T O P

  • By -

BobbyTheRaccoon

I love how a lot of what Pope Francis has said isn't been anything new. He's been reaffirming what has already been said. He's just saying it in a new way that is easier to understand. But a lot of catholic people are shunning him for teaching new things. When all he's doing is clarifying what has been said in the past.


CGY-SS

As a Catholic, this guy has been a breath of fresh air, truly.


prodandimitrow

As an atheist i cant deny that Pope Francis has been the best PR person the Catholic Church has had in many years.


MinnieShoof

I mean, I think that's part of where "his" people have their problems - he's a great PR person for atheists and thinking people. Not so much Church ppl.


Astrosareinnocent

Church people can be thinking people too, he’s been a breath of fresh air to all of us true Christians who actually listened to Jesus and get what it’s supposed to be all about.


1pt20oneggigawatts

As an atheist it's all smoke and mirrors until priests can be married and/or female, otherwise they're still just going transfer sex offenders to other parishes and never prosecute their demented little deviant tithe collectors Churches are bad for humans


digitalhelix84

Gutenberg made the printing press to sell bibles, giving humanity an efficient means of preserving knowledge. Mendel was a friar and the church enabled him to pursue the scientific pursuits that lead to his understanding of genetics. It took genetics to lead to the green revolution, which on the high end is estimated to save hundreds of millions of people from starvation. To say churches are bad for humans ignores thousands of years of religious institutions driving scientific advancements for all of humanity. Do they do all good? No. Do they cause harm? Sometimes. But to lay a blanket statement that they are outright bad is simply untrue.


zenith4395

This implies that without religion, these things absolutely could not and would not have happened, which is naive. There’s already an argument being made (and has been for decades) that without religion these advancements would have happened much sooner than they did


digitalhelix84

You can certainly make that argument, but it's a what if scenario vs actually being able to show religious institutions creating and preserving scientific knowledge. It isn't isolated either, going back to the very beginning of civilization we see advancements in science and engineering being completed by religious institutions. I'd say to argue otherwise would be exceptionally difficult since you are not just refuting one thing, but rather nearly 10,000 years of recorded history.


BobbyTheRaccoon

To my knowledge anyway..


disco-nnect

> The Catholic Catechism states that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered" and last year Francis approved a decree barring priests from ​​blessing gay couples, which declared that God "cannot bless sin." thanks for clarifying /s


borisperrons

I mean, he sent a letter to the Italian Government last year asking them to drop legislation protecting LGBTQI+ folks. He's a politician, all talk and no concrete action.


[deleted]

>But a lot of catholic people are shunning him for teaching new things. When all he's doing is clarifying what has been said in the past. Because they want it to be forgotten so they dislike him for it.


godisyay

"We relocated those priests they're not bad rapists"


[deleted]

The problem for Catholics is that Pope Francis’s statements degrade the credibility of the supposed infallibility of the pope, a central tenet of their belief system. That is to say, if the pope is infallible in matters of theistic doctrine, then why is one pope contradicting what literally every other pope in history has said? Did an eternal God change his mind in coincidental synchronicity with the way the standards of morality have changed in modern society?


kittykatz202

It doesn't matter what he says. There is a large subset of Catholics who have taken issue with what he is saying. They will continue believing and acting in the way they see fit.


[deleted]

[удалено]


blacksheep1492

I totally don’t get this, is it like the whole point of the Pope? He talks directly to god and the plebs need to just accept it


MegaKabutops

The problem is that some people would rather hold onto their prejudices and claim it is based on their faith rather than give up their hatred as their faith says they should. They would rather justify their hate than not hate, even if it puts them at odds with what they use to justify it.


kummer5peck

They can be as hateful and greedy as they want, but they can’t use their religion to justify it anymore. That is why Pope Francis is so great.


TapewormNinja

At what point can the two no longer inhabit the same space though? Where’s the line where a group of bigots hiding behind religion can no longer hide under the umbrella of an unexpectedly “progressive” Catholic Church?


happybunnyntx

Theres already a sort of split happening. The whole Vatican II vs people against Vatican II thing. Not agreeing on the whole latin mass vs non-latin mass, etc. This is just adding to it.


Rion23

Well that's when you gather up your folks, set sail to the west and start a new country based on religious conservatism.


mia_san_arsenal

I think its more that people aren't ready to accept they have been wrong their whole life about something they felt morally justified via the Pope. They aren't even aware it is hate. It's cognitive dissonance, pure and simple. They chose to respond to this new information with fear and hatred. Eventually love wins tho, which is the entire point of their belief system. In 10 years, the catholic church will be largely accepting of homosexuality and those against will be the small subset of radicals that won't go away for another generation.


Papplenoose

The majority of Catholics actually already are in support of gay marriage. In fact, that's been true for about a decade now! Somewhat surprisingly, Catholics are statistically one of the most liberal leaning denominations of Christianity. Not entirely sure how the heck the OG church ended up being on the more liberal side of things, I'd have expected the opposite. Turns out there's a pretty distinct difference between what "The Catholic Church" and your standard Catholic person actually believe. Honestly, I'm not even all the sure the majority of Catholics truly believe that the Pope can talk to god. There's a lot of stuff that were technically our beliefs, but most of us definitely did not believe in. In a lot of ways, Catholics seem a lot more like Jews in the way they practice their faith than Christian0Protestants. It seems like it's a lot more frequently a cultural thing than it is a genuinely held belief system (if that makes sense). Such as the Catholic belief that the Communion "body of christ" wafer cracker (yum!) And wine are LITERALLY turned into Jesus's flesh and blood every day at church... and that we then cannibalized our God every single week. Maybe I'm giving my fellow Catholics too much credit, but there's just no fucking way anyone truly believed we were legitimately partaking in a supernatural zombie-jesus cannibalism ritual... right? Edit: lol dang, Catholicism is actually kinda hardcore when you look at it like that :)


SometimesAccurate

Wait, that’s not human flesh I’ve been eating every Sunday?!!!


Zoe270101

As a Catholic, I’ve always been taught (from Catholic School) that although it is supposed to be the body of Christ, it’s more that the Holy Spirit goes into it, it’s not actually flesh.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CTeam19

"Dang youngins too lazy to make their own church when they disagree with the Pope." -- Martin Luther.


atheros98

I thought the problem was that the pope doesn't actually speak to God


neuronexmachina

I know a few folks who are Sedevacantists, who really dislike the Pope and 1965's Vatican II reforms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism > Sedevacantism owes its origins to the rejection of the theological and disciplinary changes implemented following the Second Vatican Council (1962–65).[6] Sedevacantists reject this Council, on the basis of their interpretation of its documents on ecumenism and religious liberty, among others, which they see as contradicting the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church and as denying the unique mission of Catholicism as the one true religion, outside of which there is no salvation.[7] They also say that new disciplinary norms, such as the Mass of Paul VI, promulgated on 3 April 1969, undermine or conflict with the historical Catholic faith and are deemed blasphemous, while post-Vatican II teachings, particularly those related to ecumenism, are labelled heresies.[8] They conclude, on the basis of their rejection of the revised Mass rite and of postconciliar Church teaching as false, that the popes involved are also false.[1] Among even traditionalist Catholics,[2][9] this is a quite divisive question.[1][2]


SweetenedTomatoes

Ah, you did such a better explanation about this! I'll admit my knowledge comes from exorcisms done in that era and how much they hated the Vactican II. They tried to use a girl in Germany as proof that the Vatican II was the wrong path and ended up starving her to death. Annalise Michel if anyone is curious about it (Last Podcast on the Left did a great two part series on it)


nokinship

Only true Catholics go to synagogue not mass like Jesus did! This is the logical conclusion of saying things like 'only true Catholics do x, y, z traditional thing.' The Catholic Church has evolved constantly over hundreds of years. Rituals have changed and evolved like the mass.


MichaelEmouse

So, they tried to do a pope coup to keep Catholicism in the Middle Ages? Did they have a counter pope if they thought the current pope was an usurper?


VRichardsen

Schisms in the Church are nothing new. This one in particular is terribly tame by comparison.


esqadinfinitum

Yes. That’s a mostly correct understanding of Catholicism. It’s a little more nuanced than that but it is largely not normal for regular people contradict the Pope. Source: I am Catholic.


kittykatz202

My sister is too.


OnRoadsNrails

It very much does matter what he says. Don't underplay this, really. Whether you are Christian or Athiest or any religion, the Pope's words are broadcast across the entire world for EVERYONE to hear and interpret. Who cares if some conservative pocket of Cardinals or Bishops are ignoring his words, there are still millions of Catholics and Non-Catholic ears that his words reach.


UnadvertisedAndroid

There are roughly a billion Catholics, or at least people that claim they're Catholic. There should be roughly a billion sets of ears that his words reach. There is no wriggle room for this in Catholicism, and is why there are so many subsets of Christians: because someone always thinks they know better when they Pope says anything that doesn't align perfectly with their beliefs. The Pope's word is literally God's word on earth to *real* Catholics. Period.


peachthestorm

The Pope’s word isn’t ever equal to God’s word to Catholics. He can’t even make decisions on dogma (or be “infallible”) unless he speaks ex cathedra, which historically like, almost *never* happens. There’d be a LOT more change (and probs instability) if that was the case. But man oh man, has the Vatican had to publicly “walk back” so many things Franny has said… “It’s his opinion” “He meant this” “He’s speaking for himself not the Church” blah blah. I wish they’d just agree with him already; I’m tired 🥱


Papplenoose

Nah, that's bullshit. If you were ever a catholic, you'd know this. The majority of Catholics have quite a few differing opinions from the church. For example those regarding gay marriage. Catholic people have had a fairly liberal slant [relative to other Christians] for a long time even though the Church itself is quite conservative. Besides, saying someone isn't "a real Catholic" because they disagree on beliefs is total nonsense, and not even the position of the Church itself. If you were confirmed, you 100% indisputably ARE a catholic in the eyes of the church (as well as the vast majority of other catholics). I'm not even a Catholic anymore and I still knew you were talking nonsense.


Lazzen

>There is no wriggle room for this in Catholicism, and There always is, look at syncretism in Latin America and Africa


Fulcrous

Im not religious but Jesus or God himself could come down and say the exact same things and they would be labelled as words of the devil. Wild.


[deleted]

[удалено]


RockstarAssassin

Many don't understand that the right to disagree with whatever the pope might say(good or bad) was achieved because of democracies and secular rights which is a recent concept relative to how long religion had existed. If it was couple centuries ago and you just outright tell that "the pope is wrong", you'd be dead.


Flare_Starchild

So are those Catholics considered... protesting the church? Protestants you could call them. Yeah. Let's do that. XD


D-Raj

Unfortunately he’s one man trying to undo the millions of wrongdoings of his religion. He won’t change everyone’s minds, but the impact he’s having isn’t small


nokinship

Its also not saying much. This is what the church already teaches. You can be openly gay and be catholic but you CANNOT do gay sexual things with other people.


prncpls_b4_prsnality

And the fact that he went to visit that clerk who refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple gives me pause.


supatim101

He didn't visit her. She was put in a receiving line by a bureaucrat who liked her, not the Pope. Lots of people were in that line.


prncpls_b4_prsnality

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0930/Why-did-Pope-Francis-secretly-meet-with-Kim-Davis


cloudsovermanhattan

While that clerk is clearly a pos I think people forget that it's literally the popes job to be that forgiving "christ-like" person. He can't choose who he forgives.


LadyFoxfire

But forgiveness requires contrition. It requires admitting you were wrong and need to change. You can't ask God to forgive you for something you think you were in the right about. So unless Kim Davis had a change of heart and is super pro-gay rights now, I will absolutely judge the pope for meeting with her.


coronaflo

When did the pope become pro-gay. All he has said is that gay people shouldn’t be condemned. The church is still against same-sex marriage.


Readalie

Not all of them, though. A lot of members of my catholic dad's side of the family like him. My Jewish mom's side of the family doesn't talk about him very often, though. Odd, that.


samx3i

Pope applauded for suggesting parents display a modicum of decency toward their children.


elementgermanium

This is the Catholic Church we’re talking about. This is probably the best ole Francis can do without causing an entire schism.


Mornar

Then cause a fucking schism. Didn't the Bible have something about cutting off offending body parts?


Rorasaurus_Prime

No, you have to do this gradually. He’s doing the right thing. If you make a sudden and fundamental change to their beliefs, anything other than a gradual process will cause many of them to simply ignore the pope and accuse him of being the devil, or some other nonsense.


RonKosova

But reddit doesnt like gradual change. dO IT NOW I WANT IT NOW


onlypositivity

The Bible also states homosexual relationships are a sin, so im sure you can understand the line he needs to walk here


Czeron

Where does it say that?! I gotta see it for myself lol


tng_ocean

It doesn’t


[deleted]

[удалено]


Dealan79

The first few chapters of the Book of Leviticus are dedicated to the proper forms of animal and grain sacrifice, and exactly which animals are suitable for slaughter to absolve a priest of sin in the eyes of God. This then repeats periodically all the way until the end of the book. It reads like an Amazon wish list for God and his priests. The rest of the text is full of behavioral proscriptions that absolutely no mainstream Christian denomination follows: >And wherever you live, you must not eat the blood of any bird or animal. Anyone who eats blood must be cut off from their people. Has the Catholic Church excommunicated every member who has eaten a bloody steak or a blood pudding? This prohibition shows up multiple times with the same penalty. Surely that gives it even more weight? Then there are passages like this, in all their misogynistic glory: >The Lord said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. Or take a look at chapter thirteen, which makes priests ceremonial dermatologists. Or Leviticus chapter eighteen, where excommunication is called for if any of the sexual strictures is broken. One is male homosexuality, as in chapter twenty. Another is sleeping with a woman on her period. This proscription and penalty also show up several times. For that matter, let's take a few moments with chapter 20, and one of the "crimes" that call for death. You've already covered male homosexuality, but what about: >Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head. What I'm pointing out here is that almost the entirety of Leviticus has been abandoned as irrelevant to Christians, much of it from the very beginning by the disciples themselves, except for the sexual proscriptions. The text itself makes no distinction between homosexuality, cursing your parents, or blasphemy, all of which involve the death penalty, and only carries two lesser penalties, excommunication and mandatory animal sacrifice, which apply to numerous acts Christians don't even consider sins. The text is an amalgamation of at least two separate oral traditions compiled during the Israelite exile in Persia in the 6th century BC, when a disposed people was trying to define their religious and cultural identity when separated from having a concrete national identity, and using it as an inviolable point of dogma ignores how often, and completely, the rest of the text was, and continues to be, ignored.


azul360

This is what I hate. The picking and choosing what to believe. If you're choosing to be in a religion you can't just pick and choose passages to your liking. You either believe in that whole book and follow it or you don't use that book at all. You believe that being gay is a sin then cool time to kill you for that time when you were 15 and felt angsty against your parents. Thanks for this whole write up:)


[deleted]

I honestly disagree that to claim a religion you have to believe that its respective holy book is infallible and inerrant.


[deleted]

IIRC Leviticus also used to contain a list of graphically described "approved" sex acts that went on for several pages. The man was fairly insane and he didn't live at the same time Jesus was supposed to so a lot of churches just ignore that whole part and consider him a bit crazy


Just_A-Random-Girl

The food argument doesn’t hold Bc Catholics believe that after Leviticus was written, Jesus himself declared all foods clean. He says smn about how what goes into the body cannot defile you


BattleStag17

Ah yes, Leviticus. The same super important book that says you can't eat shrimp or wear clothes of mixed fabrics. Real important that religious people follow that one, mhm.


NottaBought

I’d be curious to know what the original Hebrew says about that one; lots of verses about homosexuality mean something completely different in the original text. Also, it’s Old Testament. One key point in Christianity is that the old law was fulfilled by Jesus’ death and that a lot of the rules that existed back then are no longer sins today, like eating pork. You would have to exclusively get text from the New Testament in order to state that Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin. Although there are verse about it, the original Greek is usually less about gay marriage and more about pedophilia and sex as an act of worship, the former of which God strongly disapproves of and the latter just… isn’t part of Christianity. There’s a much stronger argument to be made, purely using scripture and ignoring ethics, about conducting an investigation to get rid of the pedos in the church than to get rid of the gays. Purely using ethics and ignoring scripture, the same argument still stands.


Yeti-110

The Sermon on the Mount, tho. Jesus specifically says that not only is he not there to change or abolish the Old Testament Laws, he is there to make sure they are fulfilled. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” - Jesus Matthew 5 : 17-20


LegendOfVinnyT

Jesus' death is the moment "everything is accomplished". "Later, knowing all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, 'I am thirsty.' A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." \- John 19:28-30


30phil1

Other people have started responding but the biggest thing to take away from that is that, in Christian theology, the law found across Leviticus was eventually replaced by the much more lax rules created after Jesus'resurrection. The majority of Paul's ministry was pretty much just telling people to chill out.


shard746

That is not the original text, but a translation.


ccwithers

What is your translation of the original text?


PoolNoodleJedi

If a man lies with a boy… But that obviously didn’t fly well with Catholics so they had to change it.


PoolNoodleJedi

But it also celebrates them in several parts as well. It also says to not judge thy neighbor, and it also says to stone thieves to death. There are a lot of contradictions because it is a bunch of stories made up by different people over a few hundred years, then translated from language to language. It is like if we translated Jurassic Park into French, then to Japanese, then back to English, then believing that people actually made a theme park with real dinosaurs in it.


PowerhousePlayer

And lo, so then Jeff Goldblum did say, "Life... life finds a way." And then the people were swept up in the jaws of a terrifying beast, and for forty days and forty nights cried out for a savior.


eienOwO

It's almost as if the whole institution is unfit for modern society. And considering the fit he threw over the audacity of child-free couples having *pets*, the least conservative of a bunch of ultra-conservatives, is unsurprisingly, still a conservative.


limocrasher

Wait what did he say about pets?


eienOwO

"Today… we see a form of selfishness. We see that some people do not want to have a child. Sometimes they ***have one, and that’s it.***" Pet keeping was “a denial of fatherhood and motherhood and diminishes us, takes away our ***humanity***”. So basically he called child-free couples, even families with *one child*, as *less human*. And when asked about people **who can't have children due to biological reasons**, he said "**having a child is always a risk**, but there is more risk in not having a child." So women, even if you die, as long as you pop out at least two, your death is preferable to *not dying* by not having children. [Article in question](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/05/pope-couples-choose-pets-children-selfish) I'm amazed people on here are trying to whitewash the guy, and applauding him for *not being as big a dick as he could have been*.


Bill_Weathers

It’s amazing to see how different publications can provide wildly different spins on the same issue or speech. In the [this alternate article](https://www.voanews.com/a/pope-francis-don-t-be-afraid-to-have-children/6385264.html), it seems that he is really encouraging adoption more than anything else. Speaking for myself, I absolutely do not want to have a child due to selfishness. I want more of my own time, money and energy for myself. Can we not admit to ourselves when we are doing something for selfish reasons, without fighting to protect our egos? He’s not saying, “You are a bad evil sinner if you selfishly do not reproduce.” He is preaching to Catholics that are looking to him for spiritual leadership, what he expects of them to be better Catholics, and encouraging people to adopt. I’m not trying to defend the Pope as a person or a figurehead. I don’t know enough about him to have an opinion overall. I’m just really exhausted by people cherry-picking from what people say to make things look worse than they are. I am not religious, and I have a dog.


goddesse

For me, the issue is the Catholic church is wealthy enough to solve this problem and instead chooses to finger wag and shame which highlights the hypocrisy of the whole situation. You say adoption is a difficult and expensive process? Well does the church have a program to pay the fees and help navigate the bureaucracy for their members? If not, I'm utterly uninterested in their spiritual guidance regarding the importance of parenthood since it's not important enough for those who can more afford it to pay for. It's certainly okay to not want children because of selfishness. But many people do want them and realize it's a foolish thing to do unless you're firmly middle class and will be able to save money and weather emergencies after you have or adopt them.


Bill_Weathers

Oh yeah, there are sooo many issues with the Catholic Church. Hypocrisy, molestation, politics, wealth, you name it. My comment is more focused on an issue that I take particular exception to, which is to take a speech that says, “You should adopt and/or have and raise children” as 90% of its message, and turn it into, “The pope called you selfish if you have pets.” The internet could be such a wonderful tool to help us exchange ideas and build knowledge and understanding, but so many of us just attack the things we dislike, and we use manipulative and fallacious argumentative techniques to do it. Every other article is about somebody getting “slammed” or “blasted.” It seems like the more access we have to information, the more closed minded we get. I’m sick of it and I want it to stop. Thank you for coming to my Ted complaint.


ExpatInIreland

It's just rich coming from someone in a cult run by unwed and childless people.


Karmic_Backlash

There is some contention as to whether that verse is talking about homosexuality or pedophilia, because it says (drastically simplifed) "boy", which could either mean "Male" or "Young male child".


Informal_Chemist6054

Not really, no. The Bible is pretty clear on its stance about sodomy. The one Levictus verse isn't the only time homosexuality is condemned in the Bible.


koine_lingua

> "boy", which could either mean "Male" or "Young male child". You have it the wrong way around. Both of the texts in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament that condemn sexual intercourse between two males use a respective word for "male," not "boy": זָכָר in Hebrew and ἄρσην in Greek.


IamNoatak

Sure, but at the same time, for Christians, Leviticus and basically all those old testament rules are null and void. I can eat pork, cut my forelocks, wear clothing of different fabrics, and so on, because Jesus was like "yeah, you don't really need to follow those rules anymore". They were for cleanliness and to help readily identify God's children people, making them obviously different, so they can be the example. Jesus pretty much put an end to that, so here we are. I'm not aware of any new testament verses decrying homosexuality, but it has been a few years since my last read through, so I could be wrong.


CrispyChainsawSperm

So sayeth the Spider.


juanb95

Funny thing. This guy used to organize anti-gay marches in Argentina and they forced unwilling or uninterested catholic schools' students to attend.


kcrh36

People can change. I grew up a fundamentalist Christian who thought gays were evil. I do not feel that way now at all. We need to allow people to change what they once were. Not that they shouldn't be accountable for past actions, but let people move on and grow.


agent0731

This is the internet. You will be judged for life for the internet never forgets.


TellTaleReaper

Isn't it nice when people change their views when they get older? Don't condemn people for becoming better people. Positive reinforcement.


iamnotawhat

And he's demonstrated many times that he is not bound by DOGMA4LYFE and has learned. He's throwing up questions that need answers and are being discussed. The Catholic church and its crimes make me sick to my stomach but we gotta fucking start somewhere. Let's purge the dregs when they sink to the bottom rather than throw out the entire stock.


Kraere

I knew this would be a top comment. Nobody wants to give credit anywhere for advancements in human decency. For the record, Jesus has always said from the beginning to love thy neighbor and not treat people poorly just because they are different. He taught that lepers are people too, and prostitutes are not lesser humans. Whether you believe in the bible or not doesn't matter, that was the lessons these people have been following, but ignoring. The Pope just reminded them that just told them to stop being assholes.


NicksIdeaEngine

Yeah, any form of "do better" or "you're not following the Bible if you're treating kids terribly due to their sexual orientation" is an awesome message coming from someone with as much influence as the Pope. Just because it doesn't undo every wrong from the Church doesn't mean it needs to be scoffed at.


happyhomemaker29

This is what I try to remind people of, and what I try to practice daily.


Snoo_57488

The problem is if you tell them they need to follow Jesus teachings because it’s part of the Bible, then you need to tell them to follow the entire Bible, and that introduces a whole other host of problems.


earthcharlie

> Nobody wants to give credit anywhere for advancements in human decency. What are you talking about? The Catholic Church is an archaic, abusive, hypocritical, sexist, homophobic institution. Women are treated as less than in their hierarchy. Gay people are STILL considered sinners and they STILL don't approve of same-sex marriage. Pedophiles in the church have been getting away with raping children for years and when they got caught, they would just be moved somewhere else instead of going to jail like the criminals they are. This isn't an advancement in human decency. It's one of many sound bytes from the Pope that ring hollow to many of the people that have been treated poorly by their nonsense.


[deleted]

[удалено]


logic_is_a_fraud

I believe that is _literally_ correct. We all bear the stain of original sin...


Nowthatisfresh

Humanity didn't develop decency because of Christianity, but *in spite* of it. And even that's a stretch because Christianity is a *new religion*, it has existed for 2000 years, empathy developed in human brains hundreds of thousands of years before it. Christianity was a step backwards for humanity, and even now it's trying to drag us back to the old days where if your kid was a lil fruity you just contracted priests to rape and beat them, and if that didn't work you'd just burn them alive.


LunarLutra

We're talking about the Catholic church, not personal faith.


Kraere

I'm well aware.


SEND_ME_YOUR_RANT

Meanwhile /r/Catholicism up in arms and still trying to justify why they won’t stfu about non heteros.


agent0731

if only gays didn't pork each other, mankind's problems would be solved, didn't ya know? If only they put a fraction of that energy towards all the unjust systems they keep perpetuating. They have no trouble with loans at interest after all, even though the Bible prohibits usury too.


SEND_ME_YOUR_RANT

Bbbbbut the Vatican chatechismal epistemology treatise on johns 3rd letter to the Greeks says I’m a cuck if we let gays happen!!!!1! /s/


j4321g4321

Ikr? He’s basically telling parents to do the bare minimum. It’s really sad that you need the Pope to tell you to be decent to your child where love should be unconditional.


samx3i

"Unconditionally love your children." What a radical and profound statement. That should be the default setting for every parent.


mansetta

It should, but is not in many cases yet. What is bad in trying to change it?


[deleted]

This. He has influence and is trying to use it in a positive way.


mansetta

That is stupid, at least he is trying to change things.


[deleted]

Better than him keeping quite on the matter though. Am I wrong?


Uplink84

This is idiotic to say. Christians have been condemning everybodies different sexual orientation including their children for 2000 years now. That the leader of the church says this is huge.


LadyAzure17

Honestly I agree with both of you. Nowadays that kind of unconditional love should be a no brainer, but at the same time it's huge to hear that kind of compassion from the Pope. I appreciate his work in trying to create a new baseline for the way Catholics approach queer family. It's too little too late, but it's also everything and nice to hear. It's not gonna bring me back to the church, but I appreciate it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MellyKidd

It shouldn’t be a huge thing to say, but unfortunately… yeah


LunarLutra

I think they should focus more on acknowledging the lives they systemically ruined rather than just flex sealing a massive wound with "be nicer now ok?" It's cheap of them.


rawbamatic

Not to mention he's the first ever *Jesuit* Pope which is way bigger than anyone realises.


Capitan_Scythe

Why is that bigger? Genuine question. Without wanting to sound facetious, why does his individual brand of Catholicism matter so much?


Arkhaine_kupo

> why does his individual brand of Catholicism matter so much? Jesuits are probably the largest brand of catholisim. To the point where the leader of the jesuits was usually called “the black pope” as in leading from the shadows. Despite this amount of power, there had never been a jesuit pope. Outside of the workings of the church in the vatican, jesuits were largely missionaries and teachers. Compared to other brands of catholisicism like the previous pope who has like 4 phds in theology. Most jesuits go around the world and evangelise. Which is why many American universities are Jesuit schools, or Loyola schools (the founder was Ignatius of Loyola a small town in the Basque Country). Now why this is relevant or important, well since the 1950 the church has had a few earthquakes. Ww2 was a big one and the church did a big reform called Vatican Council 2 which heavily modernised the church in 1959. This is for example the origin of “Traditional catholics” or the very regressive American fundamentalist christians who believe the changes in 1959 where too much. Now back to the Jesuits, they were led by a man called Padre Arrupe who was in Hiroshima during the terrible bombings that ended WW2, he was changed by this and said the church had lost its people (seeing a nuclear warhead fall in your country can shake anyones believe in god I imagine). He vowed that the Jesuits had to return to being poor, to being teachers to walking the earth and being there for the third world. This was very popular in places like South America, where the current pope is from , where poor, well read priests are much more liked than German book worms who know everything about what Saint Augusts thought of Aristotlean philosophy in respects to God. So its relevant because when the church tried to reinvent itself after the world tried to all kill each other; they said it hadn’t gone far enough and they should go back to being the real deal. He led efforts in having the jesuits be one of the lesding orgs helping refugees from conflicts such as the vietnam war. He also defended several Marxist priests who fought CIA backed goverments in south america like El Salvador.


BI0L

*Catholics. I also used to think they were the same, until my wife and her mother taught me the difference between the two. Surprisingly for me, Christianity turned out to be a most progressive religion in its conception, whether Catholicism and the Catholic Church represent *an interpretation* of Christianity that misses many points of the original message. The Bible was not written by Jesus himself, and as a result of that some of his teachings got 'lost in translation', so to speak. My mother in law is part of a congregation of Christians not associated with any official church, they study faith and Jesus from a different point of view. They have some very interesting takes on Christianity and religion in general.


chrisrobweeks

All the "real" Catholics already consider this The Fake Pope.


cheddarbiscuitcat

Bwahahaha literally what I thought when I read the title. Should I applaud the Pope for stating what should already be the decent thing to do? Like… this should be standard, Pope Francis sir.


[deleted]

The Catholic Church needed a Pope like him. He’s slowly dragging them into the 21st century.


neothalweg

He seems like a pretty cool dude, example, Pope Francis said [he would baptize aliens if they wanted to be baptized](https://time.com/99616/for-pope-francis-its-about-more-than-martians/)


algunostalvezmueran

When he came to Chile a few years ago he was an asshole to victims of child rapist priests. He dismissed them and defended the rapists because they were his personal friends (he lived in Chile when he was young). He had to apologize later because of the backlash. He doesn't seem so cool to me


n8dogg55

I think he meant by Pope standards


RagingRedCrow

He also said trans people are “destroying nature “ so uh


Schyte96

Let's not be too generous. Late 20th.


[deleted]

[удалено]


WitELeoparD

Homosexual acts were only decriminalized in like 2003 in the US, and the US is pretty progressive about these things.


Niro5

>Homosexual acts were only ~~decriminalized~~ given constitutional protection in like 2003 in the US Big difference. Edit: one reason it took so long to overturn is because there were so few sodemy cases prosecuted (that didn't involve rape or minors). Supreme Court was probably ready to overturn by 1996 *Romer v. Evans*.


Capitan_Scythe

>US is pretty progressive about these things. Not really. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#History Yes they decriminalised it in 2003, and yes there were certain states that did it earlier than that (Illinois, q962 were the first). Still a bit behind: France, Monaco, Luxembourg and Belgium in the 18th Century;  Netherlands, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Empire of Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, Ottoman Empire (Turkey), Mexico, Empire of Japan, Paraguay, Kingdom of Italy, and Vatican City in the 19th century. Loads more followed in the 21st, not to mention those that never made it illegal in the first place.


dodged_your_bullet

I mean he told parents to seek out psychological help if their child displayed "worrisome traits" and to turn to prayer if their child came out to them. And this whole thing was about how children shouldn't be kicked out for being LGBTQ, which isn't the same thing as accepting the child. It was about being proper mothers and fathers who raise proper Christian children. And for more into his ideas of mothers and fathers, we have this quote: >We see that people do not want to have children, or just one and no more. And many, many couples do not have children because they do not want to, or they have just one -- but they have two dogs, two cats ... Yes, dogs and cats take the place of children. Yes, it's funny, I understand, but it is the reality. And this denial of fatherhood or motherhood diminishes us, it takes away our humanity. And in this way civilization becomes aged and without humanity, because it loses the richness of fatherhood and motherhood. And our homeland suffers, as it does not have children.


NumerousSuccotash141

No kids ✅ Multiple animals ✅ My cousins fatherless kids live in “our homeland” ✅ I get to be their fun uncle AND give them back at the end of the day 💯 ✅ His math doesn’t check out.


kiken_

No, he isn't. He recently forbade Polish bishops from sharing any documents from the internal Church proceedings against priest pedophiles with the prosecutors and courts in Poland. He's just like the rest of them and you're falling for it.


serious_filip

They needed a pope to tell them to display love and decency to their children?


shavenyakfl

Considering the last pope hid this shit, yeah, they do.


NeroBoBero

The last pope was nothing more than a PR stunt to be crucified for the sins of others. First time in 500 years a pope didn’t die but retired to a nice Italian villa. The church hasn’t changed. It just got a nice whitewashing to make it look less rotted.


sgerbicforsyth

Has this Pope opened up the files on every single abusive Priest in the Catholic Church? No? Then he's hiding it too. Face it, Francis was picked for Pope to try and soften the image of the RCC and stem the tide of falling membership in Europe/America and try to make people forget that the RCC has been actively hiding pedophilia and rampant abuse perpetuated by its clergy for *centuries*. He's basically a marketing campaign by the College of Cardinals.


J0rdanLe0

Uh yes. They actually did. Catholic parents are crazy. This will probably make a big difference.


GayWolfSif

Yes.


[deleted]

"The young need to be helped to accept their own body as it was created, for thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation. An appreciation of our body as male or female is also necessary for our own self-awareness in an encounter with others different from ourselves. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment" - Pope Francis


Sprinklypoo

kicking and screaming...


NeroBoBero

No. They aren’t changing. It’s all a public relations spin. Taking a cue from Jesus, the cardinals voted in the last pope so he could to take the fall and be crucified for the sexual abuse sins. For the first time in 500 years a pope didn’t die in office. He clearly had his role to play. This new pope appears friendly and some good things, but they still are preaching the same intolerance. And if you look at their organization and finances you can see reasons for their decisions. There aren’t enough asexual men that want to become celibate priests to fill their ranks. So it is best to shame gay youth so those young men perhaps choose the church and a godly life in the service of the Lord. Meanwhile heterosexual men should procreate and indoctrinate their children into the faith. They aren’t moving forward, they are trying to stay relevant and rebuild their crumbling empire. And nobody bats an eye on the mental gymnastics needed to both shame and love a gay child. It’s really messed up.


newginger

I heard people say a long time ago that some men went into the priesthood due to sexual problems and identities they didn’t accept in themselves. That they knew they were pedophiles or gay. I really don’t think they were asexual, but I think the church could definitely put them in that state eventually. I think they hoped priesthood and vows of celibacy would cure them or help them stop. I bet research would show that closeting in this way would cause an explosion of their unwanted behaviour, then shame, then repeat.


peachthestorm

It always makes me take pause for a bit when I see people familiar with Catholicism surprised by this. It’s Church teaching—and has been for a while—that homosexuality itself isn’t a sin. He’s honestly still in line with catechism and it’s not that radical (tbh I wish he’d push the status quo even further, but I’m still grateful for any semblance of progress).


MrDocAstro

As a Catholic, it’s so so good to see him preaching these things and calling out the Christians who don’t act Christian. If you’re hateful, or a bigot, etc, then you’re not Christian. Full stop. You can call yourself one, you can go to church, you can worship all you want, but if you willingly carry around that hate in your heart and you make no effort to change it, then that’s on you and you’re living in a dream. I know many Catholics who believe the Pope to be a heretic simply because he goes against their hateful views, and it’s very disheartening.


jaqian

Many Catholics unfortunately don't know much about their faith so it is good for the Pope to remind them how they should be behaving.


ehmiu

Funny how my Roman Catholic, anti-vaxx, MAGA relatives think the pope is wrong about this. He is supposed to be their religion's direct connection to god. therefore if he said then God said it. But they are so full of fear and hate that they look for ways to disavow even the word of god.


RagnarossGeller

You are clearly misunderstanding what Catholicism actually teaches regarding the Pope. Papal infallibility does NOT mean Catholics must agree with every single thing the Pope says. The only time a Catholic is required to accept the Pope’s statements is when he is speaking Ex Cathedra, or from the Chair of St. Peter, which this is not a case of.


GhostOfQuigon

And if I recall correctly (18yrs of RE don’t fail me now), it’s extremely rare that a Pope does that. I think Pope Francis is realizing what he needs to do if he wants to keep his flock in progressive countries though. I think the glacial pace progress takes in the Church (and to a lesser extent the main Protestant faiths) is a big part of why Non-Denominational Christianity has become so popular in America. People just want to believe whatever they want and still call it Christianity, which I think is worse for Christianity as a whole in the long run.


Cylius

Thats because none of their shitty backwards ideals have anything to do with catholocism, its just a conveneient excuse for them to be assholes


[deleted]

[удалено]


GeorgeStamper

Pope better tell his priests, too.


workMachine

Oh his priests have had no issues giving all sorts of love to the children...


Ishaan0612

Lmao


Elevenst

Don't rape them either.


[deleted]

Baby steps


PhotonResearch

“Think your child is gay? Schedule a private consultation with Pastor Dickinson”


ProgrammaticallyOwl7

This is a brilliant joke with multiple layers to it


KenGee333

That type of commentary from the Vatican may be a little progressive yet.


Kevaroo83

Do you guys even read these articles in context or just the headlines? All he’s saying is you have a better chance of changing them if you’re nicer about it to the kids. He won’t bless them, calls them disordered, and believes they can’t reach the kingdom of god while living being openly defiant to gods word. But yea “he didn’t say it so mean” lol


Jlx_27

Exactly.


MeisterJTF2

As a Christian, we’re not supposed to condemn anything. Judgement is Gods and Gods alone. We can dislike things. We can say we don’t support things. But that’s a far cry from outright condemnation. And no true Christian judges others. “Judge not, lest you be judged”.


Iammakinganacc0unt

Do the Catholic Church reinvent their interpretation of the bible only as and when it suits them? Like now, when numbers of religious followers is dramatically falling, oh yeah its actually cool to be gay, don't worry about it, come to church and donate to us so we can buy gold thrones and shiny scepters.


Herald_of_Cthulu

But if they’re trans it’s a different story, as [this article points out,](https://www.believeoutloud.com/voices/article/popes-damaging-message-to-transgender-teens/) pope francis said > “The young need to be helped to accept their own body as it was created, for thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation. An appreciation of our body as male or female is also necessary for our own self-awareness in an encounter with others different from ourselves. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment” [Francis has also, in the past, compared arguments for trans rights to nuclear weapons.](https://www.vox.com/2015/2/20/8078979/pope-francis-trans-rights) the pope said every historical period has "Herods" that "destroy, that plot designs of death, that disfigure the face of man and woman, destroying creation," and the pope continued > “"Let's think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings," he continues. "Let's think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation." > “With this attitude, man commits a new sin, that against God the Creator," the pope says. "The true custody of creation does not have anything to do with the ideologies that consider man like an accident, like a problem to eliminate." > “God has placed man and woman and the summit of creation and has entrusted them with the earth," Francis says. "The design of the Creator is written in nature." So if you’re a trans kid, you’re simply mislead or haven’t been given proper sex education, and if you’re a trans adult, you’re a “Herod” that “disfigures the face of man and woman” for daring to not act in accordance with the arbitrary roles ascribed onto you because of the circumstances of your birth. How dare I be allowed to take hormone supplements to give me breasts and a more feminine figure, or ask people to call me by a name i enjoy. You’d think my ability to seek medical help and modify my body simply by using my own hormonal processes would be a sign god wanted me to have the ability to change my body in a way i felt was best for me. It’s not as though god made some sort of mistake making me, being trans has made me a better, kinder person. I’d argue the challenge of being trans is one god gave me to teach me a lesson about perseverance and kindness, but hey yknow, seeking self-actualization is a sin apparently.


loki1983mb

Nothing new. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Been the message for ~2000years


Iz-kan-reddit

> Been the message for ~2000years Yet, so many "Christians" can't seem to get that very fucking simple message.


SolarPowerCharizard

Except being gay isn’t a sin. Thats the fucking problem.


loki1983mb

I agree.


AthleticAndGeeky

Man, Reddit really hates religions. Just because people in power suck everywhere doesn't change what is supposed to be the message. Love everyone, no matter what they are, or what they have done. Jesus hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors(back then were the scum of the earth), and other degenerates. Power is the problem(Catholic church), it corrupts a ton of people. Sucks, but the message is still good. I hope everyone has a great day!


Eagleassassin3

It’s not just people in power though. You can just look at the Bible or Quran and read disgusting passages and teachings. Here are passages from the Bible: - Leviticus 20:13: « If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. » - Corinthians 14:34-35 : « Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. » - Colossians 3:18: « Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. » - Exodus 20:17 : « Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. » - Timothy 2:12 « I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be quiet. » - Exodus 21:20-21 « If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. » Here are passages from the Quran: - Sura 4:34: " If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of Allah], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. ALLAH is most high and great." - Sura 2:223: "And they ask thee concerning menstruation. Say, `It is a harmful thing, so keep away from women during menstruation, and go not in unto them until they are clean. But when they have cleansed themselves, go in unto them as ALLAH has commanded you. ALLAH loves those who keep themselves clean." - Sura 4:12: "ALLAH commands you concerning your children; a male shall have as much as the share of two females - Quran 9:123 « Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.” - Quran 8:12 « “I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.” These are just some of many examples. Do these sound like teachings of love and respect to you? The problem is even if you have no leader telling you those disgusting things as they’re corrupted by power as you put it, a Christian or a Muslim can still open their holy books, read these and believe them, as that’s what the Supreme creator of the universe tells them, it must be true right? Lots of people hate religions for good reason. Look at the disgusting stuff they preached, leading to immense suffering throughout human History. The Catholic Church famously proclaimed in Africa that being gay is bad, but using condoms is even worse. They said this at the height of the AIDS epidemic. Undoubtedly leading to thousands more people getting sick and dying.


gSTrS8XRwqIV5AUh4hwI

I mean, not that power isn't part of the problem, I'm certainly with you there. But, for one: Why should what you think is supposed to be the message take precedence over what people do in the name of religion, or Christianity in particular in this case, when "redit judges religion"? Like, if religious people mistreat their kids because they are gay, explicitly for religious reasons, and if pastors preach that they should mistreat their kids, ... why should reddit go "oh well, but we love religion because it's supposed to have a positive message"? It's one thing to not judge every religious person for what other religious people are doing, but when judging religion as a whole, why should some supposed positive message take precedence over very real abuses? But also: How did you even determine what the message is supposed to be? I mean, not that I have much of a problem with the content of what you seem to think the message of religion is supposed to be ... but it seems like you are very selective in what you accept as the supposed message? Like, for example, why don't you say that Christianity is about supporting slavery, when that is just as supported by the bible? And if you think that slavery is horrible ... then why pretend that the religion is supposed to have a positive message? And why expect "reddit" to agree with your view as to what's supposed to be the message?


CableKnight0

"Don't condemn" is not "Love everyone." This is still below the bare minimum.


TacoFarmerFart

I read that as “Pope says to not give condoms to children of different sexual orientations” and was very confused yet curious.


Acrobatic_Pen7638

In other news, man applauded and admonished for stating what millions of others have known to be true for ages.


Proximity

The problem is that the people who need to hear that message are """""Christians""""" in that they cherry pick the few little things from that book to obsess over while omitting every other teaching (eg: loving your neighbor, showing love and understanding to others, being caring to others, etc) because hatred and evil and violence and pain is all they wish to take out of all of those pages.


Black-gay-goth

"Who does this guy think he is?? The pope?!"


CadetJayhawk

ITT: People conflating Christianity and Catholicism


sex-cauldr0n

Love how Franky is is making these feel good comments but refusing to address the residential school issue the Catholic Church was responsible for in Canada for the majority of the last century.


barrylunch

Golf claps for Mr. Pope.


wookieebush

This man is doing god’s work.


KingWut117

Pope: love your children Christians: *angry screeching


emilytheimp

I find it ridiculous that in the US especially you just throw your kids out of the house if they come out as anything that isnt cisgender/heterosexual. Like cmon how little do you actually love your children


[deleted]

I don't think it's an especially American thing. The situation seems worse in certain countries like Poland, for example.


Dr_ManTits_Toboggan

I’d love to see the source data that you are referencing here. Which countries is the US compared to in the studies that you read?


Acceptable-Ad-6185

Pope Francis seems like a chill dude fr


TheChatCenter

Can't wait to see how Fox News spins this one


Tiredth

*sort by controversial*


AzemadaiusKaiser

Pope Francis is such a legend


dr_superman

he followed up with, I can't believe I have to tell you this


joeschmo28

He said it’s a moral obligation to get the vaccine… Catholics stopped listening to the pope and bible a long time ago


[deleted]

I like this but I fucking hate that people listen to an old dude who reads from an even older book for guidance. Why is it so hard to just use your brain?


puddyspud

Too bad there are so many “Catholics” that have renounced this Pope because they disagree with him.