Pope Francis: Homosexuality not a crime

Pope Francis said the Catholic Church can and should work to put an end to laws that criminalize homosexuality.

[svn]

He said it is a sin, but not a crime, calm down people!

[jimakron]

Not a crime under whose authority? The papacy? Under their authority idolatry isn't a crime either. Both are practiced in their religion so why not claim it's not a sin.

[RemFemFaveRaveDJ]

The Pope wants to convert truth. Judge will return, Poe will be held accountable.
Give up your evil inclination and repent of your mortal sin.

[rossellaperry]

This must be a mistake in translation and a misunderstanding . Has this been verified that Pope Francis said this ?

[Kitiwake]

Why are we paraphrasing the pope and then quoting the "human dignity trust" in the same broadcast?

msm spin.

[miguelacevedo]

Being homosexual is not a crime nor a sin, but homosexual acts ARE. There is no problem with how one wants to live life; one can reject the faith and live life how one wants, but what it can't be done is an attempt to reconcile irreconcilable things. The Bible is clear on homosexual acts, there are two options: renounce homosexual acts or renounce the faith. One is free to choose, "as for me and my house, we serve the Lord."

[OdaNobunaga]

It’s not a crime and people that think otherwise are hugely hypocritical of their own religion. Learn to love and not hate.

[joey]

TRUTH
We've misinterpreted the context of biblical passages in the past. Passages of the Bible were used to condone slavery, elevating men over women, and anti-semitism.
The history of Christianity and large elements of the Hebrew Scriptures evince beliefs in a God who seem to bless a great many things we would deem today as sinful. Incest, polygamy, genocide, slavery, just to name a few. And divorce, which was considered to be a sin back then, seems to be acceptable today.

Extensive research has shown us we have yet got it wrong again. The context of homosexuality in the Bible has to do with lust, not love.
For instance, in the passage where it states, "a man should not lie with another man", we go back and look at the translation. The precise Hebrew words in Leviticus 20:13 actually states that the text prohibits a "sexual" relationship between a “man” (ish in Hebrew) and a male (zachar in Hebrew), not between an “ish” and another “ish".In ancient Greek culture, in that world, there was a popular and common social custom of men of a certain class socializing with younger males – in a context where mentoring, socializing, partying, and sexual activities would or could occur between the two groups.
These specific words – “men” and “males” – were used precisely in descriptions of the Greek custom back then because, at that time, only men who were of adult age and of sufficient substance to own land, vote, and marry, could legally be called “men.” Those who were too young to vote, own land, or marry could only be referred to as “males” under Greek law.
So since man>male is a specific term referring to Greek pederasty, then its use in Leviticus 20:13 would make that verse a prohibition of that practice, and not of homosexuality in general.
That would also mean that there is no such condemnation anywhere else in the Torah (Leviticus 18:22 also uses the word zachar, rather than ish).
Similarly, if the verse was meant to refer to adult homosexual behavior, the style of usage in both Leviticus 20 and the earlier Leviticus 18 would require that ish>ish be used, not ish>zachar. The fact that “isha” (woman) is used in both Leviticus verses adds to this.
“An ish should not lie with a zachar as he would with an isha” makes less contextual sense than “an ish should not lie with an ish as he would with an isha".
Since in its Greek meaning that “man>male” signifies a pederastic relationship, and it is this that the Leviticus verses outlaw. Therefore, the correct interpretation of the original text would be, a man shall not sleep with a boy as he does with a woman.

When it was translated into Hebrew, they wrongly changed God"s word to man and man, since they had no pederasty custom.

We also have the romantic relationship between Jonathan and David.
One relevant Bible passage on this issue is 1 Samuel 18:1:
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. (KJV)[20]

Another relevant passage is 2 Samuel 1:26, where David says:
I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (KJV)[21]
(Why a woman? Because women are the only love we have that involves sex).

The story of Ruth and Naomi in the Book of Ruth is also occasionally interpreted by contemporary scholars as the story of a lesbian couple.

Here is a brilliant BISHOP and biblical scholar, who spent a long time researching homosexual passages in the Bible. He has been on many TV programs, including many on ultra-conservative Bill O'Reilly's show.
He gives many sound reasons why we got it wrong in the interpretation. He also found slavery, the elevation of men over women, and antisemitism to be misinterpreted.


And not only this Bishop, a Biblical scholar, but the Pope has come out in support of the LGBT community as well.
Telling Christians they need to ask the LGBT community for forgiveness and apologize.
He also said that they need to be integrated into society.

I have taken the time to pray and research on homosexuality, and abortion, to make sure I get it right. I am not trusting my eternal soul to someone else's interpretations. That is the lazy way to be a Christian.
These decisions will impact other people's lives tremendously. They should not be taken lightly. But unfortunately, if there is no close relationships with an LGBT person, people find it hard to find love in their hearts to make sure they get it right.
The Holy Spirit has spoken to me about this and has brought to me this research and helped me understand it. I have prayed many times to make sure that if I got it wrong to please tell me, but I have always gotten reassurance in return. Basically the Holy Spirit says that when you look Through The Eyes Of Love you can't get it wrong.
So here's where he has led me on other scripture as well.

Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 sound very convincing in including lesbians and gay men in the most dreadful lists of depraved human behavior imaginable.

The fact is that the word translated “homosexual” does not mean “homosexual” and the word translated “effeminate” does not mean "effeminate!”

The English word “homosexual” is a composite word made from a Greek term (homo, “the same”) and a Latin term (sexualis, “sex”). The term “homosexual” is of modern origin and was not used until about 100 years ago. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is parallel to the word “homosexual.” No Bible before the Revised Standard Version in 1946 used “homosexual” in any Bible translation.

The word translated as “homosexual” or “sexual pervert” or some other similar term is Greek ἀρσενοκοίτης arsenokoites, which was formed from two words meaning “male” and “bed.” This word is not found anywhere else in the Bible and has not been found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of Paul’s time. We do not know what it means. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female customers, which was a common practice in the Roman world, as revealed in the excavations at Pompeii and other sites.

When early Greek-speaking Christian preachers condemned homosexuality, they did not use this word. John Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407) preached in Greek against homosexuality, but he never used this word for homosexuals, and when he preached on 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, he did not mention homosexuals. Here's

Also, “Soft” does not mean “effeminate.” The word translated “effeminate” in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is Greek μαλακός malakos and means “soft” or “vulnerable.” The word is translated as “soft” in reference to clothing in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 and as “illness” in Matthew 4:23 and 9:35. It is not used anywhere else in the New Testament and carries no hint of reference to sexual orientation. Malakia (μαλακία) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 probably refers those who are “soft, ” “pliable, ” “unreliable, ” or “without courage or stability.” The translation of malakos as “effeminate” is incorrect, ignorant, degrading to women, and impossible to justify based on ancient usage compared to the meaning of “effeminate” today.

The Bible was first written in the ancient languages of Hebrew and Greek and … not translated into English until 1611. It had been translated into Latin, French, and German prior to being translated into English. None of these translations ever mentioned homosexuality as an interpretation of these Greek words.