←back to thread

First American pope elected and will be known as Pope Leo XIV

(www.cnn.com)
606 points saikatsg | 3 comments | 08 May 25 16:30 UTC | HN request time: 0.416s | source
Show context
nickthegreek ◴[08 May 25 17:22 UTC] No.43928638[source]▶
"Whereas Francis said, “Who am I to judge?” when asked about gay clerics, Cardinal Prevost has expressed less welcoming views to L.G.B.T.Q. people.

In a 2012 address to bishops, he lamented that Western news media and popular culture fostered “sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the gospel.” He cited the “homosexual lifestyle” and “alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children.”"

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/02/world/americas/pope-candi...

replies(15): >>43928744 #>>43928820 #>>43928830 #>>43928904 #>>43928911 #>>43928948 #>>43929020 #>>43929030 #>>43929239 #>>43929343 #>>43929708 #>>43929793 #>>43929936 #>>43929957 #>>43931844 #
sepositus ◴[08 May 25 17:40 UTC] No.43928911[source]▶
Curious, do you think he's wrong that it's at odds with what was taught by the apostles? It's obviously unpopular, but I have yet to see a convincing argument (based in the teachings of the Bible) that promotes same-sex marriages.

If I were in his position, and part of my duty is to interpret and lead via "the holy scriptures," then I would probably want to be as accurate as possible.

replies(13): >>43928988 #>>43929022 #>>43929079 #>>43929106 #>>43929271 #>>43929309 #>>43929328 #>>43929364 #>>43929430 #>>43929877 #>>43930031 #>>43930845 #>>43931821 #
breadwinner ◴[08 May 25 17:45 UTC] No.43928988[source]▶
> my duty is to interpret and lead via "the holy scriptures"

Said scriptures also says that a woman can be sold to her rapist after he violates her. I think a more modern interpretation would not be a bad idea.

replies(5): >>43929036 #>>43929041 #>>43929115 #>>43929288 #>>43930673 #
sepositus ◴[08 May 25 17:48 UTC] No.43929041[source]▶
What do you mean? There are plenty of "modern" interpretations. New scholarly commentaries come out almost every year. My point is that, among these, the prevailing assumption continues to be one that doesn't support same-sex marriages in the church.

What is lacking, from my perspective, are scholarly interpretations that swing the discussion the other way. The best I've seen simply just exclude the problematic scriptures which really isn't within the Catholic tradition (inerrancy of scripture and all).

contexnt: I've studied religions (and still follow the topic) and have a basic understanding of where things are, but take it with a grain of salt.

replies(2): >>43929188 #>>43930076 #
1. jasonjayr ◴[08 May 25 17:58 UTC] No.43929188[source]▶
I think the crux of the problem is that with all the statements the Bible makes, at a plain reading of the text, who are we, as mere humans to decide which parts should be strictly adhered to, or which parts should not, or which parts mean something completely different from the plain reading? As far as I can tell there is no consistent application of logic and understanding what parts matter and which parts do not. And depending on who you talk to, those parts change.

I understand that as part of the faith, it is not our place to know the reason God has chosen. However, I believe that there are very serious concerns about the intentions of the people 'qualified' to interpret the texts. Relying on "just trust us" gets us into big trouble, fast.

As the saying goes, the devil may quote scripture too.

replies(2): >>43929994 #>>43930060 #
2. ◴[08 May 25 18:59 UTC] No.43929994[source]▶
3. sepositus ◴[08 May 25 19:04 UTC] No.43930060[source]▶
> As far as I can tell there is no consistent application of logic and understanding what parts matter and which parts do not

I would disagree. The art of hermeneutics has been around for a _long_ time and has been refined over time as we develop new understandings about the ancient cultures that wrote these documents. So, yes, things do change, but I would argue they do not _dramatically_ change. For example, the message of "the gospel" has been the same since the founding apostles. But our understanding of something like Genesis 1 has changed dramatically over the years as our understanding of the sciences, history, etc. increase.