Roman Catholic Reforms

Status
Not open for further replies.
He's a sharp Jesuit. He can say two things at the same time and consistently mean both. On one hand he can court secular favor with these quotes, but on the other, the traditionalist Catholic (the "Rad Trad") can correctly say, "Well, he isn't speaking ex cathedra, so it doesn't officially violate papal infalliblity."

On a more practical level, what does he mean by "judge?" Does "gay" mean you struggle with warped lustful thoughts, or does it mean sodomizing other men? There is so much ambiguity here, which is why a sharp Jesuit can deftly exploit the situation. I think Protestants have woefully underestimated the Jesuits for the last 100 years.
 
I don't think there's anything remarkable in it, apart from conciliatory language:

Speaking to reporters on a flight back from Brazil, he reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church's position that homosexual acts were sinful, but homosexual orientation was not
 
A lot of evangelicals, including Calvinistic ones, are also distinguishing acts and orientation in a way that perhaps you would not have seen 10 years ago. But back then they tended to think that Exodus type therapy to reorient someone to a "straight" was the way to go too. (I've started to think that Christians who even use the term straight have probably already lost the argument.) If a man is tempted often to steal and used to be a thief but steals no longer, is he still a thief? Thus, as Jacob noted, it's not that simple.

Now with regard to Roman Catholic reforms over the past half century, to paint with a very broad brush, they've basically gone liberal with the exceptions (generally speaking) of their claim to authority and their stance on sexual ethics. But all these changes are no problem for most Jesuits since Jesuitry can pretty much explain and excuse anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top