Pope Francis Makes Unexpected Apology
Pope Francis recently apologized for using a derogatory term during a closed meeting with Italian Catholic bishops discussing a ban on homosexuals from seminaries. Matteo Bruni, the director of the Holy See Press Office, clarified that the Pope regretted using an Italian term that translates to “faggotness” in English. Bruni emphasized that the Pope did not intend to offend anyone with his remarks and extended apologies to those who were offended.
During the meeting, Pope Francis reiterated the Catholic Church’s stance from 2005, which bars men who “practice homosexuality, exhibit deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture” from joining the priesthood. He expressed concerns about the risk of gay individuals entering the priesthood and potentially leading double lives by concealing their homosexuality while continuing to engage in homosexual activities.
Reports indicated that the Pope used the Italian word “frociaggine,” a derogatory term for “queerness,” during his remarks, expressing his apprehension about the perceived prevalence of such attitudes in seminaries. Some commentators suggested that his use of this term might have been unintentional, given his occasional struggles with nuanced Italian expressions as a native Spanish speaker from Argentina.
Natalia Imperatori-Lee, a religious studies professor at Manhattan College, criticized the Church’s insistence on banning gay men from the priesthood, highlighting the presence of many talented, celibate, gay priests. She emphasized the ongoing challenges faced by the LGBTQ community, noting instances of casual “mistakes” from figures within the Vatican, including the Pope, which perpetuate discrimination.
Despite this incident, Pope Francis has previously made statements indicating a more accepting stance towards openly gay individuals who are devout Christians. In a 2013 interview, he stated, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” However, he also emphasized the need to distinguish between an individual’s sexual orientation and the existence of a gay lobby, which he viewed unfavorably. Additionally, last December, the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document allowing priests to bless same-sex couples, provided the blessing does not imply approval of their union.
Unfortunately, more and more press is being given to priests and their unlawful ceremonies who violate the “blessings of homosexual persons” prescribed in “Fiducia Supplicans.” These “blessings” are supposed to be presented individually and in private venues that in no way publicly validate “homosexual unions” as marriage defined by the Catholic Church. However, publicity is being given to renegade priests who allow these blessings to be offered in public settings and even filmed. This is insupportable disobedience, and the deplorable fallout from a church document that is easily misinterpreted and shamefully ignored by priests who let their private interpretations overrule the spirit and intention of the papal instructions. This is what happened with many teachings from Vatican II, which were then interpreted very broadly by clergy and laity who thought Vatican II did not go far enough in disrupting the “status quo.” Such a disservice continues when clergy and laity continue to violate the teachings and pastoral practices intended by the Church in favor of private interpretations, which move Catholicism more and more into the realm of divisive Protestantism. The role of the pope and the clergy is to preserve and evangelize in the spiritual beauty, truth, and goodness of the Catholic tradition rather than subvert it by creating erroneous interpretations according to “situation ethics.” Sadly, no one is reining in these renegade priests and laity from their distortions. The hierarchy, in its scandalous inner disunity, has abdicated its responsibilities to Catholic truth through its silence, and silence implies consent. May God have mercy on our slothful cowardice.
What does “moderation” mean? Is that the equivalent of censorshp?
No, it makes sure people do not spam the comments with links to Russian sites