Question about Pope Francis' comments on gay people


When Pope Francis means he doesn’t want to “judge”, is he talking about judging their eternal outcome, whether they go to heaven or hell, or does he mean judging them for their lifestyle? I’m confused.


No need to be confused.

“If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge them?” Obviously, some people have ignored the “seeks God” part and the “good will” part. And the secular press only quotes what it wants. And the secular press wants to confuse people.



To summarize the Pope: We can’t judge people simply based on their orientation or assign to them an eternal destiny, because, you know, that is what the Church has always taught about everyone.

To summarize the Catechism: We can’t judge people simply based on their orientation or assign to them an eternal destiny, because, you know, that is what the Church has always taught about everyone.

On a different note: I notice that he, like every other Pope in history, didn’t use the phrase “same-sex attracted.” that some around here like to make a litmus test. Guess we should send him a letter about that…


He reiterated that homosexual activity is wrong, so he’s obviously not referring to the action, since he just DID judge the action. He’s talking about judging people’s hearts.

And he’s absolutely right.



On a different note: I notice that he, like every other Pope in history, didn’t use the phrase “same-sex attracted.” that some around here like to make a litmus test. Guess we should send him a letter about that…

I’m glad he used the word gay. So many people here on CAF get their panties in a bunch when I use the word gay instead of same sex attracted. :rolleyes:


Yeah… litmus test :rolleyes: I’ll have to check the gay press about this and I promise no links.

And, now that I’ve checked, his comments rated a 6.5 out of a possible 10. Calling his comments about gay priests a “sharp departure” - the change you/they want always being a good thing, his numbers would have been higher had he said something “correct” about women. But alas.



Ditto! Pope Francis is a Jesuit, he lives and lived in the “real world” of the 21st century. I see no problem with his using the word gay. He certainly was not supporting any political agenda, he was repeating what is found in the CCC.:slight_smile:


As far as I can tell, he didn’t say anything incorrect about women. Unless you have a problem with women becoming a more integral force in the Church?


Used url shortener

7 things you need to know about what Pope Francis said about gays

by Jimmy Akin Monday, July 29, 2013 10:45 AM Comments (17)

Has Pope Francis taken a dramatic new tone on homosexuality? Has he broken with former Pope Benedict’s approach? Here are 7 things you need to know . . .

The press is buzzing right now with claims that Pope Francis has taken a sharply different line than his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, on the subject of homosexuality.

Some are suggesting that the new pope has announced that “gay is okay.”

What did Pope Francis really say, and how unusual is it?

Here are 7 things to know and share . . .

1) Where did Pope Francis make these remarks?

He made them during an 80-minute interview with reporters aboard the plane returning from World Youth Day in Brazil.

2) What was he asked that led to the remarks?

We may not know exactly what the question was until a transcript is released, but apparently, he was asked about the reputed “gay lobby” at the Vatican.

More info on that here.

3) What exactly did he say?

According to the best current accounts, he said:

There’s a lot of talk about the gay lobby, but I’ve never seen it on the Vatican ID card.

When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn’t be marginalized. The tendency * is not the problem … they’re our brothers.

4) What does this mean?*

The first part of the statement seems to downplay the who “gay lobby” issue. He’s not denying that there is one there, but he’s suggesting that the talk is somewhat overblown.

He then explains his approach to dealing with gay people: He distinguishes between their “being gay” and “being part of a lobby.”

What he means by “being gay” is something he further unpacks.

In ordinary parlance, “being gay” can mean anything from having same-sex attraction to leading an active “gay lifestyle” to endorsing and advocating a pro-homosexual ideology.

The last of these would be functioning as a member of a lobby, and he indicates that this is not what he is talking about.

He then describes those he is talking about as people who “accept the Lord and have goodwill.”

He then seems to further clarify who he is talking about by saying that “The tendency * is not the problem … they’re our brothers.”

Taking his statements together, what emerges is a portrait of individuals who have same-sex attraction but who nevertheless accept the Lord and have goodwill, as opposed to working to advance a pro-homosexual ideology.

This would definitely include people with same-sex attraction who strive to live chastely (even if they sometimes fail).

It also, possibly, could include individuals who are not living chastely but who are not actively lobbying a homosexual agenda. It would be nice if he’d said a little more to clarify the point further.

5) What does he say about people in this category?*

He says that he does not think he is in a position to judge them and that they should not be marginalized.

He also says that the mere tendency (same-sex attraction) “is not the problem,” and that “they’re our brothers.”

6) How new is this?

Not very.

Disclaiming a right to “judge” others is something that goes back to Jesus. It does not mean a failure to recognize the moral character of others’ actions, however.

One can form a moral appraisal that what someone else is doing is wrong (Jesus obviously does not forbid that) without having or showing malice toward them.

The statement that they should not be marginalized is similarly in keeping with the Holy See’s approach to the subject, as 1992 Vatican document On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.

The statement that same-sex attraction “is not the problem,” when understood correctly, is also nothing new. “The problem,” as Pope Francis seems to here be understanding it, is going beyond merely having a sinful tendency–a temptation to which one is subject.

Obviously, temptations are problem, but if we resist temptation we do not sin. “The problem,” on this understanding, is giving into the temptation and sinning or–worse–building an ideology around the sin and trying to advocate the sin.

Finally, the statement that “they’re our brothers” is also no novelty. Christians, like everyone, have struggled with every sort of temptation all through history.

Same-sex attraction is just one temptation among numerous others, and the fact that a person suffers from this temptation no more deprives him of the status of being a brother in Christ than any other temptation does.

7) How different is any of this compared to Pope Benedict?

The press has been (as usual) trying to make unfavorable comparisons to Pope Benedit, noting that during his time the Holy See issued a document saying that those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies should not be ordained to the priesthood.

Pope Francis did not mention that document or its policy and so has done nothing different than Benedict there.

Neither are any of Francis’s remarks contrary to the approach Benedict took during his pontificate.

In fact, Benedict himself (as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) was the signer of the previosly-mentioned letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, as well as the follow-up document on non-discrimination regarding homosexual persons.

So, as usual, the press is painting a false picture by contrasting the “good” Francis and the “bad” Benedict.


Maybe they’re just confused and not necessarily trying to mislead.

I haven’t taken the time to parse his statement and I doubt I will. But, I don’t think he said anything that represents a departure from the teachings of the Church. He spoke more plainly than most which I like. My understanding is that we are not really allowed to condemn or judge anyone for any sin. This is God’s jurisdiction. No?


I have no idea what you are saying here. The headline should read “Pope reiterates Catholic teaching on all controversial matters.”

I don’t really know what you are talking about when you mention gay priests, he didn’t really say anything about that according to CNS, and even if he did, it would be on a matter of discipline rather than teaching.




Does anyone know in what language he actually said this?
Did he actually use the word gay, or was that an interpreter’s doing?
I have no opinion either way, just curious.






It was in Spanish, and the word “gay” is the same in Spanish and English.

“Quien soy yo para juzgar a un gay?” (“Who am I to judge a gay?”)

…Is what he said exactly. See here:


So, the use of the “G” word rather than SSA is controversial?


It is around here. :rolleyes:

Don’t ask me why because I have no doggone idea lol.


:shrug: :slight_smile:


It is based off of two things: first, an overscrupulous interpretation of Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1986 letter to the bishops that he himself didn’t follow, using passages that are taken out of context regarding not objectifying people by identifying them solely based off of sexual attraction. We know that he did not believe it was wrong to refer to people as “homosexual persons” instead of SSA, because he continues to refer to them as “homosexual persons” in the same letter after the admonition.

The phrase SSA was invented by the Canadian bishops in the 1990s, I believe. It is what many around here (and Courage) choose to use instead of “gay” or “homosexual”.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit