pope made homophobic slur

[Revoltingest]

Anything to make the Pope look like the person you want to disagree with all while acknowledging the mistake.

Are you not making him look like the person you want
by giving his mistake no significance?

 

[Rival]

Are you not making him look like the person you want
by giving his mistake no significance?

No, I'm understanding what happened.

I'm an Anglican, not a Roman Catholic.

Stop trying to turn this on me thanks.

He made a mistake, get over it. Stop using it as a stick to bash the RCC with.

 

[Revoltingest]

Stop trying to turn this on me thanks.

Hey, you first made this personal.
I simply reciprocated, albeit more gently.

 

[Secret Chief]

Yes, we need to meet Hitler where he is.

Personally I think instigating genocide is definitely a character failing, even if a person "begins with an anger issue." You clearly want to excuse it.

 

[We Never Know]

I'm glad for you, then. That's not the case here.

Here, Catholic organizations get to make healthcare decisions for non-Catholics. Catholic schools are funded just like secular public schools (but are exempted from the parts of the normal curriculum that are incompatible with Catholic teaching), and Catholic bishops lobby for and against changes to secular law.

... and the governmental and political interference of the RCC here is mild by international standards.

In Canada? Holy moly! Religion way oversteps its boundaries IMO.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's just the usual suspects who want to **** all over the Catholic Church for not being as liberal as they are and throw around words like 'homophobic'.

I don't criticize him for saying what he said. He probably was denouncing the obvious fact that the compulsory ecclesiastical celibacy pushes so many gay men to choose the ecclesiastical career in the RCC.
But they wanted that. The Vatican has always defended it.

 

[viole]

Really? You think Pope Francis is prone to using slurs?

Well, the Vatican apologized, which it very rarely does, for people having been hurt by the use of a word. Which means, he used that word.

Which is is typical of this pope. When on record, he pays lip service to sell an enlightened Catholic Church. For pure marketing reasons, considering the dramatic rate of people leaving it. When he is not, he does exactly what he thinks it needs to be done to change the church. Nothing. Which is exactly what He managed to do, until now.

It is actually amazing that people are so easily fooled by what is probably the worst pope in generations. The previous one was vastly better. At least he was not pretending. And he was an intellectual. So, he was Bach and Mozart, while this one is only tango, at best, lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

If you want to judge the Pope - or anyone else - by how much he's improved or not from his own personal baseline, you go ahead.

It's still reasonable for me - any anyone else who feels like it - to judge him based on whether he makes the world better or worse.

The Pope's positions on LGBTQ issues make the world a worse place. This isn't changed by the fact that if some other bishop had been elected Pope instead of Francis, things would almost certainly be even worse than they are now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't criticize him for saying what he said. He probably was denouncing the obvious fact that the compulsory ecclesiastical celibacy pushes so many gay men to choose the ecclesiastical career in the RCC.

I'd say it's more about systemic intolerance for homosexuality, combined with the priesthood giving socially acceptable cover for a man to be unmarried without being out as gay.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is not. A lot of gay people themselves don't support it, viewing it as a heterosexual institution. Many of them think it's stifling, a way to mimic straights and not good for gay culture.

That was a response to, "Not supporting gay civil marriage is homophobic." That's not a counterargument. What you described is not wanting to participate in the institution of marriage, which describes a lot of straight people as well. The people you describe may even resent gay people getting married, but unless they oppose them having that option, I wouldn't call them homophobic. Heterophobic or marriage-phobic are better descriptions.

But if they DO object to the option, then that is homophobia, and if it a homosexual holding those views, then that is a self-loathing homosexual.

Not supporting gay marriage is not homophobia.

It is to me and lot more people. That attitude opposes the utilitarian principle of facilitating happiness for the maximum number of people. It is based in an irrational opinion that is destructive to a class of largely law-abiding people - the definition of bigotry. That an adherent doesn't actually feel hatred doesn't mean that the attitude isn't wrong and destructive. That his church teaches him that and he just wants to be a good Catholic doesn't excuse or forgive it. He still needs to hear why his attitude harms people. You need to hear that.

the RCC is allowed to set its own standards

Yes, and others are free to oppose and denounce them.

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

Disagree. A humanist will judge him by humanist standards as this one is doing now.

Anything to make the Pope look like the person you want to disagree with

The Pope does that himself. I disagree with the Pope. I disapprove of his message. As I indicated, I consider it homophobic and destructive. It doesn't matter that the Pope is a gentle old man who is more progressive than his predecessors and feels no antipathy for gay people. You want to excuse his message because of those things, but that's not good enough for me.

You asked, "What do you people want from him? He's already apologized." We want him and his church to fully embrace homosexuality. I realize that that is an unrealistic desire, but until he does, he should expect blowback. If that makes his life more difficult or the lives of Catholics less comfortable, that's fine. The church does that to many and can be subject to a little moral castigation itself.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

no one should have to worry about every distasteful remark someone might say which expresses their true opinion for fear of offending someone somewhere.

Why not? I think that everyone SHOULD be concerned with what offends others. That doesn't mean that nobody should be offended. I don't mind offending those that disagree with the opinions I've written here, because I think that they are wrong, they are hurtful, they need to know that, and if they care, modify their behavior.

if homosexuality is to be respected we might start by legitimizing the feelings of those who disagree with its practice instead of labeling them homophobic or hate mongers

Disagree. Their feelings aren't legitimate.

If homosexuality is to be respected by all, we need to speak to the ones who don't respect a homosexual person's right to being loved and accepted by his or her community. What some of us including me are doing here is pushing back against institutionalized homophobia. We want to make such opinions disappear.

That begins with making them uncomfortable to express. We won't change too many of those minds, but they will generate fewer copies of themselves the more they are intimidated to express such opinions. That's how it's proceeding with racism as well. We don't cure racists. We replace them with people that have never been made to hate in the first place. These ideas, like scientific paradigms, evolve one funeral at a time.

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.

Agreed. Doesn't this contradict what you just wrote about soliciting these people's sympathy? That's not going to happen for the reasons you just gave.

Religion isn't supposed to ensure everyone is comfortable.

And outsides have no duty to make the Pope or his adherents comfortable.

I've got gay friends that I strongly disagree with, including their lifestyle but they certainly don't consider me homophobic....that I know of

If they know that you disapprove of who they love or have sex with, then you are seen as functionally homophobic even if not explicitly so. This is how I view the religionists who disparage atheists. They're atheophobic whether they say so explicitly or not. They object to what I am, what I believe, and how I live. If I feel that way about the faithful who have learned to be bigoted against atheists, I imagine your gay friends feel the same way, and I doubt that they are friends. They may be friendly acquaintances who enjoy your company, but if they know that you "strongly disagree" with who and what they are, you shouldn't expect them to have your back.

What isn't a homophobic slur if it shows dissention or disagreement with that lifestyle?

Nothing. Dissent and disagreement with a gay person being him- or herself is homophobia. I know that you disagree. I know that @Rival disagrees. And there are a growing number of people who disagree with you both.

 

[Rival]

That was a response to, "Not supporting gay civil marriage is homophobic." That's not a counterargument. What you described is not wanting to participate in the institution of marriage, which describes a lot of straight people as well. The people you describe may even resent gay people getting married, but unless they oppose them having that option, I wouldn't call them homophobic. Heterophobic or marriage-phobic are better descriptions.

But if they DO object to the option, then that is homophobia, and if it a homosexual holding those views, then that is a self-loathing homosexual.

It is to me and lot more people. That attitude opposes the utilitarian principle of facilitating happiness for the maximum number of people. It is based in an irrational opinion that is destructive to a class of largely law-abiding people - the definition of bigotry. That an adherent doesn't actually feel hatred doesn't mean that the attitude isn't wrong and destructive. That his church teaches him that and he just wants to be a good Catholic doesn't excuse or forgive it. He still needs to hear why his attitude harms people. You need to hear that.

Yes, and others are free to oppose and denounce them.

Disagree. A humanist will judge him by humanist standards as this one is doing now.

The Pope does that himself. I disagree with the Pope. I disapprove of his message. As I indicated, I consider it homophobic and destructive. It doesn't matter that the Pope is a gentle old man who is more progressive than his predecessors and feels no antipathy for gay people. You want to excuse his message because of those things, but that's not good enough for me.

You asked, "What do you people want from him? He's already apologized." We want him and his church to fully embrace homosexuality. I realize that that is an unrealistic desire, but until he does, he should expect blowback. If that makes his life more difficult or the lives of Catholics less comfortable, that's fine. The church does that to many and can be subject to a little moral castigation itself.

Good thing I think Utilitarianism is absolute garbage.

I didn't know people stlil followed that nonsense.

 

[Rival]

You asked, "What do you people want from him? He's already apologized." We want him and his church to fully embrace homosexuality. I

Yeah, I get you want the civilized world to embrace barbarism. We don't.

 

[Eddi]

Good thing I think Utilitarianism is absolute garbage.

I didn't know people stlil followed that nonsense.

Why don't you like it?

I think the greatest good for the greatest number is a good guiding principle

 

[Rival]

Why don't you like it?

I think the greatest good for the greatest number is a good guiding principle

1. How do you define 'good'?

2. How do you know when you've reached the 'greatest'?

3. How does it work for those who are not part of the system - the greatest number statistically are heterosexuals, so I find it odd that homosexuals would use this argument.

4. How do you stop the tyranny of the majority? If a greatest number of people vote to allow sex with minors, for example? (There are many countries with no age of consent).

5. How does this take into account disabled people? For example, Iceland has dealt with Down Syndrome by effectively aborting all Downs babies. Is that the greatest happiness for those with the disease?

6. At one point, the greatest good included racial segregation in many places, and the greatest number agreed. Ditto slavery and other things.

I do not believe it is a good system at all.

 

[Secret Chief]

barbarism

Are you describing homosexuality as this?

 

[Rival]

Are you describing homosexuality as this?

My beliefs keep being called homophobic, so I can call the idea of SSM and so on barbaric.

Sounds fair to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My beliefs keep being called homophobic, so I can call the idea of SSM and so on barbaric.

Sounds fair to me.

If it's accurate. Why do you think it's accurate?

 

[Rival]

If it's accurate. Why do you think it's accurate?

I don't believe my beliefs being labelled homophobic is accurate, so I've no need to justify my label to you.

 

[SalixIncendium]

My beliefs keep being called homophobic, so I can call the idea of SSM and so on barbaric.

Sounds fair to me.

Because retaliation is the quickest way to deescalate conflict.