In a recent statement, the Pope emphasized the deserving nature of gay couples to receive God’s blessings without necessarily endorsing their union. This perspective has raised some concerns, as it appears to single out the LGBTQ community, sparking discussions about the church’s stance on inclusivity and biblical values.
The argument presented questions why specific blessings are directed towards gay individuals rather than embracing a broader message of blessing all sinners, as mentioned in Matthew 5:45. The concern extends beyond the sin of homosexuality to the institutionalization of LGBTQ views within the church, unlike other sins that aren’t similarly advocated. We have never heard of hook-up girls advocating for acceptance or kidnappers setting up structures to fight against discrimination. Even Yahoo boys, with all the fight with EFCC and pronouncements by influential preachers like Pastor David Ibiyeomie, they are yet to come out and ask for acceptance or fight for any kind of right. Only LGBT people want to be given a voice, acceptance, and platforms to force their ideologies on people even in places where nobody cares about anybody’s sexuality.
The Pope advocates that gay couples should receive the benevolent blessings of God, and the Catholic institution should not reject them based on their sexuality. As per his perspective, Catholic priests should bless gay couples without legitimizing their union. My concern with this viewpoint is how it specifically singles out the LGBTQ community, indicating an affinity for them. Every sinner, as Matthew 5:45 suggests, deserves blessings from priests. However, the issue with the LGBTQ community extends beyond the sin of homosexuality to the institutionalization of their views and campaigning for acceptance by the church. Unlike thieves and prostitutes who don’t institutionalize their sins or advocate for acceptance in their sinful identity, there is a show of pride in owning and forming an identity around what God abhors.
It’s not just about the depravity but the arrogance to build communities that challenge the church’s biblical values on sexuality. The question arises: why single out gay people for this blessing? Why not generalize that all sinners can be blessed, including gay people? This seems like a subtle step to normalize homosexuality, with the categorization of this blessing for gay Catholics appearing as virtue-signaling to the LGBTQ community. The term ‘blessing’ is broad, and for unbelieving Christians, the first blessing could be salvation, while for sinful Christians, it could be repentance. The challenge lies in compartmentalizing blessing gay couples while disapproving of their union, suggesting God is interested in every area of their lives except their sexuality.
Solomon leans towards believing that the Pope sympathizes with the LGBTQ community, referencing the Vatican’s stance on allowing trans people to be baptized and serve as godparents. This move, perceived as an effort to be inclusive and less discriminatory, sets the stage for accepting homosexuality. The strategy appears to be eroding the depravity, making it commonplace until there is widespread acceptance of gay marriage in Catholicism.
The author finds it intriguing how people believe they can be more godly than Jesus, pointing out that Jesus associated with thieves and prostitutes, but they were transformed. The last part is often overlooked – calling out sin is not discrimination; it’s godly reproof. Providing platforms for the LGBT community in the church is not inclusivity; it’s deemed an abomination. God’s inclusiveness lies solely in his redemptive plan, and if we aren’t offering them Jesus, offering anything else is considered an error.
