• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

pope made homophobic slur

setarcos

The hopeful or the hopeless?
if an organization threatens its members with a fate worse than death for leaving, it has a moral and ethical obligation to ensure that they're comfortable with staying... even if the organization's leadership objects to it.
First of all...that organization -as the theory dictates- is not in charge of dictating the consequences. God is. (In their understanding)
Second it would be illogical to presume it is moral/ethical for an organization to break its own rules which it sees as governed by moral/ethical imperatives in order for specific members to feel more comfortable whatever that may entail.
Should that be the case that organization would rapidly degenerate into anything goes as long as it feels good and isn't a hardship in anyway for anyone.
Religion isn't supposed to ensure everyone is comfortable. Personal comfort while in this state of things is temporary and illusory.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Guys...come on...
the word he used...I mean...half of Italy has been laughing since this early morning. Non-stop.
;)
I guess he (allegedly) used a slur that means to target those passive, feminized priests.

Maybe implying that those hyper-masculine active gays are okay?

I mean..according to a book written by a journalist, a Monsignor makes his "nocturnal pals" call him Jessica.
Sounds like he meant to say "effeminacy".
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
That I understand, I was trying to draw a comparison that just because you "didn't know" something, doesn't absolve one of the fact they screwed up. Which seems to be the sentiment given here repeatedly.
Of course. And my point was only that, when we do know that we've screwed up, and apologize and seek forgiveness, my first inclination is always to give that forgiveness. The asking and the giving has the effect of removing a hurt from all hearts, which makes the world just a little bit better.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
First of all...that organization -as the theory dictates- is not in charge of dictating the consequences. God is. (In their understanding)

In the Catholic view, it's both.

Even if the Church considers something sinful, Catholic doctrine holds that priests have the power to forgive sins. "What you bind and loose on Earth will be bound in Heaven" and all that.

Second it would be illogical to presume it is moral/ethical for an organization to break its own rules which it sees as governed by moral/ethical imperatives in order for specific members to feel more comfortable whatever that may entail.

It's not illogical.

It's effectively an extension of the rules of hospitality: if you invite a guest in, you're obliged to make them comfortable. This applies even more when the guest is not only invited, but compelled to stay.

If an organization's own rules don't allow them to behave hospitably, they shouldn't bring people in.

Should that be the case that organization would rapidly degenerate into anything goes as long as it feels good and isn't a hardship in anyway for anyone.

Yes. That would be one way to resolve their ethical obligation. The other way would be to adjust their teachings and practices so that all members always feel free to leave and all are there completely voluntarily.

Religion isn't supposed to ensure everyone is comfortable. Personal comfort while in this state of things is temporary and illusory.

The organization's leaders can tell themselves this if they feel discomfort at setting aside their organization's rules to behave ethically.
 

Secret Chief

Degrow!
Because we need to judge people by their own standards, not a pre-judged standard.

For example, if someone begins with an anger issue, we judge that person by how well he has dealt with this issue. If we know a person known for patience, we would judge him far more harshly for angry outbursts than the person with the anger management issue.

The Pope is to be judged according to his own doctrine and theology, rather than what we ourselves believe.

We take people as they are and go from there.
Must...not...confirm Godwin's...Law...
 

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
Must...not...confirm Godwin's...Law...
I'm quite drunk and genuinely not sure what you are getting at, but what I have suggested is standard Jewish theology. We are judged by our own standards and taken from there to better standards. We meet people where they are.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Nazis but I've had a lot of rum and I generally disagree with you.
 

Secret Chief

Degrow!
I'm quite drunk and genuinely not sure what you are getting at, but what I have suggested is standard Jewish theology. We are judged by our own standards and taken from there to better standards. We meet people where they are.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Nazis but I've had a lot of rum and I generally disagree with you.
"Because we need to judge people by their own standards, not a pre-judged standard."
Hitler.
 

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
"Because we need to judge people by their own standards, not a pre-judged standard."
Hitler.
Yes, we need to meet Hitler where he is.

He has a reason for his beliefs. You can disagree with them, but failing to understand them will lead to further problems.

Unless you just assume he's mental, which isn't helpful.
 
Last edited:

setarcos

The hopeful or the hopeless?
It can be both innate and learned. Humans have both innate responses and remarkably plastic brains.
Agreed...and I believe some literally have plastic brains. My opinion.
Their abhorrence is personal and if they voice it they should be ready for the consequences of their actions. People have personal abhorrences for a lot of things but don't voice them out of respect. It is natural to have an abhorrence to disease, but we don't call out people in public who have diseases.
Not sure how you mean personal? All human action is personal at some level. Even coming from those who robotically claim to be acting on behalf of someone else's desires not their own.
I agree, you should be ready for the consequences of your actions. That goes for both sides of the issue. Instinctual or not.
All too often people sacrifice their own abhorrence of something to the god of sentimentality in an attempt to avoid offence. And all too often our attempts end in catastrophe and the inevitable realization of what we were trying to avoid.
What one should prepare for is inevitably being offended. Productive debate offends.

The offender needs to expect offence and realize that the offended and what is offensive to them is their personal, natural inclination to defend against the death of their own opinion.
We struggle to survive and live but even ideas struggle toward survival through legitimacy in being true. A false opinion is death for an idea and we all wish to see what we birthed in an idea survive and thrive.
Deliberate offence is solely a reflection of the offenders failure.

The offended should realize that the offender often does not intend nor cannot help but offend in a discussion of a disagreement.
Deliberate delegitimizing of those who offend us is the sole failure of the offended.

The problem is that in attempting to respect someone else's sentiments by sacrificing our own we are ironically losing the ability to respectfully speak to each other instead of at each other or over each other. We delegitimize -not the true opinion of the person since it may not be one- but the condition that person formulated their opinion in.
It is natural to abhor disease, I agree. But its worse to ignore it. To ignore it leaves both parties unnecessarily uncomfortable and distressed. It establishes a barrier that need not be one.
None of the "handicapped" people I know or have heard interviewed on similar subjects would wish their affliction to be ignored but rather acknowledged and accepted for what it is.
One should acknowledge, one should accept the state of the condition, and one should help improve that state if possible. The condition then ceases to become a barrier between, which leaves room to build a bridge between, which then creates the possibility for improving everyone's condition for the better- hopefully towards a true opinion.

Reaction, especially instinctual reaction is sometimes quite hard for some people to restrain.
I agree with you that when one is able, the respect given should be in the form of productive restraint. However IF one has strong convictions on what is moral/ethical -a correct opinion or not- one is obligated to not "respect" that which dictates the actions of those your in disagreement with through legitimization until such time as true opinion can be established. Else one simply disrespects and delegitimizes ones own opinion and no progress is made.
For instance a psychopathic serial killer may find killing people useful (get rid of witnesses), satisfying (fulfills an impulse), and even twistedly ethically acceptable (it gets rid of the undesirables -homeless people or sex workers) leaving more resources for the more desirables.
Should I in any way respect the serial killers opinions?
You might consider that example an extreme but the nuances of what and how we respect and legitimize something is similar.
Should we respect and legitimize the actions of another if we are of the opinion that it is harmful to them or others?
Should we respect an opinion that may be false or one that insists on not being offended or should we place our respect in the person who is willing to take a journey with you in order to find true opinion regardless of personal offense?
How rightfully?
The emphasis is on the "if". Hypothetically if we condemn those who instinctually are against homosexuality then, all else being equal, we would be in the right to condemn homosexuality that is a reflection of instinctual drives. If A=B whatever A is subject to B should be as well.
This makes no sense in a modern civil society where many of our instincts are quelled in order to live together. It is far more likely that what you speak of is a learned behavior more so than homosexuality is.
Why is it far more likely? Civil society may to some extent mediate how we react to certain triggers but it in no way dictates what it is that stimulates us to react. The two things are in different classifications.
Be that as it may...if one can learn to hate homosexuality, one can also learn to be homosexual.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The pope made an horrendous homophobic slur


I'm not angry I'm disappointed

It sends out the wrong message, that such language is acceptable

He should have known better

Shame on him!
Carefully managed people still
sometimes allow their true colors
to bleed out into the open.
No real surprise here.
 
Top