:1-13, Lev. 18:22; 20:13 Rom 1:26-27. The fact that it is a sin is not in question at all.
Rom. 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. That is the problem.
Sin is disobedience to God's Word. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God.

Clearly in 1 Corth. 6:9 the Word of God proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.

God does not create a person with homosexual desires. The Bible tells us that people become homosexuals because of sin ( Rom. 1:24-27) and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as some people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person’s choosing to sin by giving in to sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger/rage, does that make it right for him to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true with homosexuality.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html#ixzz2aYtSj8Sx

Major, with all due respect, this is a very simplistic approach.
To say homosexuality is a sin is half right. Is it not a sin to be heterosexual AND lustful? Only one part of this is a sin--the other is a neurological normality.

Of course homosexuality can be seen as a sickness. Is it a sickness that can be reversed? No. Some things, like autism, can't be cured, but they are recognized as abnormalities in the brain.

The Bible is very clear on what it says about homosexuality. In no way am I refuting this. If anyone pretends that that acting out in a homosexual lifestyle is actually OK, like the Episcopal Church does, is very much avoiding something. However, we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when we say adultery is a sin.

Why is it impossible to believe that God hasn't made someone with a certain disorder--not for the sake of punishing him or making him suffer--but for a greater purpose?

This might be a bad analogy, but in John 9 when the disciples passed the blind man and asked if he sinned or the parents, Jesus expressed that neither had sinned but that this was all for a good and greater cause before he healed him.I'm not suggesting God will now heal all gays and they will all of a sudden become chaste straights, but are you suggesting that you've recognized every conceivable cause?

Not meaning to be facetious, but how is one gay if they aren't born gay? Do you believe one chooses this handicap? And if so, when did you come out of the closet as a straight man?

 

[Major]

Major, with all due respect, this is a very simplistic approach.
To say homosexuality is a sin is half right. Is it not a sin to be heterosexual AND lustful? Only one part of this is a sin--the other is a neurological normality.

Of course homosexuality can be seen as a sickness. Is it a sickness that can be reversed? No. Some things, like autism, can't be cured, but they are recognized as abnormalities in the brain.

The Bible is very clear on what it says about homosexuality. In no way am I refuting this. If anyone pretends that that acting out in a homosexual lifestyle is actually OK, like the Episcopal Church does, is very much avoiding something. However, we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when we say adultery is a sin.

Why is it impossible to believe that God hasn't made someone with a certain disorder--not for the sake of punishing him or making him suffer--but for a greater purpose?

This might be a bad analogy, but in John 9 when the disciples passed the blind man and asked if he sinned or the parents, Jesus expressed that neither had sinned but that this was all for a good and greater cause before he healed him.I'm not suggesting God will now heal all gays and they will all of a sudden become chaste straights, but are you suggesting that you've recognized every conceivable cause?

Not meaning to be facetious, but how is one gay if they aren't born gay? Do you believe one chooses this handicap? And if so, when did you come out of the closet as a straight man?

You are 100% correct. Very, very simplistic.

Yes it is and Fornication outside of marriage is sin my friend.

Again, I can not agree with the sickness and yes the Bible is clear. There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian.

Your comment of.........
Why is it impossible to believe that God hasn't made someone with a certain disorder--not for the sake of punishing him or making him suffer--but for a greater purpose?

That can not be the case my brother. God has said that homosexuality is sin. He can not then by His own Word create a human that would be afflicted by a disorder which does not exist except by choice.

To say one is homosexual when they are born means that you are accepting that as a handicap and I do not agree with that. Homosexuality is not a disease. All major mental health organizations, including the American Psychological Association (APA), have stated that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

It is not a handicap and yes, it is a choice.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

You are 100% correct. Very, very simplistic.

Yes it is and Fornication outside of marriage is sin my friend.

Again, I can not agree with the sickness and yes the Bible is clear. There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian.

Your comment of.........
Why is it impossible to believe that God hasn't made someone with a certain disorder--not for the sake of punishing him or making him suffer--but for a greater purpose?

That can not be the case my brother. God has said that homosexuality is sin. He can not then by His own Word create a human that would be afflicted by a disorder which does not exist except by choice.

To say one is homosexual when they are born means that you are accepting that as a handicap and I do not agree with that. Homosexuality is not a disease. All major mental health organizations, including the American Psychological Association (APA), have stated that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

It is not a handicap and yes, it is a choice.

You raise interesting questions, but with all due respect, I think you're missing the point.

It's not refuting the act of homosexuality as wrong, but rather the mental breakdown of it. the APA has stated this, but the NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health whom I do much contracting work for) has expressed multiple times for years the differences in being due to neurological abnormalities. Abnormalities are not always regarded as mental disorders. Scientifically, I can't call it that. Nonetheless, it is still an abnormality and what one does in response to it can be done righteously or sinfully.

This is the problem with many of us--we refuse to take responsibility over things. The culture is expressing that this is no longer something to take responsibility over, but to now embrace. This is a premise that should be rejected of course.

By no means is this refuting the Bible's position on the act of homosexuality to be a sin.

 

[KingJ]

I understood what the Pope meant KJ and you dissection of his statement is NOT productive at all. Paul said the very same thing about gay people if you read your Bible, and I've already done a thread on it.

Paul said a similar thing in 1 Cor 15:10. Paul then said 1 Cor 5 to the saved. The pope is mixing the two as are you, why? Scripture and verse please Stan.

Now if the republican conservative right wing Christians can take the same tack, we will experience many more gays coming to Christ.

Come to Christ or come and be at home in their sin at my church? The only action Christians should be in agreement on is removing gay priests from the pulpit and placing them under discipline until they get victory over that sin.

I'm afraid you've misunderstood Pope Francis's statements,

Then why does he not better explain himself? Granted, media does construe and hype one liner statements made under pressure. The gay community is dying for him to give approval.

The Pope's position is that homosexuality (not acting on it, but the thoughts and initial desires) are neurological, just as heterosexuality is neurological. Acting on lustful tendencies is the sin.

I don't care much for the popes opinion. Paul and the OT is crystal clear on God's view of it. Do you see swearing and murder as the same extremity? Paul said in 1 Cor 5 that sexual sin must be judged. He didnt come home from his trip and say ''what, you guys are swearing''.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Then why does he not better explain himself? Granted, media does construe and hype one liner statements made under pressure. The gay community is dying for him to give approval.

Friend, have you read/heard Pope Francis' statements or just this one that made the mainstream media? Have you read his Encyclical Lumen Fidei that came out last month? I have. He is in no way contradicting the teachings of the Bible, but he is addressing the gaps that could easily be brought up in question. Of course the gay community is dying for his approval. If they want him to approve the lifestyle, they'll be holding their breath because he won't be condoning sin anytime soon. The RCC has been dogmatic on this position for thousands of years.

I don't care much for the popes opinion. Paul and the OT is crystal clear on God's view of it. Do you see swearing and murder as the same extremity? Paul said in 1 Cor 5 that sexual sin must be judged. He didnt come home from his trip and say ''what, you guys are swearing''.

The Pope's opinion is no different from what St. Paul wrote regarding God's view. In fact, his first Encyclical release addressed precisely that "a la carte Christianity" is one of the greatest harms to the Body of Christ today. He further said about homosexuality; “Let’s not be naïve, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.” This doesn't sound very contradicting to me.

With all due respect, the Pope's opinion may not mean much to you, but as a Catholic, I recognize the Pope as the Lord's vicar, so it certainly matters to me.

 

[Stan]

Paul said a similar thing in 1 Cor 15:10. Paul then said 1 Cor 5 to the saved. The pope is mixing the two as are you, why? Scripture and verse please Stan.

You even quoted 1 Cor 5 KJ and don't see it there? Do you look for words to support what you believe, which is called eisegesis, or do you actually read and study it? Try reading Vs 9-12 and SEE what Paul is trying to teach. I say try, because obviously many Christians DON'T get it!

Come to Christ or come and be at home in their sin at my church? The only action Christians should be in agreement on is removing gay priests from the pulpit and placing them under discipline until they get victory over that sin.

Why not KJ? You do! So ANY SINNER should not be a priest?
Who gives the victory over sin KJ? Do you have victory over ALL your sin? What did Jesus say in John 8:7?

Then why does he not better explain himself? Granted, media does construe and hype one liner statements made under pressure. The gay community is dying for him to give approval.

I had NO problem understanding what Pope Francis said. How is it you did? Gays ARE dying, WITHOUT Jesus, and your diatribe does NOT help them at all does it? When was the last time you witnessed? When was the last time you witnessed to a gay person?

I don't care much for the popes opinion. Paul and the OT is crystal clear on God's view of it. Do you see swearing and murder as the same extremity? Paul said in 1 Cor 5 that sexual sin must be judged. He didn't come home from his trip and say ''what, you guys are swearing''.

The I guess we shouldn't care much about your opinion then should we KJ?
We are NOT under the Old Testament/Old Covenant KJ, and you keep forgetting this.
WHAT Paul said in v11, was; "You must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler." Paul names six sins here, and NONE of them include homosexuality. I suggest you learn what the Bible means when it uses the term SEXUALLY IMMORAL. A GOOD hint would be v1. What I suggest you do, is actually read Vs9-10, where Paul DOES say "NOT AT ALL MEANING THE PEOPLE OF THIS WORLD".

 

[KingJ]

Let’s not be naïve, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

Amen.

You even quoted 1 Cor 5 KJ and don't see it there? Do you look for words to support what you believe, which is called eisegesis, or do you actually read and study it? Try reading Vs 9-12 and SEE what Paul is trying to teach. I say try, because obviously many Christians DON'T get it!

Here is v 9-12 please tell me how you are right and I am wrong. Paul is quoting me line for line here .

1 Cor 5:9-12 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person

Why not KJ? You do! So ANY SINNER should not be a priest? Who gives the victory over sin KJ? Do you have victory over ALL your sin? What did Jesus say in John 8:7?

I have discussed this with you before. It requires very simple lateral thought and understanding that as Christians we are going from glory to glory and have no excuse / need to be rebuked when we are falling into an extremity of sin / flesh ruling us.

If sin was sin to us...go divorce your wife right now!!! she has thought of many other men. Or forgive her for that and then ALSO forgive her and keep her when she physically cheats on you a couple of times.

Paul did not say ''Oh my, you guys are swearing''. Quoting that verse by Jesus is completely out of context by the way. I do not condemn an unsaved gay priest!!!! ... I will not sit and listen to one on the pulpit......big difference....Jesus and Paul would agree with me.

I had NO problem understanding what Pope Francis said. How is it you did? Gays ARE dying, WITHOUT Jesus, and your diatribe does NOT help them at all does it? When was the last time you witnessed? When was the last time you witnessed to a gay person?

You assuming too much. Of course I love and care for any gay person! I witness to them all the time, I work with three. My ex boss was one who use to hit on me.

The I guess we shouldn't care much about your opinion then should we KJ?
We are NOT under the Old Testament/Old Covenant KJ, and you keep forgetting this.
WHAT Paul said in v11, was; "You must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler." Paul names six sins here, and NONE of them include homosexuality. I suggest you learn what the Bible means when it uses the term SEXUALLY IMMORAL. A GOOD hint would be v1. What I suggest you do, is actually read Vs9-10, where Paul DOES say "NOT AT ALL MEANING THE PEOPLE OF THIS WORLD".

That is rather naive discerning. Just because Paul does not specifically mention here in that exact scripture (as he does in 1 Cor 6:9-11) does not suddenely remove its abomination status from the OT. You assume God of the OT is different to God of the NT?

The correct action is to remove them from the pulpit as they, like many other sinners are NOT FIT to preach. If you cannot discern this then I can only pray for you.

 

[KingJ]

King J: Are you as active in removing pastors that are:

1. divorced
2. heavy drinkers
3. money oriented
4. inhospitable
5. violent or promoting violence as a "Christian solution"
   
6. spoiled or rebellious kids

...as your are against gay folks in a pulpit?

If not, then you have a problem, IMO...Consider this:


1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Well, I have no power in removing anyone from the pulpit . All I can do is avoid going to the church. But at my church, yes they would. All the above and even more if all the qualified elders were in agreement.

Note what Paul is doing though. He is trying to get us to use our brains for judgement / discernment / a type of Christian common sense. A priest controlled by his desire to go against the natural cause of his body is going to preach a very warped message!!! His flesh is full control of him! Whereas a priest who is only guilty of having disobedient kids .... allowing his kids too much time in front of the television....His message from the pulpit would hardly be diluted. Each of those 6 points of yours can have varying levels of severity. We are not retarded and this is not rocket science. We know that a man thinking of another woman is not at the same level as a man actually in adultery. People take Jesus's statement of adultery completely out of context and do not differentiate between saved and unsaved.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

King J: Are you as active in removing pastors that are:

1. divorced
2. heavy drinkers
3. money oriented
4. inhospitable
5. violent or promoting violence as a "Christian solution"
   
6. spoiled or rebellious kids

...as your are against gay folks in a pulpit?

If not, then you have a problem, IMO...Consider this:

In King J's defense, if it was an issue where my priest was involved in something scandalous and was actually teaching/promoting something that was damaging or abusive, then I would bring my concerns to the archbishop in my district. Even if I was concerned that my priest was committing Liturgical abuse, I would express my concerns to the archbishop.

This was one of the things that had Cardinal Ratzinger as a strong elect as pope before he became Pope Benedict XVI -- he was one of the leading cardinals to go after the child abuse scandals in the Church -- there weren't as many as people exaggerate, but even one is enough to intervene.

When I was a protestant, I attended a fairly known church in Maryland where the senior pastor was involved in affairs with some of the women. Much of the staff approached it. He's still serving as pastor, though I can't judge ultimately if that is right or wrong only because I know so little of the details.

Pope Francis' position isn't regarding those living lives of sin, but who have brought their sins forward in search of forgiveness. His position is right--if God forgives and forgets, so should we. Keep in mind, he didn't say "fornicators, adulterers, sodomites, etc."

 

[calvin]

My, my the insults are flying so soon?
The Biblical truth is this:
Heterosexuality is never ever condemned by the word of God...never.
Sexual misconduct, adultery fornication, rape, incest is, but never heterosexuality in and of its self.
Homosexuality and homosexual conduct is specifically condemned as a perversion or an abomination. Anyone having a problem with that, IMHO is having a problem with God's word. there are no ifs buts or maybes about it.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

My, my the insults are flying so soon?

Did I overlook insults? I have a habit of not noticing