FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Pope held private meeting with same-sex couple in U.S.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Quote: (CNN)The day before Pope Francis met anti-gay county clerk Kim Davis in Washington last week, he held a private meeting with a longtime friend from Argentina who has been in a same-sex relationship for 19 years.

Yayo Grassi, an openly gay man, brought his partner, Iwan Bagus, as well several other friends to the Vatican Embassy on September 23 for a brief visit with the Pope. A video of the meeting shows Grassi and Francis greeting each other with a warm hug.

In an exclusive interview with CNN, Grassi said the visit was arranged personally with the Pope via email in the weeks ahead of Francis' highly anticipated visit to the United States.

READ MORE: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/pop...index.html
I'm waiting for a Vatican spokesman emphasizing that the Pope does not support this gay couple even though he met them.
Probably waiting in vain...
Francis is truly unclassifiable. One day he regularises SSPX confessions, the other promulgates motu proprios on annulments. One day he meets with Kim Davies, the other with a gay couple. One day he praises those taking part in pro-life marches, the other critices the Church's concentrating on abortion. That's the way he is.
(10-03-2015, 06:53 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]Francis is truly unclassifiable. One day he regularises SSPX confessions, the other promulgates motu proprios on annulments. One day he meets with Kim Davies, the other with a gay couple. One day he praises those taking part in pro-life marches, the other critices the Church's concentrating on abortion. That's the way he is.

It's like he's a walking Hegelian dialect.
(10-03-2015, 07:02 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-03-2015, 06:53 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]Francis is truly unclassifiable. One day he regularises SSPX confessions, the other promulgates motu proprios on annulments. One day he meets with Kim Davies, the other with a gay couple. One day he praises those taking part in pro-life marches, the other critices the Church's concentrating on abortion. That's the way he is.

It's like he's a walking Hegelian dialect.
Or, in his opinion, showing Gospel to everyone. There's logic in it, albeit on the outside its results are rather disastrous.
(10-03-2015, 08:00 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-03-2015, 07:02 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-03-2015, 06:53 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]Francis is truly unclassifiable. One day he regularises SSPX confessions, the other promulgates motu proprios on annulments. One day he meets with Kim Davies, the other with a gay couple. One day he praises those taking part in pro-life marches, the other critices the Church's concentrating on abortion. That's the way he is.

It's like he's a walking Hegelian dialect.
Or, in his opinion, showing Gospel to everyone. There's logic in it, albeit on the outside its results are rather disastrous.

I'll take your word on it.
(10-03-2015, 09:36 AM)PrairieMom Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-03-2015, 08:00 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-03-2015, 07:02 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-03-2015, 06:53 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]Francis is truly unclassifiable. One day he regularises SSPX confessions, the other promulgates motu proprios on annulments. One day he meets with Kim Davies, the other with a gay couple. One day he praises those taking part in pro-life marches, the other critices the Church's concentrating on abortion. That's the way he is.

It's like he's a walking Hegelian dialect.
Or, in his opinion, showing Gospel to everyone. There's logic in it, albeit on the outside its results are rather disastrous.

I'll take your word on it.

It's the logic that surpasses understanding by mere mortals such as us.  :grin:
It isn't logical to meet with everyone, from the whole "political" spectrum, to promulgate the Gospel?

I'm not talking about the effects but the pope's intention.
(10-03-2015, 08:00 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]Or, in his opinion, showing Gospel to everyone. There's logic in it, albeit on the outside its results are rather disastrous.

I think this might be it.  He wants to be nice to everyone, but it'll end up offending everyone.  At the end of the day, you simply cannot have it both ways, and purposefully delaying that clarification would only make things worse.  To his credit, he's walking a very tight rope.  He's acting kind of schizophrenic, because he's being pulled by both sides, the liberals and the conservatives within the Church, and he's trying to hold the Church together and avoid a schism.  Losing either faction would mean disaster to him, on an ecclesiastical level, on a personal level, on a spiritual level, on all levels - it would certainly run counter to his attempt to evangelize the most number of people.  That said, I think he needs to decide at some point.  Jesus was very clear in His teachings, and at the end of the day, that's what we should depend on, in the form of Church doctrine, the Magisterium, and 2,000 years of tradition.
(10-03-2015, 04:04 PM)AllSeasons Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-03-2015, 08:00 AM)PolishTrad Wrote: [ -> ]Or, in his opinion, showing Gospel to everyone. There's logic in it, albeit on the outside its results are rather disastrous.

I think this might be it.  He wants to be nice to everyone, but it'll end up offending everyone.  At the end of the day, you simply cannot have it both ways, and purposefully delaying that clarification would only make things worse.  To his credit, he's walking a very tight rope.  He's acting kind of schizophrenic, because he's being pulled by both sides, the liberals and the conservatives within the Church, and he's trying to hold the Church together and avoid a schism.  Losing either faction would mean disaster to him, on an ecclesiastical level, on a personal level, on a spiritual level, on all levels - it would certainly run counter to his attempt to evangelize the most number of people.  That said, I think he needs to decide at some point.  Jesus was very clear in His teachings, and at the end of the day, that's what we should depend on, in the form of Church doctrine, the Magisterium, and 2,000 years of tradition.

I'm not seeing any problem with his meeting with a gay couple, or anyone else, for that matter, but when it's coupled with his loosey-goosey talk about homosexuality, it's problematic. He's the king of half-truths, saying just enough so that something isn't bad in itself (e.g., "Who am I to judge?"), but can be -- and always is -- easily spun to promote the "progressive" agenda. If he were just straight and clear in upholding the Catechism, there shouldn't be any problem with his meeting with anyone, even Hitler or Stalin, if they were still around.

I disagree that "being nice to everyone" means "offending everyone." Even Truths some people consider "ugly" or "hate" can be related without being nasty or a jerk. And I don't think it's "schizophrenic" to, say, meet with a gay couple one day, and Kim Davis the next. Our Lord Himself ate with the worst of the worst (I'm not saying that homosexuals are the worst of the worst, just making a point here that even if the couple in question are active homosexuals, Jesus wouldn't turn away from them. He'd teach them.).

It's at least possible that he met with the couple and treated them warmly, with great charity and humility, using words and body language that let them know he cares deeply about them and is listening to them, taking them seriously, is understanding of their struggles -- and still supported Church teaching to them. But of course, all we hear is that "the Pope met with a gay couple." And maybe that's all that is our business to know, and we should assume the best about him, assume that he didn't betray Church teaching. I know many homosexuals, some of whom I care about deeply, and they know exactly what I believe, so I know it's possible to stand up for the Truth without alienating people and while truly loving them and caring about them, while being warm and friendly with them, without treating them as nothing more than the sum of one of their struggles  --  whether they like what you're saying or not. Maybe he did just that. I hope so anyway.

But no matter what he did or didn't do, no matter what he said or didn't say, the secular media are going to spin it the way they want us to see it. So whatevah.