Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Pope Francis: Who am I to judge gay people?

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. So he won’t judge us

    But we have to be celibate. If we’re not celibate and alone, then he decides we’re sinful and worthy of judgement?

    And at the same time Catholic bishops in the US are fighting against anti-discrimination laws. This is how we shouldn’t be marginalised? Really? Because it looks like the Church is trying really hard to marginalise us

    Another sad PR move from a homophobic bigot who is trying to pretend he isn’t

    1. GulliverUK 29 Jul 2013, 1:38pm

      It sounds conditional – if you believe and are celibate I won’t judge you, but otherwise I will ? The Catholic church, and Evangelicals, are those fighting hardest to keep us from equality, and keep us marginalised, and as such his words don’t mean anything – actions do.

      Most Catholic followers don’t follow church teachings on many subjects, contraception for example, is very widely used, and most Catholics in the US and here agree with abortion.

      It feels like he’s scrabbling around for ways to appeal to people whilst still being the conservative (small ‘c’) Catholic leader he always was. It won’t work – this is whitewash, (or pinkwash) whilst actual change in substance is needed. People aren’t stupid, they’ve won’t buy this.

      1. ‘It sounds conditional – if you believe and are celibate I won’t judge you, but otherwise I will ?’ – nowhere in catholic teaching will you find this .The love of Christ means the love is unconditional – however we ourselves have to turn away from sin whether it is active homosexuality, adultery, lies, etc and ‘sin no more’ . The Church is a hospital for sinners .People have been turning away from the teachings since the year dot , it does not mean the teaching will ever change .Homosexuality is as old as the hills just as infanticide and abortion are – it’s nothing new .If it was bad 2000 years ago it’ just as bad today – nothing to do with ‘phobia’ as the homo-lobby try to make out .The people with the phobia are those ranters and ravers on here who detest Truth and prefer the lies from the Father of Lies.

        1. being gay isn’t a sin, it is who we are

        2. my humanity isn’t a sin and I won’t turn away from my very being. I won’t destroy my family. I won’t try to turn myself into a fake person

          What an evil church that would demand such from me. And how evil people are that compare my love to infanticide

        3. GulliverUK 30 Jul 2013, 8:55pm

          Problem is Ray, sin is very much a religious construct, and since I know for a fact there is no god, that religions are all a crock of garbage, then you can imagine that I don’t recognise the term sin at all. I have never sinned in my life, not once, nada.

          Some religious types can’t open their mouths without putting their foot in it, upsetting others, they seem to be socially inept, or have no regard for the feelings of others.

          You cannot point to a place in the Bible which you say condemns homosexuality which I can’t rip apart in to little pieces. You Bible is a fake, a fabrication, a lie, distorted, mistranslated toxic and abusive like the school bully. You could never make me believe a word of that rubbish.

          There are 5,000 fragments, pages and full books of the New Testament, with over 100,000 discrepancies between them. Paul didn’t write half of his letters, and the Gospels are all fakes.

      2. Frankly, it doesn’t change anything. It’s the same love the sinner hate the sin rubbish they’ve always tried to sell us. It’s a PR move, if there’s one thing Frankie is excellent at, it’s spin. He won’t do anything to stop the hatred or help people, but he’ll wash some feet and sit in a smaller chair. He’s a master of empty gestures

    2. He is only trying to save a Church that has seen millions sent away by its own hypocrisy and double standards, not to mention outdated views based on lies and delusions. But, surprisingly as it is, they still got a lot of power.

  2. Ok, I know people will now call him for all his other position on LGBT people. Still, considering that he is the head of one of the largest religious organizations in the world, it is unlikely that change would be sudden and abrupt. But this might just be a start…

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Jul 2013, 1:25pm

      He’s trying to distract from the issue of widespread corruption and paedophilia in his own church. The only way to force this anachronistic cult to accept reality would be for all gay priests to come out and threaten a mass exodus. More than half of them could bring it to its knees. If only.

      1. Exactly Robert. I made a similar comment to this on the BBC news website and they have removed it citing that it “Contains potentially defamatory statements”.

        1. “The problem is lobbying by this orientation, or lobbies of greedy people, political lobbies, Masonic lobbies, so many lobbies. This is the worse problem.”

          And the catholic lobby at the BBC of course.

      2. Thankfully the historical abuse of adolescents by some clergy , often called ‘paedophilia’ but in most cases it is Ephebophilia and fixated on males (- so it’s a homosexual problem !) has greatly reduced since the priesthood is barred to those who are homosexual .

        A study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that “… the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men … the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality.”

        A study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “eighty-six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.”
        Look up Jamie Rennie LGBT if you want to know about the worst child abuse case in Britain – media silence – not PC
        http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/clo/clo_09homosexuality.html#a34

    2. A start would be to recognize that we are born this way. If we are ALL born in Gods image than GOD has made no mistake in creating Homosexuals. After all GOD is a Spirit, neither male or female!!

  3. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Jul 2013, 1:23pm

    Until his catechism removes our ‘homosexual acts’ from condemnation then yes, Pope Francis, your church will continue to judge and marginalise us.

    Of course, he mentions nothing about hetero priests who fall into ‘sinful’ ways with women as if it doesn’t exist. Would he condemn those hetero ‘acts’ as sinful excluding the violation of their oath of celibacy? Probably not.

  4. Super, Smashing, Great

    Keep out of the black and in the red, nothing in this game for 2 in a bed.

    :P

    1. No hitting the bullseye, though…

      P.S. I’m not the only one who sees the resemblance. lol.

    2. Good answer.

      The washing machine is safe, you are now playing for the speedboat.

    3. Looking like Jim Bowen is the mark of the devil.

  5. The Pope’s been forced into this position. Don’t think for a moment that there’s genuine sentiment behind those words, as condescending as they are. It’s okay to be gay as long as you don’t act in your nature seek, don’t out someone of the same sex, and make love with them. Abstain from sex, be a life long virgin like me, and pretend you have the right to give out marital & relationship advice, like you know anything.

    Like you know anything, Francis.

    Yes, he was forced into this by a growing acceptance towards gay people in central America, even his own home nation. The Catholic church like elsewhere, know that in the developed world, same sex marriage is, & will become the norm. The church has to move forward with the rest of society, or fall behind as society moves on without them, becoming irrelevant. Not that they’re not anyway. Europe’s already seen that. There’s been a drop in the number of adherents of every religion, except for one, which has been imported via immigration

    1. Actually, I think your being a bit unfair here; he’s not been forced into this as a new thing: I think it’s always been the norm to accept homosexuality but not the homosexual act. OK, that’s crummy really, but, nevertheless, I think it’s been the view in Catholicism for a good while.

      Also there is a massive difference in being tolerant and allowing homosexual individuals to live as they please and having same rights as heterosexual individuals : e.g. not getting beaten up for orientation, the right to hold down a job and have sexual orientation deemed (correctly) to be irrelevant, having same rights to property etc and actually allowing same sex marriage.

      It’s one thing letting homosexual couples having the right to live together without fear of abuse or hatred and another thing again actually sanctioning same sex marriage. For some, that is a clear step too far.

      1. Wow, I’m not quite sure where to begin in my reply to this. So many untruths, and so much blatant homophobia.
        Yes, the church is being gradually, reluctantly pushed into taking this position. They are institutionally ignorant, but not enough to not learn at least somewhat of the church’s past mistakes. It took them four-hundred years to apologize to Galileo, and to officially accept his theory, that the Earth is not the center of the solar system. This being just one of the many examples of mistakes within the church, another being the systematic cover-up of child abuse.
        “There’s a big difference between tolerance and allowing homosexuals to live how they please.”
        You say this as if gays want to go around committing all sorts of crime. Gays want to be allowed the same privileges as their heterosexual counterparts. What’s to tolerate? Do you “tolerate” racial differences too? Do you think, for instance, that you’re *above* black people too, but merely tolerate them? How disgusting.

      2. well said Sam

        1. Oh look! Sam likes to use another name to praise himself. Do you use three letter names all the time to post homophobic nonsense? Makes it that much easier to spot.

    2. He wasnt forced into anything.

      He has said nothing new, or done nothing new.

      All he did was discuss what is says in the Catholic Catechism, which has been the same for his predecessors as it has been for him.

  6. Grinning 76 year old man in white dress give his opinion on other peoples love lives. Thanks for that.

    1. GulliverUK 29 Jul 2013, 1:42pm

      He might have more credibility if he’s ever been in love, had sex, got married, got divorced, remarried, had children, etc. But it’s difficult to take any of them seriously when they have no experience of what they’re actually talking about. They have only a ‘theory’ in their head, they have no practical experience, and at 76 he’s forgotten his own childhood. Perhaps if he had been bullied for being a Catholic at school he might have an inkling of what young gay people go through. If the CofE is going to make good on their promise to tackle homophobic bullying in schools they run —- why nothing from the Catholic schools / church?

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Jul 2013, 2:34pm

        Actually, he did have some kind of a relationship with a woman in Argentina who was interviewed on t.v. She said that if he hadn’t decided to become a priest, they would have married. So he must have had some experience of what falling in love is about.

        His statement is going send the right wing evangelicals into a tailspin who are hell bent on judging and condemning LGBT people. It will be interesting to see if Welby tries to best what Francis has just announced.

        http://www.religionnews.com/2013/03/20/pope-francis-reveals-romantic-crush-during-seminary-days/

  7. Rubbish article! The Pope did not deny that homosexual practice is a sin and abomination to God.

  8. Same old delusional rubbish.
    So we are still “intrinsicaly disordered” and against their inquisitions “natural law doctrine” and an “abomination”, but that OK as long as you dont love someone its only a sin if you do something about it – but wait the thought is as bad as the deed. “Forgive me father for I have had impure thoughts”.
    Its ok we will forgive you (you can even do it on twitter) just send us your money!
    Nonsense.
    Why do any otherwise sane people fall for this rubbish?

  9. That There Other David 29 Jul 2013, 1:48pm

    Funnily enough browsing the news channels it looks as if ITV News and Sky News are both reporting this quite happily.

    I’ll let you guess which channel is currently not finding it worth mentioning….

    1. MMmmm! …let me think. Does it begin with B ?

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Jul 2013, 2:36pm

        Unless Welby chimes in, it won’t. I don’t think the Mail or Telegraph will be happy campers today.

        1. St Sebastian, the humanitarian 29 Jul 2013, 2:55pm

          “I don’t think the Mail or Telegraph will be happy campers today.”

          Well, that’s enough to bring a smile to my face.

    2. Amazingly the BBC have been doing an article about this all evening (it is 3am now) No idea when they started but I suspect it was after 9pm

  10. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2013, 2:19pm

    Er… Thank You??????

  11. Hello?! we /are/ intergrated into society. We cook your food, wash your clothes, pump your gas, fix your house etc. etc. you’re about 40 years too late on that one; welcome to the 21st Century !

    1. casparthegood 29 Jul 2013, 2:48pm

      “2!st Century ???” thats a bit optimistic surely

      1. The church’s not quite in the 20th century yet. They’ve just progressed from the 19th. They haven’t even accepted Jews and women as equals yet. Something the rest of the world managed to figure out a century ago. It’ll be, going by their track record, another century at least before gays are fully accepted for what we are, to the RC church. However, will the church be around? Religion has changed so much during the 20th century, some suggest it will change to a much greater degree, this century. I don’t doubt Christianity will be around in another century, nor expect the RCC not to be, but what kind of position will it hold in the 22nd century? I predict a much different one to that of today’s.

        1. this made me laugh – oh dear you ARE uninformed .

  12. I think, if one looks at the recent Pew Center research, the fact that young people in Catholic-majority countries seem to be embracing the idea of equality in strong majorities (Spain being world no. 1, but Latin America, the Philippines and others coming close) might be a reason for an emerging change in attitude. Making the rift with young people even larger is counter-productive to the interests of the Vatican.

    1. GulliverUK 29 Jul 2013, 3:05pm

      Yep, Brazil had equal marriage from May this year, and Argentina in 2010. And if he ever does bother to read the research which specifically shows that the homophobic attitude of the church is putting off young people., then this is some, in my view, somewhat failed attempt to pinkwash the crimes of the Catholic church.

      When they stop homophobic bullying in their schools, teach tolerance and love,stop opposing equality measures we should not want to listen to their measly words. And why in the US do they get away with firing teachers when they find out they are gay?

  13. I do not care what this bloke thinks about me, good or otherwise. He is an irrelevance to me.
    The RCC has lost (and will continue to lose) all the arguments in relation to equal rights for LGBT people. They are on the wrong side of history and fewer and fewer people give a toss about what he and his cronies have to say.
    Even the average catholic in the pews doesn’t subscribe to all the dogma of the church.
    Pope Frank – blah blah blah blah

  14. mindleftbody 29 Jul 2013, 2:53pm

    This is not “a significant development”. It’s the same tired old message from holy mother church. The author of this piece also doesn’tseem to have noticed that the Pope just happened to bring “the abuse of minors” into a conversation about gay people. So the paedophilelibel is still alive and well and working away in his holiness’s heart.

    I particularly appreciated his saying “the problem is lobbying by this orientation, or lobbies of greedy people, political lobbies, Masonic lobbies, so many lobbies.” That goes for the Catholic lobby, too, Papa Farancisco.

  15. Tom Chicago 29 Jul 2013, 3:01pm

    The wonderful shrug of the shoulders and the live-and-let-live aura is just the latest cloak. What has changed? nada. No thanks, Pope.

  16. St Sebastian, the humanitarian 29 Jul 2013, 3:04pm

    All things start with small beginnings. It is a small first step from a Pope of what is hopefully journey in the right direction. The Catholic Church have an awful long way to go, so although hopeful I’m not holding my breath either.

    1. GulliverUK 29 Jul 2013, 3:12pm

      I hope you’re right, but if they stopped opposing equal protections in law, in terms of housing and employment, and goods and services, then that would be a start. They oppose all equality measures — ALL of them. They have been making life difficult for people who are gay for my entire life. Without changing his message on sex outside marriage, which is a stupid, completely irrelevant teaching, even for most Catholics, he could tell Catholic groups and bishops not to oppose equality in these areas. He could also ask Catholic schools to teach equality and tolerance and acceptance without changing that message on sex outside marriage.

      But I don’t think he will – and that is his missed opportunity, and that opportunity might not ever come around again.

      We don’t give a toss in this country because we have all those protections despite the Catholic church and Evangelicals fighting tooth and nail against it. But what about all OUR brothers and sisters elsewhere?

      1. St Sebastian, the humanitarian 30 Jul 2013, 1:48am

        Gulliver, what I am saying is that I don’t want to snuff out any chance of further positive or non-negative steps towards greater acceptance. Every little bit counts & if we don’t get these religious institutions room to move forward in a more constructive direction, they might just reflect ‘we tried but look at the negative blowback, so why did we bother?’.

        I want to make the positive direction easy and any regression far more difficult. The more positive steps the churches take, the more difficult it will be to regress. It means we will have be hyper-vigilant and use the blow-torch for any sign of regression.

        In all honesty it is ridiculously frustrating that we have to deal with these institutions who use fear (going to hell) rather than encouragement to motivate their followers. We have to face the fact that they exist, despite their fundamentally irrational & unprovable hypothesis, and engage with them to produce a more positive environment/less negative for ourselves.

  17. RJ Abada OFM 29 Jul 2013, 3:12pm

    thank God for this pope

  18. George Broadhead 29 Jul 2013, 3:16pm

    Let’s be clear what the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually says:

    “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [Cf. Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10], tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.

    They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

    The pope omits this bit!

    1. Beelzeebub 29 Jul 2013, 3:27pm

      The “Catechism” was made up by Pope John Paul II.

      It is a document of faith and theological opinion. Nothing more.

      1. As was Mein Kamph….

        1. .....Paddyswurds 29 Jul 2013, 6:54pm

          JP2 may have updated the Catechism, but he certainly did not make it up It was “made up” long before i was at school and lets say that wasn’t yesterday , 58 years ago to be precise since I went to school and had to learn the Catechism by heart or rote…. as did my parents and grandparents The Catechism has been an important cornerstone of the Roman Paedophile cult for centuries, while its clerics were meanwhile running around raping little children…..

      2. Actually it was mostly drafted by Card. Ratzinger AKA The imperial commander oops i mean Pope Benedict. Good old papa JPII comissioned it and put ratzy in charge. Still, it is surprising that he allowed it to say that the church accepts we are born this way. Don’t know how that fits in with natural law. Are we unnaturally born? Like the virgin mary conceived without sin? Or the baby jesus born not through conception?

    2. No , he’s saying the same message but in a more straightforward way.The BBC and those other clueless media outlets take the same old ‘homophobic’ tag at face value despite it having nothing to do with catholic teaching .Piggott (or is it Bigot on the BBC) talked about church ‘policies’ as if it was a political party – it’s called doctrine and it does not change despite the rainbow flag brigade .

  19. It is easy to pour scorn on the Pope but credit should be given to him trying to engage with and reach out to gay folk.

    Holding to sound doctrine is vital for a believing Catholic, who cannot go against the church (God’s) teach that homosexual activity is sinful.

    1. GulliverUK 29 Jul 2013, 3:31pm

      I think it’s pinkwashing. His words don’t in any way match what the Catholic church has been doing in practice, and their actions are contrary to their own Catechism 2358, which reads;

      “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

      It says “respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” – they have done the opposite of that.

  20. So to summarise, so long as we stay single and celibate and know our limits (i.e don’t lobby for anything) we’re acceptable.
    Why am I reminded of this?

    1. I think the clip is brilliant – it made me laugh as well as make a serious point. To answer your point and given the axioms Catholics operate, whether gay or non gay we should all know our limits and that limit is God’s law.

  21. .....Paddyswurds 29 Jul 2013, 3:49pm

    And in other news, the leader of the worlds biggest and most secretive paedophilia ring, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, makes it back to his palace in Rome without being arrested, all the while protesting that Gay people must be alone and celibate because a sky fairy says so… Really Frank?

    1. .....Paddyswurds 29 Jul 2013, 3:52pm

      Really, Frank, and what does your imaginary sky fairy say about your army of paedophiles who have destroyed the lives of millions of children by raping them behind the altars of your churches worldwide….

  22. GingerlyColors 29 Jul 2013, 3:51pm

    Any positive comments like those from Pope Francis should be applauded, even if they do not go far as we wish.
    The last Pope, Benedict XVI seemed to make homosexuality his pet subject and never shut up about it.

    1. .....Paddyswurds 29 Jul 2013, 4:10pm

      That was because, like the vile Keith O’Brien of Glasgow, the equally vile Joe Ratzinger, ex Naz1, imagined that by condemning homosexuality the “faithful” would not find out that he himself has been in a homosexual relationship with his “personal secretary”, “Gorgeous Georg” Gänswein for the many years , who continues to live with Ratzinger in his monastic apartments in the Vatican while now working for the new pope..

  23. All that talk about lobbying yet the US Bishops just last week put in their bid to lobby the US Congress to kill the ENDA.

    You should read it over at towleroad.com. It doesn’t sound very accepting to me.

  24. just checked the BBC news app on my phone and this is #3 under the ‘Top Stories’ tab !

    Well done BBC, finally some of the ‘balance’ you like to go on about so much !

  25. The Catholic church moves boldly into the 20th century… Gay people exist, and women can work. I look forward to hearing the church’s stance on the motor car.

    This is the same old nonsense of “hate the sin”. I certainly wouldn’t call it a “significant development”.

    Where is the criticism of Uganda or Russia? If we “sin”, can we be “marginalised” then?

    Note also that Pope Francis explicitly criticised any “lobbying by this orientation”, comparing gay groups to commercial interests and the Masons.

    It’s not clear to me whether the Pope was criticising all gay activism in society, or only within the Catholic church.

    It has looked recently as if the Catholic church might be stepping back just a little from some of its excessive attempts to prevent gay civil rights, after a string of expensive defeats around the world.

    But if Pope Francis is discomfited by gay civic activism, then we can expect the Catholic church to continue fighting every tiny step towards equality.

    1. “The Catholic church moves boldly into the 20th century… Gay people exist, and women can work. I look forward to hearing the church’s stance on the motor car.”
      –Brilliant.
      Maybe women and Jews will be regarded as equal by the church, by the mid century. Gay people by the early 22nd century. Going by the church’s track record, and comparing that to what the rest of the civilized world managed to figure out a century beforehand.

  26. Philip Breen 29 Jul 2013, 5:05pm

    Pope Francis’ comments fall short of current targets but they are significant. They call for an end to anti-gay witch hunts among the clergy and attempt to acknowledge and address the pain many gay and bi sexual Catholics experience because of prejudice and persecution from fellow Catholics. This sentiment, at least, will give some relief to those Catholics for whom his words are relevant. This is an important first step.

  27. So, gay people should not lobby, if lobbying means fighting for their rights.
    Is he saying then, we can be gay, as long as we keep it in the dark closet?
    Sorry pal, gay rights aren’t going anywhere.
    The Catholic Church is exactly the same it was yesterday, as it will be tomorrow.

    1. GulliverUK 29 Jul 2013, 6:34pm

      The Catholic church lobbies against gay rights day in day out – what hypocrisy of this guy. But, perhaps he’s only really talking about gay Catholics, including gay Bishops, lobbying for change, in the Vatican, and not the more widespread lobbying we have to do to get equal rights.

      I bet there is going to be a ‘clarification‘ tomorrow – it feels like it needs one.

      The Catholic church is entirely insular in its view, it only cares about those who believe in their version of Christianity. It is clearly upset that most people don’t believe and won’t join their cult, and who wouldn’t want their cult to grow larger and larger and have more and more influence, so they can impose all of their theology across the planet. Dominionism, Catholic style.

      And yet his comments about discrimination and integration with society speak to the wider whole gay community worldwide. So, were the comments about lobbying aimed at those within the Vatican?

  28. At least he sounds a bit nicer about gays than it’s predecessor, so this may be considered as a small step forward, yet basicaly nothing really changes.

  29. Keith in SALFORD 29 Jul 2013, 5:38pm

    The Catholic position is that all sex outside marriage with the ultimate goal of the creation thereby of a new human being, is sinful.
    However that to me, opens up far deeper theological questions than what two people do with their bits.
    If the Creator has given a section of humanity an enormous load to carry, enforced celibacy, and is more or less setting them up for a fall, then that brings into question the whole pre-destination argument again, to my mind.
    I’ll stick with my apostasy of 50+ years thanks.
    I need no religion.
    I need no man interceding for me.
    Keith.
    SALFORD

    1. GulliverUK 29 Jul 2013, 5:54pm

      They didn’t insist on priest being celibate until they were worried about inheritance – which tells you how they just make things up. Marriage is hardly mentioned in the Bible, but they do mention creating new off-spring. How Godly can a priest be if they go against gods law and don’t procreate? Enforced celibacy is just a crime. People should chose if they want to get married or not, and whether to have children or not.

      Couldn’t agree with your post more Keith.

  30. Mmmm. His predecessors certainly had no problem judging gay people and (as far as I am aware) he still claims to be infallible on matters of faith & morals, so he should feel able – not that anyone need take a blind bit of notice…

  31. His comments are better than any other pope I have heard, so they should be seen as that – a step forward.

    For any catholic who is homophobic, their homophobia justified by their faith has just been made a little more difficult, whereas nazinger, and other pope’s comments fuelled theirs bigoted fires.

    There are 1.2 billion catholics in the world, and his comments have just made it easier for gay people to be accepted by their religious families and communities around the world.

    Instead of some catholics now saying and thinking ‘homosexuality is an abomination’ like the last pope said, they will now say and think ‘who am I to judge gay people.’ Isn’t that a good thing?

    1. GulliverUK 29 Jul 2013, 6:45pm

      Good point. Most Catholics here and in the US support equality, but it definitely makes life a bit more uncomfortable for those haters, and it may well have a deeper effect in some countries. But I can’t help feeling these remarks are off-the-cuff rather than planned, and that despite saying we shouldn’t face discrimination, they will continue to do the exact opposite and oppose every single equality measure, anywhere they can. They are more concerned about themselves than the fact that gay people can live in fear in parts of the US because they can be fired just because they are gay. They and the Evangelicals are the only people opposing that.

  32. He sounds so close to sane… up until he states that the gay lobby is the worst lobby, worse than greedy people, or politicos…. what happened to not judging? Hmmm?

    1. GulliverUK 29 Jul 2013, 6:49pm

      He is reported to have said;

      “…. The problem is lobbying by this orientation, or lobbies of greedy people, political lobbies, Masonic lobbies, so many lobbies. This is the worse problem.”

      I had to read it twice, but I don’t think he’s complaining about just one lobby, or saying one lobby is worse than another. It sounds more like the all the lobbying is overwhelming him – which it would, he’s the new guy, and everybody wants to state their case, and I expect the same happens when ministers first get in to government.

  33. He still judges us when he says Gay priest are forgiven their sins if they follow Jesus and stop sinning..

  34. Deus caritas est 29 Jul 2013, 6:41pm

    Glad His Holiness Pope Francis is reiterating what the wonder Pope-Emeritus Benedict XVI said too!

    Shame the media didn’t mention this!!

    1. He isn’t saying the same thing. Nazinger said that ‘homosexuality is an abomination’, which is no surprise considering he was a member of the nazi party which murdered gay men in their camps.

      Shame you can’t see the difference.

      I suspect when the truth sinks that this pope said ‘Who am I to judge gay people’, you’ll probably end up hating him. You should listen to him and repeat ‘who am I to judge gay people’, ask yourself that question.

      1. Deus caritas est 29 Jul 2013, 8:27pm

        Yet you judge HH Pope-Emeritus Benedict XVI as a Nazi! You see I do not judge I merely try to live the Truth as Holy Mother Church tells me!

        And you’ll find that the quote from HH Pope Francis is from the Catechism; which HH Pope-Emeritus Benedict XVI ratified.

        1. I don’t judge him. It’s a fact. Nothing to do with my judgement, more to do with his poor judgement of character by joining the nazi youth.

          1. Philip Breen 29 Jul 2013, 10:01pm

            Pope Benedict did distinguish between child abuse and homosexuality which he said, indefatigably, were not the same :) whether at Masses at D.C. or NY, during his American visit. The pproblem was, he did not stop the silly and destructive document being promulgated against gays being ordained. I suspect Pope Benedict was better on gay rights than some would attribute to him, but he didn’t defend himself well. It’s a shame really and his natural shyness overwhelmed him.

          2. Deus caritas est 30 Jul 2013, 5:41am

            Mark you should check your history. Joining the Znazi youth was not an option; it was enforced. He had no choice, just like so many young men and women of the time.

            You must by your logic think all German people are nazis!?

            Indeed, moreover you state it as fact. In which case have respect for what the Holy, One, True and Apostolic Church reveals as fact and truth.

  35. Ben Foster 29 Jul 2013, 6:53pm

    gay peopel ARE integrated into society. i don’t live in a seperate gay ghetto, nor tdo any gays i know.

    1. why do you label yourselves LGBT community or ‘gay’ ? – is there such a thing .You are all human beings to me .

      1. I don’t need you, whoever you are, to decide that I am Human. Mind your own business.

  36. Michael Nektarios Leissner 29 Jul 2013, 8:22pm

    What a pitty, that there are so many gays disillusioned by the catholic church. Of course this comment will encourage the atheist lobby in the gay community to have a full attack on the catholic church. I personally left the ctaholic church due to the hate, I am no member of the Greek (not the Russian) Orthodox church. I wish Pope Francis well and I hope he means it. I do hope he takes the major step to call for a stop of hate crimes against LGTB people, as in catholic Irland, Africa and Latin America and Asia LGTB people are killed by catholics because of their sexual orientation. Pope Francis needs to make a statement regarding the life threatening situation of LGTB people especially in Zimbabwe and Russia.

    I am grateful for the first step. I hope it helps to save some LGTB life.
    And to my bitter LGTB community, get out of your bitterness and communicate. Your hate tirade against Christians are as appalling as the evangelist hate of the bible belt. As LGTB you can be a Christian.

    1. We didn’t start the war, religions did. Specifically Christianity.

      They can end it any time by withdrawing completely, not opposing equality, not persecuting and attempting to demonise us, by stopping their discrimination.

      It’s very unhelpful to refer to the “atheist lobby” – I could talk about Christofascists and the radical right Christian terrorists, the religious thugs and misfits, the mentally-damaged religionists. Not nice is it.

      I’m a proud Atheist, and getting more proud every day. I have never considered myself any type of aggressive or militant atheist – frankly I don’t really want to harm the self-esteem of those who believe, especially because a majority of Catholics are strongly supportive, but given the hatred poured out on us over the last 2 years over equal marriage, by Cartholic leaders, I now feel a calling to do much more to rally against these evil religious extremists.

      He’s said something, but if really doesn’t mean anything without +ve action.

      1. Michael Nektarios Leissner 30 Jul 2013, 9:47am

        Fair enough, Gulliver, I do respect your views. But for those who have faith and are stuck between the attacks of atheists and bible belt “so called” Christians, this was a sign of hope. Nothing more, nothing less.

        1. Then you need to talk to your fellow Christians and tell them to stop trying to destroy us and fighting against our rights, rather than condemn “bitter” GBLT people who are driven to defend ourselves from institutions that are implacable in their homophobia

          And this is a sign of hope? Maybe if you weren’t willing to praise straight Christian bigots for making token gestures but continuing to attack us, those “bitter” GBLT people wouldn’t be so angry

  37. What a hypocrite. He does judge gay people , that’s why he is anti equal marriage and best buddies with Mugabe.
    This seems like a pr exercise and after watching sky news , i’m wondering at why he made reference to paedophilia as well in his statement, could it be covert isms ?
    At least with razi the na$i , you knew he was an evil hater, not dressing it up as phoney tolerance.

    1. ‘What a hypocrite. He does judge gay people’ – could you give some examples …just one will do ? He does not judge people who have extra-marital affairs also , or single people who have sex outside of marriage either – also sins like active homosexuality .The teaching of the church will never change despite those Hell-bent on trying to get it to change .

  38. Let’s not rip him to pieces here it’s a start and it’s more than any of the others did or said. I do think he needs a word with Mugabe though.

    1. Neil Cameron 30 Jul 2013, 12:14pm

      A Start? I disagree. All he has done is regurgitate standing (unchanged) policy in a more flowery way.
      Poison is still poison, even if it disguised as a strawberry daiquiri.

  39. They are a bunch of schizophrenics with floating illusions and erratic belief systems. Their main goal is to maintain the illusion and control at any cost. Yesterday we were dogs that will burn in hell, but today we are to be pitied but sinful.

    This from people who believe they can turn water into wine into blood to drink.

    Religie nuts

    1. I totally agree. But “Ra” !! “Ra” !! Seriously ? The Egyptian Sun God ?!!!

      That’s hilarious :)

  40. A welcome move in the right direction from Pope Francis and I’d dare him to go as far as the first Pope John Paul in his comments. Interesting how he made these comments a few days after Desmond Tutu declared he would rather go to hell than worship a homophobic God.

  41. The church does not marginalise people who commit adultery or fornication (sex outside marriage) for single people .The ‘discrimination’ laws you speak of concern changing the meaning of marriage and is all about pseudo-rights .

    http://brandonvogt.com/dr-peter-kreeft-church-is-best-friend/
    The Church is the best friend of homosexuals, both because she tells them they are made in God’s image and have intrinsic dignity and rights and are called to be saints, and because she is the only social force left that insists on moral absolutes—so when they sin against themselves she says NO, just as she does to heterosexuals who sin against themselves sexually, but when others sin against them she says NO also.
No one else dares to say NO. She speaks up for everyone, including homosexuals.

    1. No she doesn’t

    2. St Sebastian, the humanitarian 30 Jul 2013, 7:46am

      I’m happy for you to believe what you want, it is called respect. You & your fellow believer have your club (church) for which membership is voluntary & you can make rules for your members.

      What I don’t understand is why you think you have the authority to impose your rules on non-members. It is a form of colonialism which is just wrong. The religious do no have a monopoly on all that is good and to make this assertion is wrong, patronising and arrogant.

      Rights are not granted by religions, that’s the role of the state & those rights are based on humanism – a rational, equality based ethos.

      As for moral absolutes, these are just prescriptive solutions that are applied indiscriminately e.g. no one should take another’s life, but what do you do if faced with somebody who is about to kill ten innocent people, do you kill the killer or just stand by & watch the ten innocents die.

      So I ask that you respect that some do not want to join your club or be subject to your rules.

      1. Absolutely, an excellent post, but you already know that Ray won’t be back to read you response, he is a hit and run propagandist for the Catholic church and nothing more.

  42. Keith in SALFORD 30 Jul 2013, 7:38am

    FOR DEUS CARITAS EST (1).
    During his time as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Benedict XVI made several efforts to tackle the issue of homosexuality within the Church and the wider world.
    In 1986 the CDF sent a letter to all bishops entitled: ‘On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons’.
    The letter condemned a liberal interpretation of the earlier CDF document Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, which had led to a “benign” attitude “to the homosexual condition itself”. On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons clarified that the Church’s position on homosexuality was that “although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” [162]

  43. Keith in SALFORD 30 Jul 2013, 7:40am

    FOR DEUS CARITAS EST (2)
    However the document also condemned homophobic attacks and violence, stating that “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action.
    Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.”[162]
    In 1992 he again approved CDF documents declaring that homosexual “inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder” and extended this principle to civil law.
    “Sexual orientation”, the document said, was ”not equivalent to race or ethnicity”, and it declared that it was “not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account.”[163]

    1. St Sebastian, the humanitarian 30 Jul 2013, 8:31am

      Clearly you know and understand the backstories & your comments are obviously valid. You are right that we need to know the history because it gives us a defence if they attempt to refuse rights available to others or the taking away of existing rights. But, if progress is heading in the right direction we don’t need to be defensive. If there is some backsliding, then we can resort to using our knowledge of their history as defensive evidence against them.

      Being highly defensive even where there is progress indicates victimhood.Victims rarely achieve much, but being constructive and assertive is a much more rewarding stance. Much of the progress thew gay rights movement have come from being assertive, i.e. Gay Pride and demanding equality in marriage (rather than bemoaning/complaining that we can’t get married).

      So when there is some germination of hope, we should encourage it rather than complain, all the while remembering history just in case they revert.

      1. Keith in SALFORD 30 Jul 2013, 2:31pm

        No; sorry; too wish-washy.
        Tell that to the victims of abuse.

        Keith.
        SALFORD

  44. Keith in SALFORD 30 Jul 2013, 7:46am

    …and so, Deus Caritas Est, you are correct to some extent in your post.
    But what can you say about Benedict’s 1986 statement that (by inference) I, (and you also, DCE,) as a homosexual person am ‘intrinsically morally disordered’..?
    Keith.
    SALFORD

  45. Keith in SALFORD 30 Jul 2013, 7:53am

    …..furthermore, Deus Caritas Est, what can you say about the 1992 pronouncement, given here again,
    “In 1992 he (Ratzinger) again approved CDF documents declaring that homosexual “inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder” and extended this principle to civil law.
    “Sexual orientation”, the document said, was ”not equivalent to race or ethnicity”, and it declared that it was “not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account.”
    “NOT UNJUST DISC. TO TAKE SEXUAL ORIENTATION INTO ACCOUNT…”
    I BEG YOURS?
    Benedict was made to step down. All that humility in his resignation is guff.
    ‘Step down or we will put you down’ will be nearer the mark.
    Along now comes Francis on a damage limitation mission…

  46. Keith in SALFORD 30 Jul 2013, 8:00am

    AND FINALLY DEUS CARITAS EST…..(continued)….along now comes Francis on a damage limitation mission…
    All too late, Francis, but good luck with the kids; you’ll need it.
    For me and my generation, I am 70, you have sh1t it.
    To be told, in the late 1950s, as a seminarian, by my master of studies that I “need to see a doctor specialising in electro…..etc etc
    to rid me of this disease…”
    …exit, stage left, moi….and have never been inside a church since then, 1959.
    Keith.
    SALFORD

    1. Deus caritas est 30 Jul 2013, 3:37pm

      Ok so I am busy so cannot go in to the length that you have; though I’m grateful for the time you have taken: Genuinely.

      You quote correctly.

      One has to unpack what disordered and under the word order and disorder. Heterosexuality is ordered towards the natural order so is ordered. Homosexuality is not and so disordered.

      The problem – which I see is that – is that disorder here is regarded as sinful when in actual fact it is stating a truth held be the Church.

      1. Keith in SALFORD 30 Jul 2013, 7:07pm

        I half see what you are getting at but it is not sufficient to discuss order and disorder, DCE.
        Back in the late 1950’s I was told to get medical help for my ‘disease’ which was to include electric shock treatment.
        For that reason and having thought about it at home all during the week after I had left the religious house (seminary) I left the church midway thro’ Mass in 1961.
        How could I tell my mother that the Fr. Superior, had told me I was mentally ill and needed treatment…?
        That priest is still alive today; 80-odd and still spouting his antediluvian nonsense today in a parish in dear old Wales somewhere; they are welcome to him.
        Let us say that I had been the dutiful son that the Church wanted me to be and had gone to that medico and had undergone his ‘treatments’.
        Where would I be today?
        At best gibbering but more likely dead thro’ drink and drugs, neither of which I have touched once in all my 70 years.
        K

        And do not forget that in those days, it was illegal.

  47. I know where I would tell Pope Francis where to shove his homophobic Catholic Catechism .

  48. Gay rights group Stonewall told ITV News it is baffled by the Pope’s comments on gay priests.

    “While many lesbian, gay and bisexual Catholics will no doubt welcome this change in tone, the Pope’s criticism of those who lobby for gay equality sounds baffling when his Church still lobbies ferociously worldwide against gay people’s basic human rights.”

    – RICHARD LANE, STONEWALL EXTERNAL AFFAIRS OFFICER

    Pope Francis is saying,
    “Do as I say” not “Do as I do”

  49. Neil Cameron 30 Jul 2013, 12:11pm

    In one breath he says “who am I to judge?” and in his very next breath he deems gays in need of forgiveness.
    Wake up Mr. Pope. To say someone needs to seek forgiveness is to judge them as having done something wrong for which they should seek forgiveness.
    The only change here is that the hypocrisy has got tighter, but it hasnt disapeared.

  50. Darren Yehuda 30 Jul 2013, 12:30pm

    In other news, being French isn’t a sin only speaking French is. Twit!

  51. That includes all judgement of any kind, Period.

  52. Frank Boulton 30 Jul 2013, 1:10pm

    My God, more double-speak and paradoxes. “The role of women should not be restricted.” I just can’t get my poor godless brain around how telling women, “no”, they can’t have the jobs that have always been reserved for the boys, is now more inclusive of women than it was yesterday.

  53. Are we actually bothered by what this c**k in a frock on the rock of St Peter has to say? We don’t judge you, but we won’t support your basic human rights – the Catholic and Orthodox Church in Russia has been………SILENT on the human right abuses being suffered by our LGBTQ community members. How can we be listening to someone who is the head of an organisation that has attempted to hide the truth of its own workers crimes against children and vulnerable adults? I am outraged that he is given airtime!

    1. Alan Graham Sloan 30 Jul 2013, 4:44pm

      love the c**k in a frock line LOL

  54. Before we all condemn him indiscriminately like the very people who appear to condemn us, it is worth taking into account the context in which his “Who am I to judge gays” comment was made.
    At the time he was being asked about gay (celibate) priests. Now, Benedict made it so that priests who were “avowed homosexuals” i.e. those who acknowledged that they were gay regardless of their sexual activity, could not enter seminaries or be priests.
    Francis is taking the opposite tack saying that their sexuality does not have any baring on their ability to be priests. Yes the act, in accordance with the catechism is still viewed as immoral, but his opinion clearly demonstrates that the sexuality itself does not warrant condemnation (and also demonstrates indirectly that he doesn’t follow the “homosexuality=paedophilia” crowd).
    Sure, there are things he doesn’t and can’t agree with but cut him some slack, he’s doing what he can within the confines of his role.

    1. Keith in SALFORD 30 Jul 2013, 5:23pm

      That is true, all of it.

      However, my beef is this, from his statement of 1986 to the Congregation of the Faith “”although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

      I take it, therefore, that if the inclination itself is an objective disorder and is seen as intrinsically, morally evil, then the homosexual person himself is objectively disordered and has more than his fair share of the propensity towards a moral evil vis-a-vis other identifiable groups in the human spectrum.
      Or am I wrong to draw such inferences?
      Keith.
      SALFORD

    2. Keith in SALFORD 30 Jul 2013, 5:31pm

      …and by ”his” statement, I am of course referring to that made by the then Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

      I am not referring to Pope Francis (Bergoglio).

      I can’t quite get my head round him being pope yet; he is so different to Benedict.

      Benedict a much treasured, porcelain doll which you take out in the pram on Sundays and treat with care; Francis, yer local, friendly, pork butcher or chirpy bus driver.
      K
      Benedict did no such thing as retire.
      He was shuffled off as the disaster he was as pope.
      I am surprised he wasn’t topped long ago.
      K

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 31 Jul 2013, 3:03pm

      There is such a thing as leadership, a rarity in today’s world of political correctness. He has the power to effect real change but refuses to do so for fear of upsetting the diehard conservatives and homophobes that make up the hierarchy. Traducing our loving committed relationships as sinful and disordered is most definitely about judging. He’s acting like a politician, playing both sides. Cowardly in my view.

      The same goes for Welby too, cherry-picking certain parts of the bible to justify the denigration of our loving, committed relationships just because two men don’t have a vagina to pop out a baby to make more Anglicans and Catholics.

  55. godric godricson 30 Jul 2013, 4:20pm

    Roman Catholic ‘legalism’ means that ‘they’ twist and turn every word to their own ends. There is little point in entering into a meaningful debate. ‘They’ always believe that ‘they’ are right and adopt the victim role if they are thrashed in Parliament. I will not enter into a debate with the biggest organised paedophile organisation in the world. I would suggest that ‘we’ simply ignore ‘them’ and treat ‘them’ as the irrelevence that thay are becoming.

    1. GulliverUK 30 Jul 2013, 9:01pm

      We could and should be doing that … only … flipwits from there keep making stupid homophobic remarks to the press, and reading out homophobic bigoted letters to their congregations — perpetuating the friction between us. Can we ignore that? Fist it’s the Catholic wingnut the Bishop of Shrewsbury, then it’s Justin “I’m a bigot” Welby for the CofE. What do we do? You have to keep your eye on these reprobates all the time because they’re always up to something devious and malicious.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all