Is the Pope Catholic?

No less than Pat Buchannon (staunch Catholic) asks. Can he change moral truth. Centuries of Catholicism are being cast into disrepute by a Pope who seem committed to the Left, not Catholic truth:

Homosexuality, hell…the pope believes different than the historic Catholic confession.

Can the Pope change Moral truth?

I’ve been called “anticatholic” by those who don’t have a clue what I am. I believe the Bible is right, all who call on Jesus are saved. Last time I checked, Catholics do that.

But the Pope, it does seem like he may be anticatholic. What say you?

ps: There have been many “antipopes” in history, there’s a list of them somewhere. 95 if I recall correctly.

Should Francis be on that list?

certainly there have been popes seduced by sin. Progressive liberalism is notoriously seductive, offering man the power to remake man …essentially to be a better god than God. He won’t be the first to be led to hell’s gate by progressive liberal “reason”.

He is Jesuit Priest

So far Pope Francis has made a distinction between BEING homosexual and DOING homosexual.

Sin is not about who you are. It is about what you do.

This distinction is spelled out in the catechism as well. And that distinction accompanies every discussion of Pope Francis’ statement, “Who and I to judge?”

I’m not sure if I should be surprised that Pat Buchanan ignores that part of the discussion.

Read carefully the latest quote from the Pope and see that he is talking about who the person is, and says nothing about what the person does.

I’m not happy about the way this Pope chooses his words (or, perhaps, doesn’t choose carefully.) I’m also not happy about some of the issues outside of Catholicism that this Pope chooses to insert himself. But I haven’t seen anything remotely worthy of charging him with being an anti-pope.


And no. The Pope cannot change moral truth.

Progressive regression maybe?

1 Like

You’re rewriting the Catechism, it doesn’t blame God for homosexuality as the pope did.

Catholic apologists love pointing to the disunity among Protestants, thousands of denominations as though its somehow bad.

What is bad is a Titanic like entity that can be sunk by one small leak. Having many boats prevents that calamity. So when an odd ball rises up, he can’t take everyone with him.

If not this pope, then perhaps the next who will build on the departure from historic beliefs.

There are no real checks and balances on papal power, apart from schism which is the historic solution.

When Jesus went against established law and refused to condemn the adulteress he saved from the mob. Was he overthrowing the moral order, or appealing to a higher one?

Neither, He was upholding the Law:

5 “Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?”
6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first."
8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
(Jn. 8:5-11 NKJ)

The Law required stoning of the guilty, by the innocent:

"The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you. (Deut. 17:7 NKJ) (also Deut. 13:9)

Those who brought her to Jesus were guilty of lawbreaking, they failed to bring the man also to be stoned (Lev. 20:10) or do the stoning themselves. They are lawbreakers, sinners.

As Jesus wrote scriptures on the ground they broke, they realized she wasn’t the only one worthy of being stoned.

As the Messiah, Jesus could forgive sins (Deut. 18:15; Mat. 9:6) and so He was acting lawfully when He forgave her sins.

It is. It has been the start of many conflicts and the source of a lot of sin.

You really have no clue about the Catholic Church. One man cannot sink it.

I can’t say I am “surprised” by the OP. You guys continue to prove my point that the religious right uses the bible as an excuse to hate gay people.

The bible has never been anti-gay per say. It simply views gay sex as a sin. But guess what is also a sin? Masturbation, sex outside of a committed relationship, certain kinds of birth control (changed position btw), and adultery.

Pope Francis did not change any Catholic policy here. He did not say yes to religious marriage between two men or two women. All what he said is that God made you like that, and you shouldn’t be ashamed for who you’re.

What triggers you is that a highly influential religious figure doesn’t back up your hate.

So far Pope Francis has made a distinction between BEING homosexual and DOING homosexual.
Sin is not about who you are. It is about what you do.

Yes, US courts have effectively equated the two, but there is an important moral distinction. Behavior involves conscious decisions, while sexual attraction is arguably innate and appears to be what the pope is talking about.


I am a lifelong Catholic. I was taught in bible studies that God doesn’t hate gay people or lesbians. He just has a problem with gay sex. Pope Francis clearly understands the difference between being gay and partaking in a sinful activity. Nothing he said changes any policy, but simply clarifying that he doesn’t see gays and lesbians as being immoral or suffering from any disorder or mental illness.

I couldn’t edit a mistake. She should have been taken to the priests and witnesses called and then judged, not stone her themselves. Also, as the Word of God, whatever Jesus wrote is scripture also, so whether He cited scripture, or revealed specific events they were guilty of, it was still the “word of God” affecting their conscience.

The cognitive dissonant never are “surprised”, the knee jerk lash out with baseless smears and exaggerations. There was no “hate” in the OP at all. Just facts.

The Bible condemns homosexuality. It also condemns adultery and fornication. While I would add masturbation, that must be inferred and many scholars won’t agree. It would be scriptural to conclude we all stand condemned for sins, we are all sinners and that is why Christ sacrificed Himself for us. Otherwise, no one would be saved.

But God did not creature homosexual behavior in gay people. That is a consequence of the fall, creation itself now runs on “automatic” as it were, birth defects, homosexual inclinations, pathological insanity, OUR FAULT. If we all repented, God would “fix” creation and such things would not occur.

But He didn’t cause it, God doesn’t make gay people that way. They can choose to be celibate and not satisfy sinful desire. They have a choice, as we all do when it comes to sin.

As for birth control, as life begins at conception its unaffected by birth control methods.

But the Roman Catholic method once practiced, is an abomination in the OT. Women are not to engage in sex during menstruation :

19 'Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity. (Lev. 18:19 NAS)

Little is scriptural about the Catholic religion, but they still have the Nicene Orthodox understanding of the Holy Trinity, and the Word Jesus Christ. So all who call upon Jesus are saved. But that is in spite of Roman Catholicism, not because of it.

If i could have corrected the above, I would say:

As for birth control, as life begins at conception its unaffected by birth control methods. Therefore, all methods not killing Babies iareOK.

But the Roman Catholic method once practiced, is an abomination in the OT. Women are not to engage in sex during menstruation :

19 'Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity. (Lev. 18:19 NAS)

It proves my thesis, when given multiple choices, the Roman Catholic Magisterium almost always makes the wrong choice. Rather than object to modern methods in favor of the “rhythm method”, they should have embraced modern methods and demanded women be left alone during their “period.”

But that begs the question, “who is to blame for it being ‘innate’?” (If indeed it is, I’m not convinced it is)

But for argument’s sake, lets say gay inclination is “innate”, hardwired into the embryo.

Did God do it, or something else?

When asked about birth defects, listen to what Jesus says:

2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?”
3 Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him. (Jn. 9:2-3 NAS)

The works of God are displayed as He counteracts the works of evil done by men or in nature.

So, “sin” transmitted through the parents is NOT why he was born blind, therefore it has nothing to do with the Law of God nor did God do it to this person.

It happened because the entire creation is under the Fall. Everything is corrupted while it “runs on automatic” till such time as God sees fit to stop it. But what evil happens in the matrix, is caused by the actors in the matrix or the decaying matrix itself.

Partly true. It condemns gay sex. The bible says nothing about being gay as a sin.

Again, this is not backed by science, nor it is mentioned in the bible.

There’s a lot of hate here. You use the bible as an excuse to deny them civil rights and shame them for something they did not choice.

Pope Francis does not support religious marriage for gay couples, but he does not dismiss their being.You, on the other hand, are a different story. You use religious as an excuse for bigotry. Getting triggered over a something logically consistent, is rather pathetic. Jesus taught us to love and respect everybody.

Cognitive dissonance. No hate in the OP; Nothing said about civil rights; Nothing said about shame.
You saw that “movie”, but it didn’t exist. Classic cognitive dissonance.

Of course, the delusion inspiring you now makes you hate me. You smear me as a bigot, I use religion to be a bigot. That’s hateful, but typical during cognitive dissonance.

PS: I support civil rights for everyone, including gays.