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

If, as you suspect, he is gay.....and is a pro-homosexual activist (which he is)....then Pope Francis' responsibility is to defrock him....not kiss his hand....or concelebrate Mass with him.

Christ is Risen!!

I think this thread has gone afield precisely because we have assumed that this is a Catholic board. As the "Who We Are" thread in Town Hall states, we are not.

It seems to me that the action that initiated this thread must be viewed from an Eastern Christian perspective and it has taken a tangent into the liberalism that currently holds the West captive.

I, for one, would welcome Father David to explain fully what this seems to be from his perspective as an Orthodox priest, both outwardly as a sign and symbol, and inwardly as it pertains to the weaker in faith among us. From my own experience, I would venture to say that trying to justify this priest's position is not a sign of spiritual maturity but of immaturity. We are all given a "thorn in the side"--as St. Paul puts it--to wrestle with. We are called to quell the passions and build the virtues in the spiritual life, not try to find some way to justify wallowing in the passions. Even the pagan philosophers, pre-Christ, wrote of the maturation of a man by his pursuit of the things that would build his better nature and the avoidance of those with oppositre effect. We seem to have lost that paradigm--or are fast losing it--in contemporary Western civilization. It is one thing to have sympathy for one caught in the jaws of the Enemy--as the Desert Fathers put it--and quite another to support him in a soul-detroying passion. We also msut remember that trying to justify another's sin or covering it makes us guilty of participating in that sin.

Bob

When are we going to understand that everything the pope does is not necessarily something to imitate and that he is not the fourth person of the Holy Trinity?

While for many the pope is the visible head of the Church on earth Francis or any who have held or will hold his office are not and will never be perfect simply because they hold the papal office.

Only the bishops of Rome who have been glorified can be considered to be a "rule of faith." Even then not everything they did was perfect.

We are scandalized too easily. Many were scandalized at the company the Lord kept and He was God.

Francis did not change Tradition by this act, nor could he. Whatever his motivation was who knows...how much time must be wasted on this one act?

Thank you for your kinds words, Alex. Anything good that I am or that is in me either is, or is directly from, the grace of God, so I laud Him on any job well done here. (The fact that it's taking a while for my thought to sink in is probably simply due to my less than stellar communication skills. So, that part is my bad.) If you think it might help to ask any clarifying questions at any point, I'm certainly open...Maybe on the next round I'll finally express myself clearly.




I can completely envision many Jews having said the same exact thing about Jesus. "Well...For all the trouble he's stirred up doing some pretty questionable things - what in the WORLD was he doing talking to that Samaritan dog at that well? Right out there in public!?! If he was going to talk to a Samaritan dog, could it not at least have been a man?? A Samaritan woman of all people! Sheesh!!...But, still... I think, overall, Jesus is a really decent guy."



Of course, this is not to suggest that the pope is incapable of sin like Jesus was, or that everything a pope does is automatically going to be right. It's simply to serve as a reminder that, as "pretty" and "refined" a view as we typically have of the gospels, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that Jesus was every bit as controversial to a good many of the believers of his day as Pope Francis is to many in ours.

Why is and was this? I would suggest that it's in large part because too many in both crowds have too much of a "two-dimensional" outlook on life. A two-dimensional outlook is one that is not yet fully mature, and therefore too black and white. It's only capable of either/or thinking, never "both/and", or "one inside another" thinking. It's the type of thinking young children employ - "Which one is he, dad? A good guy or a bad guy?" The idea that he's a "good guy who just happened to do something wrong" doesn't compute. That's too much "color." "So, he's a bad guy, then, if he did something bad," the child will assert, not being able to grasp the mild complexity that's present. There is no "third dimension" present yet in the young child's mind yet. It will only come with the passage of time.

To sound a little New Agey here for just a second, sorry, lol - Those for whom "the third dimension has dawned" are able to appreciate what it means to be a good person who did something bad. (Or a bad person who occasionally does something good.) They're able to appreciate the fact that people like Zaccheus and the Samaritan woman were clear and obvious sinners, and yet the proper way to treat them was not to stand at a distance and cry, "SINNER! REPENT!" because they're "bad" so it's "bad" for the rest of us to come within 50 feet of them. Secure in their faith, they can appreciate the fact that the best way to bring these people to conversion was to engage them, respecting them as persons (where but for the grace of God go we?) and essentially saying to them, "Here, let me show you a better way and start doing so by demonstrating clear love for you as a human being."

I hope this all makes more sense than my previous posts.

As a favorite bumper sticker of mine says, "Love your enemies...It confuses the hell out of them."



"Yeah, but what happens when they mistake that for endorsing their sinful behavior?" some will want to ask. And the proper answer, in true Eastern fashion, is going to vary from case to case. In the case of this priest, if he comes away from this experience going, "Look everyone! There is hope for homosexual relationships in the Church after all!", then of course, it would probably behoove Francis to clarify.

Some will say, "Well, why not make it easy? Just condemn homosexuality from the outset and get on with it. No need to confuse the issue." But the problem is that the subject of our discussion, the one standing condemned is a human being. And, like it or not, like THEM or not, we are required by God's law to love them. And the proper way to love some people in certain circumstances is to firmly rebuke them. (Like a parent does when they spank they're child, for example.) But the proper way to love others is to show them mercy and grace.

I am not gay myself, but I think I have a pretty decent grasp of what it's like for many of them. And contrary to the way it might seem, based on the message of the media, I think a good many gay individuals, deep down inside, don't particularly like themselves, or at least the fact that they're gay. At some level, I suspect that a good many of them feel less lovable than most others do, and if, in turn, they find greater acceptance within the gay community than they do in the orthodox Church...that only amounts to less incentive to convert, rather than more. Know what I mean? And it's easy to shake our finger at them for this, but what if you were in their shoes?

Gays and lesbians like to call those who oppose homosexuality "haters" and, unfortunately, the label is apt in a lot of cases because too many of us don't just hate the sin, we actually hate the sinner as well (whether we're willing to admit it or not). Pope Francis' actions with regards to this priest are potentially a major game-changer, for him in particular, but for the Church at large to a lesser extent as well. They prove that he in particular, and the whole Church by inference, are indeed willing to put their money where their mouth is and now we'll see what happens...If this priest (and his supporters) go, "Wow! Hope for our cause after all!", then we pray that God have mercy on his soul on judgment Day. But if instead this priest says, "Wow! The pope loves me...Maybe I do have a place in the orthodox faith after all..."

????

...Ok, enough of the novel already.

Peace be with you.

Brother, you might want to enlighten Jesus when you seem Him in Heaven, given that he failed in quite the same manner with Judas...

*shrug*

He might appreciate the tip.

I agree, and look how *no one cared to look at the photo and video I posted on another thread in this Church News forum of Pope Francis kissing Patriarch Bartholomew's hand yesterday!*

25 second video of hand kiss [youtube.com]

What a beautiful and unexpected gesture (if any one actually cares to watch the one minute video, they will see how it took the Patriarch by surprise!)...

I see a man full of love and spontaneity in expressing his love and respect for the icon of Christ in all men...

He also kissed some other hands yesterday-the hands of some holocaust survivors at the Yad Vashem museum.

WOW! If any layman here has ever had their own hand kissed, they will know what a beautiful and loving gesture it is; it is a gesture that speaks love and respect for your dignity as a human being.

Everyone has the icon of Christ within him, thus we all have dignity as human beings, and it seems that the loving Pope Francis, the spontaneous Pope Francis, the not deliberating every thought and word Pope Francis, feels this deeply within his soul.

I did not really know much about him before because I have been really busy since he was elected and haven't had much time to read about him.

The man I have now seen, the 'kisser of hands'; the spontaneous hugger; the prelate who rather hang out with poor people than with his relatives, or with rich and influential people, or with other clergy; the lover of his fellow man as icons of dignity, humanity and of Christ himself have made me come to respect him deeply.

I think that Talon is correct in that many must have been scandalized about Jesus speaking to the Samaritan woman and others--reading messages and motives into His actions that were not there.

The worst part is in con-celebrating with an openly heretical priest. You can treat him with kindness without celebrating mass with him.
But for some in the "neo-conservative" crowd their distorted, ultramontanist view of the papacy is finally coming out in these confusing times. This is a recent quote from a RC priest's blog:

Sorry, Bob, I missed the attempt at justifying the priest's position in favor of homosexuality. Who tried to do that in this thread and by what means?


Amen!


Again, was Zaccheus' mission of stealing from everyone not soul-destroying? And yet would you dare call Jesus' invitation to Zaccheus' house for dinner "support" for that passion? If not, then why the double standard?

We have had 2,000+ years now to establish the fact that homosexual activity is gravely sinful. This is to say that the fact should be and is abundantly clear at this point. If any believer still wavers on the matter, two millenia later, that's their "problem", not the pope's. (Someone get me their catechist 'cause I want to slap them around a bit. )

It is not the pope's job to never exercise Christian maturity in the event that anyone else in the Church with weaker faith might misinterpret his actions and be "led astray" by them. The papacy is simply not captive in that manner.

Grace and peace be with you.

Unfortunately it is not abundantly clear to a good number of Catholics. And because of the cult of personality that has been built around the recent popes, Catholics have made it a point to study his every word and move. It's their problem, but it's also his problem.

Beautiful video, Alice. Thank you. And spot on on the rest of your post.

Brother, you might want to go to confession for such an arrogant comment.

While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled.
(Jn 17:12)

Indeed.

When I wrote that phrase, I admit to cringing a bit as I did so because of how loaded it was, how many different directions it could be taken in. I appreciate the chance to clarify the fact that obviously it is the pope's duty to see to the good of the entire Christian flock, yes. However, there are obviously limits to what precisely this means.

There is an expression about how "If the five of us ever agree around here, you'll know something is wrong." It speaks, a little bit comically, to the fact that everyone is in a different place in life, spiritually, psychologically, emotionally, in terms of life experience, etc., etc. So, there is never going to be a moment in history, by simple nature of the beast, when something a pope says or does is not going to be up for misinterpretation by someone somewhere. And that's "ok." Not ok as in, "No big deal if it causes confusion in some people." Ok as in, "That is just simply the condition of human life on this earth, and all we can do is accept the fact."

And as for the "cult of personality" that has been built up around the papacy in recent decades, I would suggest that this is much more the consequence of a voracious media than it is of anything else, including proper Catholic teaching on the papacy.

What's the difference between Jesus washing Judas' feet and concelebrating liturgy with him, and Pope Francis kissing the hand of this priest and concelebrating liturgy with him?

Jesus could have treated Zaccheus with kindness without having also invited himself over to the man's house for dinner. But for some reason, he went the extra mile.

It might be helpful for the rest of us to all reflect on why...

Peace.