This pertains to Rev. Michael Coren’s The Critic article Pope Francis: the LGBT-friendly pontiff (September 25, 2020) and based on such articles, I have come to suspect that no critical thinking nor theological fact-checking is done by The Critic.
Coren notes that “Speaking to parents of LGBTQ children he,” Pope Francis, “said, ‘God loves your children as they are. The Church loves your children as they are, because they are children of God.’”
Michael Coren commented, “This may sound relatively bland and unadventurous, but it is actually quite extraordinarily radical for any Catholic leader, let alone one who is considered to be the direct successor to St. Peter.”
I could not agree more with Coren that it was “quite extraordinarily radical” and yet, he welcomes it while no “Catholic leader, let alone one who is considered to be the direct successor to St. Peter” should.
Now, could we say that God loves LGBTQ children? Yes indeed, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Yet, the folly is in the “as they are” part since that implies no need of repentance which basically deconstructs the entire gospel—as it has been said: God loves us just the way we are, but loves us too much to let us stay that way.
There is a key difference between having been created by God, made in His image, and being “children of God” since that is something that we need to become:
“Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin” (1 John 3:1-5).
Thus, the supposedly alleged successor to St. Peter, and Coren (his Anglican comrade on this issue), are encouraging “LGBTQ children” to remain as they are and not repent.
Of course, there are many problems with this, from the temporally mundane to eternal—they are encouraging them to purposefully (often backed by the Leftist activism of their parent(s)) rebel against God’s created order for sensual relationships, households, marriage, sexual relationships, families, etc.—see my article Rev. Michael Coren claims Jesus would wave the Pride rainbow flag for more on these points.
Michael Coren also noted, “Shortly after he was elected, he said that sexual orientation was all but irrelevant when it came to being a good Catholic and that, ‘If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?’”
Who are you? Gee, I don’t know, maybe the successor to St. Peter!!!
But who is he to judge, really? Well, Jesus warned us against unrighteous judgments, such as hypocritical ones, but He told us, “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24)—for more, see On Judgmentalism.
Moreover, “he met with Juan Carlos Cruz, the gay man who was the main whistleblower in the Chilean clerical sex abuse and cover-up scandal, he is reported to have said, ‘Look Juan Carlos, the Pope loves you this way. God made you like this, and he loves you.’”
Wait a moment: so, God loves LGBTQ children as they are, the Pope loves a gay man as he is, God made the gay man gay, but there was a clerical sex abuse and cover-up scandal? How does that follow?
Following his (il)logic (and (il)theo-logic), Pope Francis should have told Cruz, “You wasted your time since the Pope loves the clerical sex abuses and cover-upers this way. God made the clerical sex abuses and cover-upers like this, and he loves them as they are.”
Why is LGBTQ perfectly acceptable but not other sexual-lifestyles? After all, some have come to use the term LGBTQIA+ so why does the + not include clerical sex abuses and cover-upers? In fact, I followed the cultural trend by using LGBBTQIIAPPR+ which refers to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Bestialists, Transgender/Transsexual, Queer (and note that L, G, and Q all refer to homosexuality), Intersexual, Incestuous, Asexual (who clearly do not belong in the list), Postgenderists, Pedophiles, Rapists, and keep it going with the +.
But I know what the counter will be: LGBTQIIA imply consent but Pedophilia, Rape, and Bestiality do not.
But so what? Who is the Pope to judge? Does God not love pedophiles, rapists, and bestialists? Did He not create them in those ways, etc.? Why do Coren’s and the Pope’s assertions only work in one direction—the direction of that which fallen, corrupt, condemned, pagan and secular culture approve of du jour?
Again, we are told that consent is king (even though little children are often clearly being all but forced into some of the LGBTQIIA lifestyles by their Leftist activists parent(s)) which means that the admission is that LGBTQIIA are lifestyle choices. The concept of consent is a conjoined/Siamese twin to the concept of choice.
Here is a key issue that you never seem to hear out there in socio-culture-politics: there is a vast and crucial fundamental difference between an impulse and an action.
One may be born this way with certain impulses but then will go on to make conscious decisions, choices, to carry out those impulses or not. Thus, it is all about choice. Unless, that is, someone wants to deny choice and demand that impulses must determine action, we are not free choosers, etc.
In that case, they have created a huge problem since, going back to what I noted, they would have been forced to argue that the Pope loves pedophiles, rapists, and bestialists this way. God made pedophiles, rapists, and bestialists like this, and he loves them as they are.
By arguing that impulse = action and thus, the action must be accepted, one destroys any loophole about consent.
Moreover, one will have to, say, accept adults who wet their bed since, after all, they were born that way. More dangerously, they will have to accept the actor Woody Harrelson’s convicted hit-man dad’s statement that he is, and I quote, “a natural born killer” (which is whence the title of one of Harrelson’s movies came).
In any case, the Pope and Coren have clearly created a huge and dangerous mess.
Michael Coren points out something that is notable, “Rome has issued what it euphemistically calls ‘clarifications’ and has spoken of inaccuracies due to translation” whenever the supposedly alleged successor to St. Peter make quite un-successor to St. Peter-like statements.
Yet, Coren states, “Not this time” and notes:
“…the parents to whom Francis spoke were from an Italian group called Tenda di Gionata or Jonathan’s Tent.
It’s a reference to the relationship between David and Jonathan in scripture, which may or may not have been more than platonic; but David’s comment that ‘I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women’ does rather give one pause for thought.”
The implication is that David and Jonathan were homosexual—or bisexual, actually, since David married women.
This, of course, is not only preposterous neo-activist misreading, misinterpreting, misunderstanding, and misapplying but is homophobic.
I covered this issues in my book In Consideration of Rev. Dr. Mel White on Christian Homosexuality. Now, if they were homosexual/bisexual it would be stated in the Bible in the ancient Hebrew equivalent of all caps, underlining, bold, italics, etc.
Also, it is just as David said, “passing the love of women” so that their relationship was not sexual nor sensual but one of two men loving each other. And that is what makes implying they were lovers homophobic: it means two men cannot love each other without activists such as Michael Coren coming along, pointing to them, and yelling, “You’re gay!!!”
He then notes, “The group welcomes and affirms LGBTQ Christians” whatever that means. If anything, Christmas celebrates the birth of a child born to a heterosexual couple, a woman and a man (a step-dad, in this case) so that it is a heterosexual Christmas—if, for some odd reason, we need to sexualize Christmas.
But then Coren gets close to a key point I made when he wrote that, “Catholic teaching has always distinguished between being homosexual and acting out on one’s feelings and emotions”: impulse vs. action.
“In other words, if you’re gay you have to be celibate, pretend, or try to change. Because, according to the Catholic catechism, homosexual acts are ‘intrinsically disordered’ and ‘contrary to natural law’, and any orientation outside of heterosexuality is ‘objectively disordered.’”
This is part, a huge part, of the issue which is that the current so called successor to St. Peter is blatantly going against that which “Catholic teaching has always” taught.
Now, my view as to why it is “intrinsically disordered” is because God’s created order is for sensual and sexual relationships to be engaged in between an adult male and an adult female.
It is “contrary to natural law” because if you consider the male and female anatomies, they have one main external difference and it just so happens that the outie fits into the innie—capiche?
Thus, “objectively disordered,” on various levels, since God’s created order is reflected in the natural law expressed by out anatomy.
That the consequences of the fall into sin have caused mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual disorders is precisely that with which we are supposed to be dealing so as to reorient them back to God’s created order rather than doing that which the Pope and Coren demand: full acceptance and also approval of deconstructing God’s created order and fully embracing violations of the natural law and the disorders that come therefrom.
Note the key qualifying, tenses based, term here:
“…the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
That was from the KJV and the phrase “effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” is the one that has gained a lot of attention due to some versions reading “men who practice homosexuality,” ESV, about which you can see my book about Mel White and article, Is “1946: The mistranslation that shifted culture” the misconception that discredited a claim?
Overall, the key is that the text speaks in past tense, “And such were some of you” but the Pope and Coren are demanding that such people should be told “And such have some of you been, still are, and should continue to be—and proud about it, no less!”
Incidentally, my book The Occult Roots of Postgenderism is subtitled And a History of Changes to Psychiatry and Psychology since therein I chronicle how Psychiatry and Psychology have changed their diagnosis and treatments (if they treat at all) of such sexual issues not due to science, by admission, but due to socio-political activism—the very sort of activism that has a “Rev.” and a “Pope” celebrating violations of God’s created order.
Michael Coren continues along the impulse vs. action line thusly, “Supporters of this teaching argue that there is a clear distinction between being gay and being in a gay relationship” which he considers, “a pretty thin if not repugnant response” which is an emotive dismissal rather which replaces actually counter-arguing logically and theo-logically.
He notes that “It also ignores the reality of loving, sacrificial, God-honouring same-sex relationships, and the self-evident truth that people are born gay.” But he is merely begging the question due to having dismissively ignored the issue: the “distinction between being gay,” impulse, “and being in a gay relationship,” action, so that, that, “people are born gay,” only considers the impulse—impulse is king!
Yet, he does go on to write:
“…to compare them to alcoholics or thieves who are implicitly good but tempted by evil is as facile as it is insensitive. One’s sexuality is inherent, not a bad habit that should be resisted. That’s a truth that Francis seems to embrace.”
Do you discern the shocking myopic nature of his activism driven assertions?
Firstly, he decided that “alcoholics or thieves…are implicitly good but tempted by evil” when the Bible would have them being implicitly evil, tempted by evil, and thus, in need of repentance.
Secondly, he again merely side-steps the issue rather than dealing with it which he does via an emotive assertion, “as facile as it is insensitive.”
Thirdly, he asserts, “One’s sexuality is inherent” which is based on having ignore the impulse vs. action issue.
Fourthly, he asserts that since “One’s sexuality is inherent” ergo, it is “not a bad habit that should be resisted” so welcome pedophiles, rapists, and bestialists!!! “That’s a truth that Francis,” and Michael, “seems to embrace.”
Coren notes, “Frankly, it’s also deeply hypocritical in that most credible studies on the subject concur that between a quarter and half of all Roman Catholic clergy are gay.” But wait, “are gay” as in having impulses or “are gay” as in actions? Well, we know some of the many, many, many (many, [many]) problems that Roman Catholic clergy have had with sexuality over the millennia. I have pondered if some of those are not due to the Roman Catholic church establishing a clergy that is supposed to be celebrate, since 1) a system of priests 2) who are celebrate are both unbiblical—except that all Christians are “kings and priests” (Revelation 1:6).
Michael Coren specifies, “as many as 58% of priests are gay, and that percentages are higher for younger priests. Many of them are likely celibate, but we know that many are not.” It would seem that some men discern that they were born (or otherwise developed—often due to pedophilia perpetrated upon them) with gay impulses and seek out the celibate Roman Catholic priesthood as a way to deal with it.
Since the Anglican Michael Coren use to be a Catholic, he notes that he “experienced what is best described as a spiritual and emotional epiphany” which, I will add, lead to such statements by the allegedly supposed successor to St. Peter.
Coren then pulls some activist talking point out of his bag of tricks such as “homosexuality is hardly mentioned in the Bible” even though the Bible condemns homosexuality more often that it condemns murder—I detailed this in my contra Mel White book.
He adds, “when it is discussed, the context is complicated” whereby he seeks to sidestep “What are known as the ‘gotcha’ verses” which he misreads, misunderstands, misinterprets, and misapplies since his hermeneutic is to eisegetically demand that the Bible be made to approve of what culture du jour approves: why not demand that the Bible approves of adultery? Are adulterers not also born that way, loved by the Pope, Coren, and God just as they are, etc.? Why not add another A to LGBBTQIIAPPR+.
He merely asserts that the “gotcha” texts (the ones that debunk his assertions so utterly that he emotively sidesteps them) “generally,” meaning he is admitting not always, refer “to rape and abuse” which is utterly fallacious. Seeking to feed his Leftist audience, he adds, “they’re usually listed with other ancient prohibitions, some of which condone slavery and the most severe forms of sexism and violence.”
Note his tactic admission that even he is forced to admit the Bible condemns homosexuality so that he followed it by seeking to interfere with discernment by very quickly saying the likes of: Hey, look over here instead! Don’t dwell of such admitted facts, but be distracted by thinking about slavery, yeah, slavery!, instead and (whatever on Earth he means by) severe forms of sexism and violence!
Michael Coren’s next talking point is, “Jesus doesn’t mention homosexuality” with which I dealt in my other article about his assertions.
And it is admission time again with, “As for St. Paul, his very few references,” note the subjective qualifying term “very few,” of what he asserts, “are to straight men using catamites [boys kept for homosexual practices] and to the dangers of pagan initiation rites.”
In other words, he reads texts such as this one, “God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves…God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly…” (Romans 1:24-27) and decides to categorize it as, “using catamites and…pagan initiation rites,” which is clearly incoherent.
Michael Coren notes, “the College of Cardinals has seen some liberal appointees,” with “liberal” meaning “Leftists,” and so “Attitudes may change, courageous clerics may evince more compassion and understanding, but ultimately it will take a revolution in philosophy to shift the Roman Catholic Church away from the status quo.”
Rather, it will take a revolution in theology and/or anthropology (theological anthropology) to make that shift.
You see, he ends with “I wonder if God doesn’t sometimes look down and wonder what all the bloody fuss is about?”
Well, the bloody fuss is about God having created an order for such aspects of human interaction—sensuality, sexuality, cohabitation, family, etc.—and Popes and Revs openly encouraging and celebrating fallen human deconstruction, open rebellion against, God’s perfect will.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.