www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pope Francis Kisses the Hand of Gay Activist Priest

He was! Which doesn't contradict what I'm saying and, in fact, reinforces it.

If Jesus, as God no less, washed the feet of the son of perdition himself, and concelebrated a liturgy with him...???

This gospel?



And that is the crux of the matter right there. I agree with you completely because what you say is true.

However, where this all gets tricky is in determining precisely where the line is to be drawn in every circumstance. What authentically constitutes giving the impression that the evil of the person you're "cavorting with" is something you're sponsoring, and when, instead, is rash judgment being exercised by those who witness the event? Sometimes the distinction is very clear, other times it's anything but.

You're well aware of how many times Jesus was accused of sponsoring or endorsing evil by associating with sinful women, tax collectors, etc. How many times was the charge true?

I understand the challenge this presents to many minds. Francis is the Pope. Among all other clergy in the world, he is the foremost "gatekeeper" of the Christian faith. So, he, more than anyone else, should be acting responsibly at all times and in all places. Right? The thing is, though, the definition of "responsible" is a bit relative to where others are in their psychological/spiritual growth.

Those still developing need stronger boundaries reinforced than those who have come to full maturity. They need the pope to always come out making clear and unequivocal, black and white, distinctions between all things because their minds are not yet sufficiently developed to handle color.

In time, the mind develops, sees and appreciates the greater beauty of color and needs the pope, rather than to dictate rules all the time, to fulfill the ultimate aim of biblical instruction - which is love from a pure heart. (1 Tim. 1:15) And love is bigger than rules. The East instinctively knows this better than the West does. Love is what led Jesus to invite himself to Zaccheus' house for dinner even though the evil that Zaccheus did was obvious to all. It's what led Jesus to speak with the "loose" woman at the well, etc., etc.

Love is what should have led the priest and the Levite, and did lead the good Samaritan, to stop for the man who was beaten and laying on the side of the road, even though - going strictly by the rule book - it probably would have made the priest and Levite "unclean" by coming into contact with the man.

So, the trick question is, "What's the right answer for this instance?" Which course of action was more appropriate for His Holiness to take? And the answer, of course, is that the answer is not entirely clear.

Had Francis made clear from a distance that what this priest was sponsoring was evil and that His Holiness would, therefore, have to call him out on the fact and decline to associate with the man, this would have made very clear to those who are still in development where the "boundary lines" are. A plus. Having taken an alternate course of action has obviously only confused these people and made them angry for the confusion.

But demonstrating the tremendous humility Francis did in the way that he did also both illumines the way for believers who are ready to advance into the full maturity of color, AND it may well have won over (partially, if not in full) both this particular priest and many others who sympathize in some way with him.

So, in this case, it's sort of both "damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, AND right in taking one course of action and right in taking the other."

I know there are some who would suggest that it's very simple. That Pope Francis should have just excommunicated this priest and moved on. Plain and simple. But again, the gospels get in the way of this black and white, less than fully mature thinking:


Peace be with you all.

The natural objection that flows from all this is, "So, we just give up denouncing sin then, and excommunicating people, and just sort of have a love fest with everyone and pretend everyone is our best buddy?"

And the answer to this is an unequivocal no. We are required to love all people at all times. (cf. Matt 5:44-48) But love is demonstrated in two different directions "simultaneously", as it were. Love says "yes", but is says "no" when necessary as well.

The book of Ecclesiastes notes there is an appropriate time and place for everything in life. There is a proper time for showing solidarity, for example, and a time for cutting ties.

In regards to the proper way to treat sinners, for me it always seems to come back to the matter of consciousness and willfulness. To the extent that it seems clear to us that the sinner before is sponsoring the evil he is sponsoring out of willfulness and conceit (/spite/lust/whatever), the proper answer is a colder firm rebuke. Whereas, to the extent that the sinner is fully convinced that the evil they are doing is a genuine good instead and they simply misunderstand, much more compassion is required. (Again, think of our Lord's treatment of Saul of Tarsus.)

Peace be to all.

Your comment made me go back and re-red the Gospel accounts. It appears that my initial comment may have been wrong. I find it odd that our Lord would give the source of eternal life to one who was condemned to death.

Talon -- in answer to your question, I think the problem is that the priest, unlike us laity, is an authority figure in the Church, and therefore is on a higher standard than we schlubs are. It is one thing to sit down in a gay bar and have drinks with those who you know are practicing sin. It is quite another to, by your actions, appear to endorse (or just ignore) a shepherd leading his flock astray.

Apples and oranges.

Personally, I rather be discussing Pope Francis's kissing the hand of the Ecumenical Patriarch today!

Humility is a funny thing. Orthodox Monks bow to all visitors after leaving the trapeza at meal time, despite knowing how sinful some of them are.

So, while a Pope doing this to a priest who espouses terribly off the mark ideas may indeed be adding to confusion in an already confused society, and may have been a huge mistake, his intention may have actually been incredibly holy but just poorly thought out.

This priest probably should be excommunicated or silenced. I am not sure what the case is or has been regarding his ideas.

In any case, Pope Francis does seem to make and say many 'faux pas' since being elected, but I think that is because he is very down to earth. 'Faux pas' are inevitable when you are not a reserved person like most prelates are. I know such people. It is very hard for their personalities to think out every ramification of every thing they do or say, though for others (who are more reserved) it is not.

Pope Francis didn't chose to be Pope. His personality is most definitely different from that of his predecessors.

In any case, I liked seeing the Pope and Patriarch kiss each other's hands today. What a beautiful gesture it is to kiss another person's hand.

Alice, preferring and hoping to end this thread on a more positive and spiritual note.

It does seem odd to the conventional human mind. But here's what I've learned over the course of my life about God's love - it knows no boundaries...at all. Which is not to say that it never says "No." That's not what I mean by saying His love knows no boundaries. Hell is very real. But that's precisely why.

Hell exists precisely because, from the moment we are conceived until the moment we depart this earth, God never stops showering his love on us and giving us the chance to change for the better. Judas was no exception to this rule. And precisely because Jesus was so good to Judas, all the way to the very end, where else does the man belong but hell? Right?

Again, it cannot be said that there is no place for correction or rebuke. To love someone who has committed a serious crime, for example, does not by any means necessarily mean inviting them into your home right after and saying, "Oh, you're such a beautiful person, and we love you." In most of these cases, true love requires that you put the person in prison, both for the sake of justice for the victim AND for the sake of justice to the offender, believe it or not. Putting the offender in prison demonstrates to them that what they have done is wrong and it gives them ample opportunity to reflect on that and to repent. Whereas, ignoring the crime out of a false sense of "loving the sinner" not only fails to obtain justice for the victim, but usually gives the offender the wrong impression too.

Not all will take the opportunity to repent, but it's there. And if they persist in their evil to the end, then their eternal destination will be what they deserve.

And, on the other hand, occasionally people commit terrible crimes out of desperation, rather than willfulness. In these cases, exercising mercy is usually more powerful and persuasive than exercising strict justice.

So, what of the case of Judas? I don't know for sure. All I know is that he cannot stand before God on Judgment Day at this point and say, "Hey, you never gave me a chance to make things different!"

Amen?

I hear you, Irish. But here's the deal...I think the key is in the word "appear." It appears to some as if the pope is either endorsing, or at least ok with what this priest is doing in promoting homosexuality. But it also appears to others quite the opposite - that, rather than endorsing homosexuality, Francis is just exercising extreme humility and charity.

So, the question, again, is which perspective is "right"? And the problem is that, per my post above, the answer may well be "both." And so then the question becomes, "How do we handle that paradox?" And the answer to that question would seem to lie in striving for full maturity.

No priest, no bishop, no POPE is directly responsible for each individual believer's choice of actions. Certainly they exercise influence, and will be held accountable accordingly. But they also certainly do not have the final say in a believer's spiritual life. Each believer must do the best they can to become mature in Christ "on their own."

Not that the situation is quite this "black and white", but I dare suggest that those who have arrived at a decent level of maturity can observe the pope's actions in this instance and not only not be bothered by them, but simultaneously be impressed with the depth of faith and charity they seem to display; while those who are "not there yet" remain frustrated in a pile of anger. And that anger is not, ultimately, the pope's fault because what he is doing is not objectively wrong. It just seems to be something that less mature souls aren't fully able to grasp just yet on their journey through the Christian life.

Does that make sense?

This experience, in isolation, might be more problematic. But, among other things, from what I understand the pope's next encyclical is going to address the sinfulness of homosexuality from the vantage point of authentic human nature. So, for a variety of different reasons, that one included, I'm not too worried.

The priest is willfully and consciously opposing the teaching of the holy fathers, Sacred Scripture, and the Church.

When the pope kisses his hand and concelebrates with him, it causes much confusion and consternation amongst the people.

Quite disturbing.

Talon:

Christ is Risen!!

The idea that both sides are correct or can coexist is part of the relativism that former Pope Benedict spoke against when he spoke before th econclave that elected him.

I think we need to take a look at the CCC where we find


I'm willing to give His Holiness the benfit fo the doubt, but it is his office to teach by word and example. The reason we have the CCC is that there was so much confusion after Vatican II as to what exactly the Catholic and Apostolic Faith consisted of. There were those who taught that everything that had gone before was to be jettisoned and one could find differing opinions of almost any subject, depending on who one asked in the clergy.

I agree that His Holiness didn't ask for the election, but that doesn't change the fact that his office is, in the Catholic Church, the last word on how the Deposit will be preserved and taught.

Bob

Certainly, I find all this disturbing.

I also find it disturbing when Churches kiss the hand of the State.

But neither this nor anything else will ever oblige me to leave communion with Rome.

This is something that all Catholics will need to come to grips with.

How, I've no idea right now as this is all so very confusing.

Alex

But is he doing so out of malice, or in an otherwise "good faith" effort, much like Saul had many persecuted and put to death for what he perceived to be the cause of righteousness, even if his thinking, objectively speaking, was completely upside down. This is an important question in terms of how best to handle him. If the priest is doing what he is doing out of malice, then I would indeed agree with you that it was not appropriate for the pope to have treated him in the fashion that he did.

But I can't help but suspect that, in reality, this priest is genuinely convinced of the truth of his position, is probably gay himself, and deserves a great deal of compassion as a result. Can you imagine yourself in his shoes? In the shoes of anyone with same sex attraction? What a cross to have to carry!! Pope Francis is, I'm sure, very well aware of this, and strong enough in his faith that he is able to go so far as to show the man a sign of deep respect, even in his sinfulness, just as Jesus did the same to Judas.


It is for people who are not as strong in their faith as His Holiness is, I grant you that. But I'm not sure this is sufficient excuse to avoid the aforementioned course of action because it distinctly seemed to be an exercise in Christianity 404, rather than Christianity 101, if you catch my drift. Just because something like Algebra is difficult when one is first learning it is no sufficient reason to skip it in favor of remaining with simple mathematics.

Know what I mean?

Indeed, he is truly risen!


It's not, brother. It would be relativism if I said that it's both ok and not ok to be homosexually active at the same time. Or if I said that the pope's actions were both a sin and not a sin at the same time. But that isn't what I'm saying.

I'm simply saying that multiple people are going to interpret the exact same events in life in more than one way, and there is not always going to be one correct way to do so. Again to our Lord's actions - when he spoke with the woman at the well. Very counter cultural, shall we say. Very strongly looked down upon. What was he talking to this sinful woman for? It could only be for nefarious purposes in the minds of some...But the minds of others were more open. And, of course, we all know today that there was no sin at all in what Jesus was doing because, far from endorsing the woman's multiple relationships with men, Jesus was trying to talk her out of them.

Rather than condoning homosexuality, the pope's actions here, contrary to the opinions of some, are most likely more of the same - an attempt to love this priest out of his sin, rather than "condemn" him out of it. Both are appropriate in life - one at some moments and the other at others.


That's precisely my point, brother. More below...


Right. And as His Holiness himself recently noted, paraphrased here, Christians have to put their money where their mouth is. It's not enough to say, "We love you" but not really want to have anything to do with the one being "loved."

Tell me, when His Holiness now comes out with an explicit statement condemning homosexual activity, subsequent to this event, do you think this priest (and many sympathizers) will be able to lift a single pinky finger, suggesting that the pope is speaking out of anything but pure love...?? He most likely succeeded in melting all the resistance away.

Dear Talon,

I've read and re-read your posts here and I have to congratulate you on what is surely your painstaking and thoughtful commentary on what is, to me and to others, a confusing and shocking event.

It will take me more time for your thoughts to sink in with me - but I just wanted to express my admiration for your deep and also intellectual commitment to the Catholic Church!

The good Pope Francis does, and continues to do, far outweighs the controversial aspects of his pontificate, in my view.

Alex

Never a dull moment on the Pope Francis Show.

The Novus Ordo ranks will swell with liberal converts. This is what seems to be behind this Pope's disturbing actions.