For those who wonder about papal power, let them contemplate this: by a single sentence the current pope, Francis I has taken center-stage in the world’s media and will produce hundreds of thousands of sermons by sermon-makers of every sort. The genial and gentle man said that if a person was “gay,” but sought God and was a person of good will, “who am I to judge him?” His handlers are scurrying into print and speech to draw boundaries around his statement, but there it stands, in his own words and nobody else’s words about his words, and in context. And—one recalls—in direct contradiction to the position of his predecessor, Benedict XVI, whose take on the subject was that homosexuality is “an intrinsic moral evil” and an “objective disorder.” Catholics, predictably, are dividing left and right on implications on the pope’s statement.
One asks, to begin with: was the pope a bit squeamish in not using precise words (homosexuality, sodomy, etc.) but the colloquial (and English) “gay,” which carries far less opprobium than the more accurate words? (The fear of words is an intriguing study!) Perhaps he was speaking only for himself, but, of course, no pope ever speaks for himself alone (thus, the world-wide dust-up). And, indeed, as he asks, who is he to judge?
All humans, we all agree, should be treated with dignity and respect. That does not mean, cannot mean, that we may not make moral distinctions about human activities. All of us do that many times every day. Human existence is unthinkable without it. About this specific matter, Christ’s apostle put it plainly: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites…will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” On this, and all moral issues, why not quote (the many) explicit and pertinent biblical references? (Emphasis added. I note in passing: putting the Bible aside for the moment, one never hears the act defended as “natural.”)
The plight of current western civilization is, in simple terms, as follows: we all have four essential sources for moral instruction: the family, the school, the culture, and the church or synagogue. Alas, if the “Vicar of Christ on earth,” the one human who alone, we are told, has the power to speak “infallibly” on moral issues, does not agree with the explicit teaching of scripture, where does that leave the faithful? In his statement, he has chosen to align the church with the other three bases of our societal moral compass, all of which are in demonstrable moral decline.
In truth, no serious student of the Bible will be surprised by these things. We are plainly taught there that, in the last days of human history, A “great falling away” (the word is apostasy, i.e., a defection from the truth) is going to occur amid Christ’s flock. I kindly suggest that it is at least possible that Francis’ remarks match the prophecy.
Malcolm Muggeridge’s word is appropriate here: watching the demise of the church in England, along with the frank and open forfeiture of biblical convictions on the part of many among the clergy, he observed that empty church buildings are not tragic, but that it would be tragic to change the biblical message in an attempt to fill them.
Finally, I suggest we hope that Francis’ remarks were taken out of context, a possibility that is—at this point—not at all obvious.