How can the Pope's recent actions not be viewed as condoning homosexuality?

My answer isn't very deep, but I find Pope Francis to be more about the spirit than the letter, and maybe this verse is helpful in understanding where he is coming from, out-of-context or not:

Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

1 Peter 4:8

I wouldn't say he is doing anything to "favor" gay marriage, but to simply accept it.

Addition / Response to Hello's comments:

While I can understand the expectation that all God's rules must be respected, this is not unprecedented. There are so many things from the Old Testament that are no longer adhered to because they are 'politically incorrect' (or simply millennia-outdated):

• Slavery being normal/ok, exchanging people for money
• Not being allowed to wear clothes of 2 materials
• A long list of actions punishable by death/stoning/burning
• And on an on!

This is another thing that will pass due to the changes in values of the modern world. Discrimination against gays is a huge reason young people are leaving/ignoring the church. This is a pragmatic and not unprecedented move that it could be said is being done for the greater good: If they give up their faith for their love (in which they hurt no one but (ostensibly) themselves) or in support of others' love, then they may be lost.

There is no clear rejection of h*m*sexuality in the New Testament: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_h*m*sexuality#New_Testament

According to catholic.com (not sure how this lines up with the official position), Old Testament law is 'fulfilled' and no longer binding: http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law

I guess I'm coming at this from a different direction than you, though, so this may not be particularly helpful to you, sorry!

How can the Catholic Pope be justified in his comments of 'hinting at' changes to be made soon regarding Catholic doctrine regarding h*m*sexuality, the hints suggest that the Catholic church rules will be changed to favor h*m*sexual relationships?

There is no scriptural or Catholic Church teaching that can justify this perception of the Pope.

Can someone show from scripture where the Pope is finding his support, which passages say that Christianity and same sex h*m*sexual relationships are condoned by God?

Only the Pope can explain his behavior especially as you point out, it seems contrary to scripture and Church teaching.

My answer is, the New Covenant or Testament in Christ and the canon books that explain it do not have any scripture condoning h*m*sexual attraction, h*m*sexual relationship and especially not h*m*sexual marriage. The New Testament clearly states h*m*sexuality is against God's plans and rules for marriage and sex.

When speaking about marriage in Mathew, Jesus Himself drew the picture for what marriage should be and why, and who could have one. He comments show that marriage is only for the two opposite sexes, and that it was God's design and plan, His idea to create marriage and give it to us.

Not only is h*m*sexuality listed as a huge no-no in the New Covenant Testament canon books, BUT EVEN effeminacy is on a list of equally huge no-no's for men. The Old Testament laws were given to the Jews by God, for them, not for us. We are of the New Covenant, and it's rules apply to us.

The New Covenant clearly says h*m*sexual anything is completely 'out' for Christians, and even effeminacy for male Christians is on a list with other things, the do-ers of which in no wise enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Be Warned! Don't be deceived! Even by leaders of churches. Romans 1:26-27[edit]

Saint Paul writing his Epistles In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 (English Majority Text Version, EMTV), Paul writes

“ For this reason,(idolatry) God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error 1 Corinthians 6:9-10[edit]

Wycliffe Bible (1382): "Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men"

King James Version (1611): "Know ye not that 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"

Amplified Version (1987): "Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in h*m*sexuality"

1 Timothy 1:9-10[edit]

Wycliffe Bible (1382): "..and witting this thing, that the law is not set to a just man, but to unjust men and not subject, to wicked men and to sinners, to cursed men and defouled, to slayers of father, and slayers of mother, to manslayers [witting this thing, that the law is not put to a just man, but to an unjust and not subject, to unpious men and sinners, to cursed men and defouled, to slayers of fathers, and slayers of mothers, to menslayers] and lechers, to them that do lechery with men, lying-mongers and forsworn, and if any other thing is contrary to the wholesome teaching."

King James Version (1611): "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For who*emongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine"

Amplified Version (1987): Knowing and understanding this: that the Law is not enacted for the righteous (the upright and just, who are in right standing with God), but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinful, for the irreverent and profane, for those who strike and beat and [even] murder fathers and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers, for manslayers,[For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnapers, liars, perjurers--and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine

Jude 1:7[edit]

Variation in translation[edit]

King James Version: Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

New International Version: In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

King James Bible Know ye not that 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,

Even though he is the Pope, He cannot be justified in condoning h*m*sexuality in any way shape or form, for a Christian.

The article the original poster referenced itself has a link that explains reasons why Pope Francis may have decided to concelebrate Mass with Fr. De Paolis and kiss his hand. For the benefit of readers, here is a summary of the analysis offered by this article:

Possibility #1: Pope Francis did not know about De Paolis’ pro-gay activism

In the first place, it is possible that Pope Francis was himself unaware of De Paolis’ pro-gay activism. As LSN’s [LifeSiteNews'] original report stated, De Paolis officially met with Francis in his capacity as the founder of the Emmaus Community in the southern Italian city of Foggia, an organization that assists the poor and those suffering from AIDS – in other words, a commendable outreach.

[...]

Possibility #2: Pope Francis knew who the priest was, and was reaching out to him in mercy

On the other hand, it is possible that Francis and his handlers knew about De Paolis’ advocacy, but decided to arrange a meeting as an opportunity for the pontiff to reach out to the wayward priest as an act of mercy.

[...]

(The article mentions that St. Francis of Assisi, the pope's namesake, made a similar gesture toward a wayward priest, kissing his hand, and thus moving the priest to repentance.)

Possibility #3: Pope Francis intended the meeting as some kind of an endors*m*nt of De Paolis’ work

The third possibility is that the pope knew of De Paolis’ pro-gay activism, but decided to meet with him anyway as a sign of respect either despite or even because of that activism. However, given the gravity of such an allegation, and how little is known about the meeting, there is clearly insufficient evidence to propose this as the best interpretation.

The third possibility is exceedingly unlikely, because Pope Francis has reiterated that he believes in the Church's traditional teaching on matters such as h*m*sexuality. (For an excellent analysis of the now famous "who am I to judge" quote and the Pope's answer, see the blog post entitled "Judge Not" by Tim Staples.) Pope Francis, in his interview with Civiltà Cattolica in September, 2013, said clearly:

We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

Despite affirming that, for pastoral reasons, he has "not spoken much" about matters such as abortion and h*m*sexuality, as archbishop of Buenos Aires, he opposed h*m*sexual marriage quite forcefully, albeit quietly and indirectly. In his letter to the Carmelites in Buenos Aires, he says,

Do not be naive: it is not a simple political struggle [i.e., the attempt to legalize same-sex marriage]; it is the destructive attempt toward God's plan. It is not a mere legislative project (this is only the instrument) but a ''movement'' of the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God. Jesus tells us that to defend ourselves against this lying accuser, he will send us the Spirit of Truth.

I think the other questions of the original poster are dealt with very well in the other answers: in short, neither the Bible nor the teaching of the Catholic Church condones h*m*sexual acts or same-sex marriages. Naturally, the outlook of a Christian in the face of persons with same-sex attractions—even those who engage in h*m*sexual behavior—must be one of mercy and understanding, never condemnation.

(Edit, in order to answer the O.P.'s expansion of his question.)

Regarding Hint 1

It is true that the Pope would like to open a discussion regarding the possibility of accepting a certain kind of civil union, providing benefits similar to that of civil marriage, that h*m*sexual couples could take advantage of. Regarding this point, some very important clarifications need to be made:

• As the Pope himself mentions in his interview with the Corriere della Sera, such a discussion would never put in doubt the Church's fundamental teaching about marriage: that it can only be between a man and a woman.

• The Church would still, therefore, consider a sexual union between persons of the same sex as objectively gravely sinful under all circumstances.

• There is, however, nothing intrinsically wrong in allowing two persons (whatever their condition) to enter into a contract that would govern their taxation, inheritance, and other civil effects. The reason that it might be acceptable is to avoid greater injustices. (For example, if someone's h*m*sexual partner dies suddenly, the law in some countries would otherwise not permit the remaining partner to inherit the house; possibly, he may find that he has nowhere to live.)

• Nevertheless, this discussion does not represent a retreat, in any way, regarding the Church's view of the immorality of h*m*sexual practices.

Regarding Hint 2

The text reported here is only the temporary working document of the recent synod on the family. Most of what it says is reasonable, but there are a number of questionable passages. For example,

50. Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community. Are we capable of providing for these people, guaranteeing [...] them [...] a place of fellowship in our communities? Oftentimes, they want to encounter a Church which offers them a welcoming home.

This is not a false statement, but it does not mention that it is important not to cross the line to endorsing behaviors (i.e., h*m*sexual acts) that are in fact harmful to the very persons involved. The Church does not "endorse" h*m*sexual acts for the same reason that parents do not "endorse" having their children run across the street in heavy traffic.

(50 cont'd.) Are our communities capable of this, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

"Sexual orientation" is a problematic term, because it implies that the two fundamental "orientations" (h*m*sexual and heterosexual) are equivalent. However, in fact, they are not. In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, h*m*sexual desires and actions are to be viewed as "objectively disordered" (No. 2358). Official Church documents (which do not include this relatio post disceptationem) avoid that term altogether.

52. Without denying the moral problems associated with h*m*sexual unions, there are instances where mutual assistance to the point of sacrifice is a valuable support in the life of these persons.

This statement could be interpreted as meaning that h*m*sexual unions have elements of value to those involved. It neglects to mention that, although there may be some superficial benefits, such unions, in fact, are always gravely harmful to those who take part.

Because of problems such as these, this relatio was essentially tabled by the synod fathers. Therefore, it has no authority whatsoever in the Church.

Much more nuanced and balanced is the Holy Father's final discourse at the end of the synod.

Regarding Hint 3

Those who released the relatio were not held responsible, but then again, neither were those (in the majority) who reacted against its problematic portions. It was not a clear-cut case of dissent against the Magisterium, either, since the language employed is ambiguous.

Number 55 of the final report, which is the only one that regards h*m*sexuality directly, is actually quite balanced (even though it garnered only 118 out of 181 votes):

Some families have members who have a h*m*sexual tendency. In this regard, the synod fathers asked themselves what pastoral attention might be appropriate for them in accordance with the Church’s teaching: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering h*m*sexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.”Nevertheless, men and women with a h*m*sexual tendency ought to be received with respect and sensitivity. “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” [quoting "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," 4, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith].

No. 56, which did gain a "supermajority," condemns pressuring countries to adopt same-sex marriage by threatening to cut off financial aid:

Exerting pressure in this regard on the Pastors of the Church is totally unacceptable: this is equally so for international organizations who link their financial assistance to poorer countries with the introduction of laws which establish “marriage” between persons of the same sex.