Pope Francis urges parents to support their gay children – not condemn them

[Wildswanderer]

Then what "business" is it of yours to judge others as you have been doing? So, I would suggest that you take your own advice.

Calling sin what it is isn't judging.

 

[pearl]

We always choose.

You chose to 'act' according to what you came by naturally.

 

[metis]

God said it's sin. The end.

Calling sin what it is isn't judging.

Calling it a "sin" is your understanding, and that's all fine & dandy, but I don't believe everything that I read, and that includes some things in scripture. They also reflect the culture, and that should be fully clear to anyone who studies scripture.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it hasn't accepted the theory of evolution.

Humani Generis explicitly declared that a major component of evolutionary theory is incompatible with the Catholic faith. It declared that any theory that suggests that there were more original "true humans" besides one male-female pair cannot be reconciled with the Church's teachings.

... and since those teachings are the underpinnings of Original Sin, which itself is the underpinning of the need for salvation, it's kinda a big deal.

The genetic influence of having been born in sin is inherent in each one of us. Thus -- (but it's NOT evolution... Unless someone wants to define it that way - I'm not getting into rhetoric right now. ) Just going back to Adam and Eve for a moiment, from which ALL HUMANS descended. Sinful. Some are taught that God likes or dislikes certain things and they believe it. And they try hard to please HIM. And they know they must struggle to get in through that narrow frame of what God (not the Pope) considers right from wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

You chose to 'act' according to what you came by naturally.

Or are taught, or have it in your conscience, let's say, not to steal, kill and so forth.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Calling sin what it is isn't judging.

Are you without sin, Wildswanderer?

If you're not without sin yourself, then who are you to cast a stone at someone else for their sins? I'm sure you're familiar with Jesus' rebuke of the self-righteous teachers of the law and the Pharisees, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7). Perhaps it would be more beneficial for you if you worried about the plank in your own eye before you worry about the speck of sawdust in someone else's eye (Matthew 7:3-5). In fact, Jesus made it really clear in this passage that whoever is more concerned about the speck in their brother's eye than they are about the plank in their own eye is a hypocrite.

"How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

It seems to me that the Christians who think they can judge other people for their sins need to be reminded now and then that...

"THOSE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULD NOT THROW STONES."​

Paul's rebuke of Jews in Romans 2:17-23 can also be applied to judgmental Christians. He said, "Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?"

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Your statement is fine, but the problem is homosexuals cannot reproduce using their current orientations of boy-boy or girl-girl. Therefore they are not part of evolution, due to his important genetic bottleneck. If the strongest deer of the herd was gay, he may have selective advantage at the mating Olympics and he may even win. However, his genes will not be passed forward for evolution. Natural selection will have to settle with the 2nd place heterosexual male who can pass his genes.

What this means to me is homosexuality is less about evolution and natural selection and more about a type of choice via social creationism. In this case, learned behavior can propagate over the centuries, even if it is detached from the genetics of reproduction based evolution. The ancient people sensed this was not the same thing. Science should know better.

When we breed animals, such as dogs, we; humans, select the traits that humans will like, which may not be the same as those chosen by natural selection. Very few breeds can survive in the wild since they were not selected for that by nature. This is manmade selection; manmade choices. Those who lead these latest fads in dogs may call these manmade choices, the new state of the art, and they will reward this in animal shows. But that is all subjective choice and everyone who goes along will need to be conditioned to accept it, since it did not appear from natural selection.

We need to call things for what they are, so the young people can make better choices, which they can accept full responsibility for. Now, there is no need to accept responsibility, if your choice is mischaracterized by mercenary science and left wing politics.

Again, if one wishes this choice, it is fine by me, but do not expect to me to lie for your ego, out of the fear of the political consequences. Accept responsibility and live and let live. Accept that your departure from evolution is based on a form of social creationism.

It's weird that I've needed to say this obvious thing twice this week but gays aren't sterile. They can and do have children if they want to. Sometimes even through the old fashioned way. It's an unpleasant but not impossible activity, thus this doomsday scenario of 'what if everyone turns gay' is a little silly when thought about for more than two seconds.

There is, in fact, lots of homosexuality outside the human animal and it is not at all unnatural. It's also not unnatural or uncommon for lots of human people who are straight to not have children. Yet while I might get some strange looks as a woman who never wants kids, I don't get nearly the hate that gays do for the same result.

As for evolution, it's a population study, not an individual study. And there are plenty of examples of social strategies within the natural world that don't involve the majority in a group breeding. There are social roles to fulfill within a group other than breeding. And it is both incredibly short sighted and more than a little ablist to try and couch evolutionary fitness as physical fitness. The two aren't the same thing.

 

[pearl]

Humani Generis explicitly declared that a major component of evolutionary theory is incompatible with the Catholic faith. It declared that any theory that suggests that there were more original "true humans" besides one male-female pair cannot be reconciled with the Church's teachings.

In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man….Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God….For my part…[I have said that] the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences….

Most non-Catholics were surprised when Pope John Paul II, in a formal statement sent to the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Science on October 23, 1996, announced that evolution was a scientific theory acceptable to the Church. Evangelical leaders, in joining forces with Rome, assured their critics that Catholicism accepts biblical inerrancy. Yet the Canons and Decrees of the Second Vatican Council (Roman Catholicism’s highest authority) declare: “Hence the Bible is free from error in what pertains to religious truth revealed for our salvation. It is not necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g. natural science): [emphasis in original].[1] Evolution is “scientific,” and the Bible is not infallible when it comes to science.

The Pope stands firmly with a theory which contradicts not only the Genesis account of creation but other key portions of the Bible as well. And today’s leading evangelical magazine, Christianity Today, supports the Pope in his endorsement of evolution. An editorial declared: “John Paul II was…reminding scientists that if they were to be faithful Christians there were limits beyond which their science could not take them…no theory of evolution was acceptable…that did not recognize the direct divine origin of the human soul.
Evolution’s Role in Roman Catholic Theology - JA Show Articles

 

[Wildswanderer]

Are you without sin, Wildswanderer?

If you're not without sin yourself, then who are you to cast a stone at someone else for their sins? I'm sure you're familiar with Jesus' rebuke of the self-righteous teachers of the law and the Pharisees, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7). Perhaps it would be more beneficial for you if you worried about the plank in your own eye before you worry about the speck of sawdust in someone else's eye (Matthew 7:3-5). In fact, Jesus made it really clear in this passage that whoever is more concerned about the speck in their brother's eye than they are about the plank in their own eye is a hypocrite.

"How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

It seems to me that the Christians who think they can judge other people for their sins need to be reminded now and then that...

"THOSE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULD NOT THROW STONES."​

Paul's rebuke of Jews in Romans 2:17-23 can also be applied to judgmental Christians. He said, "Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?"

Never said I didn't sin. It's still sin. So is adultery. So is sex without marriage. Pretending something God says is sinful isn't is not what is meant by not judging. The Word is the measuring stick, not what I think about it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you without sin, Wildswanderer?

If you're not without sin yourself, then who are you to cast a stone at someone else for their sins? I'm sure you're familiar with Jesus' rebuke of the self-righteous teachers of the law and the Pharisees, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7). Perhaps it would be more beneficial for you if you worried about the plank in your own eye before you worry about the speck of sawdust in someone else's eye (Matthew 7:3-5). In fact, Jesus made it really clear in this passage that whoever is more concerned about the speck in their brother's eye than they are about the plank in their own eye is a hypocrite.

"How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

It seems to me that the Christians who think they can judge other people for their sins need to be reminded now and then that...

"THOSE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULD NOT THROW STONES."​

Paul's rebuke of Jews in Romans 2:17-23 can also be applied to judgmental Christians. He said, "Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?"

It's not a matter of judging because as you referenced, judge not lest you be judged. But then we do have courts judging, don't we? And certain crimes like stealing and murder are considered not so good, wouldn't you say?