A day after Popocalypse 2013 happened, we have the actual transcript of the remarks that got journalists worldwide going. And it's safe to say that a quick read of it gives a different impression than the headlines or tweets that blasted out the news. But, hey, we are a culture of tweets and headlines, not contextualized remarks, so does it even matter? If it matters to you, here's the relevant discussion on the Vatican's "gay lobby." Actually, let's go ahead and look at them here:
The question posed to Pope Francis was:
Ilse: I would like to ask permission to pose a rather delicate question. Another image that went around the world is that of Monsignor Ricca and the news about his personal life. I would like to know, your Holiness, what will be done about this question. How should one deal with this question and how does your Holiness wish to deal with the whole question of the gay lobby?
Here is Pope Francis' answer:
Regarding the matter of Monsignor Ricca, I did what Canon Law required and did the required investigation. And from the investigation, we did not find anything corresponding to the accusations against him. We found none of that. That is the answer. But I would like to add one more thing to this: I see that so many times in the Church, apart from this case and also in this case, one looks for the “sins of youth,” for example, is it not thus?, And then these things are published. These things are not crimes. The crimes are something else: child abuse is a crime. But sins, if a person, or secular priest or a nun, has committed a sin and then that person experienced conversion, the Lord forgives and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very important for our lives. When we go to confession and we truly say “I have sinned in this matter,” the Lord forgets and we do not have the right to not forget because we run the risk that the Lord will not forget our sins, eh? This is a danger. This is what is important: a theology of sin. So many times I think of St. Peter: he committed one of the worst sins denying Christ. And with this sin they made him Pope. We must think about fact often.
But returning to your question more concretely: in this case [Ricca] I did the required investigation and we found nothing. That is the first question. Then you spoke of the gay lobby. Agh… so much is written about the gay lobby. I have yet to find on a Vatican identity card the word gay. They say there are some gay people here. I think that when we encounter a gay person, we must make the distinction between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of a lobby, because lobbies are not good. They are bad. If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge that person? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this point beautifully but says, wait a moment, how does it say, it says, these persons must never be marginalized and “they must be integrated into society.”
The problem is not that one has this tendency; no, we must be brothers, this is the first matter. There is another problem, another one: the problem is to form a lobby of those who have this tendency, a lobby of the greedy people, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of Masons, so many lobbies. This is the most serious problem for me. And thank you so much for doing this question. Thank you very much!
So many interesting things to reflect on, upon seeing a bit of context. For example, why did so many media outlets omit the few words between "If a person is gay" and "who am I to judge that person?" Or why was his appeal to the catechism elided or ignored? Not the biggest deal in the world, but interesting. My point, made yesterday, seems vindicated with Francis' line "This is what is important: a theology of sin. So many times I think of St. Peter: he committed one of the worst sins denying Christ. And with this sin they made him Pope. We must think about fact often."
Very Christian stuff here. Breaking: Pope Catholic. So let's look at how the New York Times views these remarks:
On Gay Priests, Pope Francis Asks, ‘Who Am I to Judge?’
ROME — For generations, homosexuality has largely been a taboo topic for the Vatican, ignored altogether or treated as “an intrinsic moral evil,” in the words of the previous pope.
In that context, brief remarks by Pope Francis suggesting that he would not judge priests for their sexual orientation, made aboard the papal airplane on the way back from his first foreign trip, to Brazil, resonated through the church. Never veering from church doctrine opposing homosexuality, Francis did strike a more compassionate tone than that of his predecessors, some of whom had largely avoided even saying the more colloquial “gay.”
For those readers paying attention at home, yes, Francis really used the English word "gay" while speaking otherwise in Italian. It's an interesting lede, eh? More for what it says about the Times than what it says about Francis. The same story could have begun: "Condemning homosexuals acts as sinful, Pope Francis repeats the call of previous popes and the Catechism of the Catholic Church to treat homosexuals with dignity." That it doesn't say that tells us something interesting about journalists' reaction to Francis.
Elizabeth Scalia had a really interesting take on that over at First Things where she praised the media coverage, in a way.
[N]othing Francis actually said about homosexuality was new. In fact, in these two quotes Francis is doing nothing more than pronouncing long-standing Catholic teaching on homosexuality, sin, and the mercy of God.
Let that sink in for a moment: A pope is teaching the Christian faith, and the press is accurately quoting him, in blazing headlines that everyone will read.
I completely agree with Scalia. It's kind of cool that Francis is getting the media to report on Christian teaching of the forgiveness of sins. For that miracle alone, he should be canonized in a few decades. For just one example of this, check out this NBC News report.
Anyway, back to the New York Times story. It mentions that, technically, Francis was keeping to Catholic teaching but it doesn't actually quote anyone who holds that view. Instead, lots of space is given to the idea that using the term "gay" instead of "homosexual" is "revolutionary." People who hold that view are quoted.
For more on how the media view Francis and predecessor (I'd caution against taking this as terribly much more than that), this is an instructive sentence:
While Benedict, the shy theologian, focused more on ethics and advocated a purer church, even if it might end up being smaller, Francis was elected for his belief that the Catholic Church must engage in dialogue with the world — even with those it disagrees with — if it wants to stay vibrant and relevant.
For more on how revolutionary Francis is:
Francis said that homosexuals should be treated with dignity, and that no one should be subjected to blackmail or pressure because of sexual orientation.
It almost sounds familiar.
... men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies ... must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
One story that handled all of this context and put the same comments in the context of traditional church teaching can be found over at Religion News Service.
P.S. Have any reporters explained that Mason reference?