pope made homophobic slur

[Rival]

His other statements are being taken into account; that's the problem.

For **** sake.

I guess nothing really is good enough.

He's literally the most inclusive Pope ever. Why is this not good enough? What the hell do you want?

I mean really, what do you want the RCC to do?

To be as sexually liberal as you are? **** whoever you want?

The RCC does not do this, you know that. I mean honestly what do you want? To blow it all away? What?

 

[The Hammer]

Again, it's been established as a likely error.

I shouldn't need to repeat this, the article itself says it.

“The Pope never intended to offend or express himself in homophobic terms, and he apologizes to those who felt offended by the use of a term reported by others,” Bruni said

This isn't an apology.

 

[Rival]

“The Pope never intended to offend or express himself in homophobic terms, and he apologizes to those who felt offended by the use of a term reported by others,” Bruni said

This isn't an apology.

No, because nothing is ever good enough.

I realize this now.

 

[Secret Chief]

So you believe that all marriages between atheists are not really marriages, or meaningful? What is it that religion adds to a marriage that makes it "real?"

My marriage isn't meaningful but we had a lovely afternoon tea with friends after the meaningless ceremony.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And? Your point?

Making a mistake/accident doesn't lessen the consequences. Ask anyone ever convicted of a law they didn't know existed. Tough ****. You still get charged.

He did not commit a criminal offense, so there can be no charge. Further, he apologized.

Now, it's over to us. We can forgive or not, that is up to us. But whichever we choose says more about us than it does about the Pope and his error.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As an aside:

On that, my personal opinion is that 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.

IMO, an organization is only morally and ethically free to set its own standards for its members if those members are free to leave when they don't want to follow those standards.

IOW: if you force people to stay with threats of Hell for leaving, then you oblige yourself to take those people as they are.

Now... this isn't anything I would enforce by law. It's just another way that I note that many religious organizations behave unethically.

Really -- excellent points!

 

[Secret Chief]

Obviously? People's views dictate what they do.

We can't exactly outlaw this.

The point was the RCC has influence in a manner more extensive than you claimed. Mogg's voting is but one example of that influence.

 

[The Hammer]

He did not commit a criminal offense, so there can be no charge. Further, he apologized.

Now, it's over to us. We can forgive or not, that is up to us. But whichever we choose says more about us than it does about the Pope and his error.

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.

 

[setarcos]

Homosexuality is not a "lifestyle" option

It is an innate sexual orientation

Yeah...been down that road and I can't definitively disagree with you...it does seem to be little more than a fad faze with some people though.
I've literally heard people talk about using their college time for instance as a period to explore their sexuality. As if one goes through a period in which they are free to experiment like nothing has purpose or meaning other than for the experience.
However...have you considered that IF its an innate sexual orientation which we should sympathize with - or perhaps respect is a better term - that is may just be that some people have an innate abhorrence to that orientation that should also be respected?
Perhaps it shouldn't be labeled homophobic but instinctual then? Should we condemn what is instinctual? If so then we are back to the possibility of rightfully condemning homosexuality.
I'm not sure how we should resolve such things other than starting by trying to understand why someone is behaving in a manner that someone else deems to be homophobic.

 

[Yerda]

The pope made an horrendous homophobic slur

Well, I'm sure this won't lead to any disagreement.

 

[Eddi]

Yeah...been down that road and I can't definitively disagree with you...it does seem to be little more than a fad faze with some people though.
I've literally heard people talk about using their college time for instance as a period to explore their sexuality. As if one goes through a period in which they are free to experiment like nothing has purpose or meaning other than for the experience.
However...have you considered that IF its an innate sexual orientation which we should sympathize with - or perhaps respect is a better term - that is may just be that some people have an innate abhorrence to that orientation that should also be respected?
Perhaps it shouldn't be labeled homophobic but instinctual then? Should we condemn what is instinctual? If so then we are back to the possibility of rightfully condemning homosexuality.
I'm not sure how we should resolve such things other than starting by trying to understand why someone is behaving in a manner that someone else deems to be homophobic.

If homosexuality is a lifestyle option rather than an innate sexual orientation then heterosexuality is too......

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For **** sake.

I guess nothing really is good enough.

He's literally the most inclusive Pope ever. Why is this not good enough? What the hell do you want?

I don't judge the Pope by the standard of other Popes. I judge him by the same standard as any other world leader.

I mean really, what do you want the RCC to do?

To be as sexually liberal as you are? **** whoever you want?

A good start would be for them to not attempt to interfere in the legal rights of non-Catholics.

The RCC does not do this, you know that. I mean honestly what do you want? To blow it all away? What?

I don't expect that the Catholic Church cares much about the opinions of a random atheist on the internet. My main personal goal regarding the Catholic Church is to get them out of of the business of making decisions about public healthcare and public education in Ontario.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For **** sake.

I guess nothing really is good enough.

He's literally the most inclusive Pope ever. Why is this not good enough? What the hell do you want?

I don't judge the Pope by the standard of other Popes. I judge him by the same standard as any other world leader.

I mean really, what do you want the RCC to do?

To be as sexually liberal as you are? **** whoever you want?

A good start would be for them to not attempt to interfere in the legal rights of non-Catholics.

The RCC does not do this, you know that. I mean honestly what do you want? To blow it all away? What?

I don't expect that the Catholic Church cares much about the opinions of a random atheist on the internet. My main personal goal regarding the Catholic Church is to get them out of of the business of making decisions about public healthcare and public education in Ontario.

 

[Rival]

I don't judge the Pope by the standard of other Popes. I judge him by the same standard as any other world leader.

That's unfair.

A good start would be for them to not attempt to interfere in the legal rights of non-Catholics.

Sure.

I don't expect that the Catholic Church cares much about the opinions of a random atheist on the internet. My main personal goal regarding the Catholic Church is to get them out of of the business of making decisions about public healthcare and public education in Ontario.

Fine.

 

[setarcos]

If homosexuality is a lifestyle option rather than an innate sexual orientation then heterosexuality is too......

That is a logical fallacy. That aside...I didn't nor do insist that homosexuality is merely a lifestyle choice. It may very well be a hard wired sexual orientation determinant. However, that alone does not indicate its inevitable practice. If it did then every little urge that somebody has would have to be acted out. No addiction could ever be restrained. No fantasy subdued. No criminal action rejected. That's not to categorize homosexuality in any particular light but you get my meaning.
Lifestyle choice or innate orientation...neither predisposes someone from acting upon such impulses or not acting upon them. So all else being equal I'm not sure what your point is here.
I have my reasonings for how I categorize homosexuality but the main point is, 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

 

[Eddi]

That is a logical fallacy.

No it isn't

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's unfair.

Why is it unfair?

He has influence over billions and purports to be a head of state. Why should he be held to a lower standard than, say, Justin Trudeau?

 

[Rival]

Why is it unfair?

He has influence over billions and purports to be a head of state. Why should he be held to a lower standard than, say, Justin Trudeau?

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.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yeah...been down that road and I can't definitively disagree with you...it does seem to be little more than a fad faze with some people though.
I've literally heard people talk about using their college time for instance as a period to explore their sexuality.

It can be both innate and learned. Humans have both innate responses and remarkably plastic brains.

As if one goes through a period in which they are free to experiment like nothing has purpose or meaning other than for the experience.
However...have you considered that IF its an innate sexual orientation which we should sympathize with - or perhaps respect is a better term - that is may just be that some people have an innate abhorrence to that orientation that should also be respected?

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.

And that abhorrence, being personal, should not be weaponized to discriminate against others.

Perhaps it shouldn't be labeled homophobic but instinctual then? Should we condemn what is instinctual? If so then we are back to the possibility of rightfully condemning homosexuality.

How rightfully? 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.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

People aren't allowed to make mistakes in their second language?

That's pretty harsh.

I’m not fluent in Spanish and I know Spanish swears.