pope made homophobic slur

[Rival]

It's shouldn't be shocking as she's not bigoted towards LGBT people like they're trying to smear her as in this thread. She won't be one of my best friends for years if she was!

Let them at it. Catholicism always gets this crap.

 

[Alien826]

This is exactly why calling every dissenter a homophobe is just a meaningless politicized ploy when used as a derogatory term.
By the above description, every homosexual has to be a heterophobe since by definition they must not like heterosexuality since they are homosexual. If they liked heterosexuality then being homosexual wouldn't be an essential part of them. It would be a choice.
Calling people homophobes reduces the essence of a homosexuals personhood down to how they prefer to have sex. Seems like calling a person a homophobe for disagreeing with homosexuality just insults both the dissenter and the homosexual.
Its just political posturing in order to serve an agenda. That agenda is the demonization of those who disagree with the practice of homosexuality. In doing that homosexuals just diminish their own worth as a person.

You've missed the point I was trying to make. When I say "doesn't like homosexuality" I don't mean that the person dislikes homosexual acts. Of course a heterosexual won't like those in the sense of not wanting to indulge in them. No, I mean he would dislike homosexuality as whole thing, a whole idea, and probably feels the world would be a better place without it. A heterosexual that finds homosexual sex somewhat, er, icky but is perfectly happy to allow homosexuals to act out their own sexuality is not homophobic. Someone who hates or fears homosexual people on the basic of their sexuality very much is.

In case I haven't made myself clear, I'll try another example, much discussed lately. Someone who disapproves of a Jewish person's actions is not antisemitic. Someone who hates Jews simply because they are Jews, is.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Given the nature of your posts, this is not a shock.

I'd like to say that reading through this thread reminds me that I made the right decision by renouncing Christianity. It also makes me feel good to know that I spoke out against homophobia and religious bigotry while I was a Christian, despite facing a lot of backlash from other conservative Christians for it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is exactly why calling every dissenter a homophobe is just a meaningless politicized ploy when used as a derogatory term.

It's a descriptive term. What people are saying is that "disapproving of homosexuality" IS homophobia. There is no rational reason to have that opinion. Maybe homosexuality repulses you. If so, and you must say something about your rejection, say that. Maybe you consider homosexuality a sin. Same answer. Say that if you must express an opinion for your unhappiness with homosexuals. But saying "I don't agree with their lifestyle" or something similar is to reject who they are and their humanity. It's to demean their character. It's destructive and irrational. And those who insist on "dissenting" about homosexuals being homosexuals will just have to wear the label homophobe whether they disagree or not.

And what's your objection to the label? That it demeans you, or that it demeans you unfairly? I'd say that it's the former. Go ahead and call me a homophobe. I'll disagree with you, but I won't object or go on defending myself. It's as meaningless as being called baby killer or Marxist, because such terms don't apply to me.

So why are you objecting to being labeled a homophobe but I wouldn't mind being called a baby killer? Why is this an emotional issue for you but isn't for me? Why do you feel the need to defend yourself when called a homophobe, but I don't when labeled Marxist? There's an answer to that.

By the above description, every homosexual has to be a heterophobe since by definition they must not like heterosexuality since they are homosexual. If they liked heterosexuality then being homosexual wouldn't be an essential part of them.

Disagree. One is not being called a homophobe because he is a heterosexual. If he were, then your comment would be correct. He's being called a homophobe because he disapproves of homosexuals and homosexuality.

Why do you think that they don't like heterosexuality just because they don't like to engage in it? Nobody's teaching gay people to hate heterosexuals, and many have heterosexual family members that they love and approve of. I can see why they would fear and resent heterosexuals, but that's not bigotry. That's an appropriate reaction to persecution.

Calling people homophobes reduces the essence of a homosexuals personhood down to how they prefer to have sex.

I'd say that it reduces the homophobe down to seeing the homosexual only in terms of his or her sexuality. Homophobe is not a criticism of homosexuals.

Its just political posturing in order to serve an agenda. That agenda is the demonization of those who disagree with the practice of homosexuality. In doing that homosexuals just diminish their own worth as a person.

Or, you could write, "It's just political posturing in order to serve an agenda. That agenda is the demonization of [snip] homosexuality. In doing that homophobes just diminish their own worth as a person." Why is your comment more valid than the revised version?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Basically the Pope is obligated to impart the laws Given in the Bible as given by Jesus the Christ.

The world would be a lot better place if we chose to practice the Morals and Virtues given by Jesus Christ.

Regards Tony

In my opinion, the world would be a much better place if more people refused to tolerate the bigotry portrayed in the Bible against homosexuals or anyone else whom Abrahamic theists deem wicked and allegedly subject to the wrath of their god. And, in my opinion, if more of them focused their full attention on the plank in their own eye, then they wouldn't have the time to point out the speck of dust in the eyes of those they consider to be sinners.

 

[Rival]

I'd like to say that reading through this thread reminds me that I made the right decision by renouncing Christianity. It also makes me feel good to know that I spoke out against homophobia and religious bigotry while I was a Christian, despite facing a lot of backlash from other conservative Christians for it.

Let me get this straight...

Now I'm being bashed for writing gay porn?

????

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Now I'm being bashed for writing gay porn?

No, you're not, which is pretty interesting, wouldn't you say? @Kelly of the Phoenix says she wasn't shocked, but that's not bashing or even derogatory. @Sgt. Pepper said nothing about you writing gay porn, nor have I or anybody else. If you are going to be harshly judged for that, it will be by the religious. I'm a humanist who embraces utilitarian ethics, which seeks to maximize freedoms and opportunities for the greatest number - not limit or inhibit them.

 

[Rival]

No, you're not, which is pretty interesting, wouldn't you say? @Kelly of the Phoenix says she wasn't shocked, but that's not bashing or even derogatory. @Sgt. Pepper said nothing about you writing gay porn, nor have I or anybody else. If you are going to be harshly judged for that, it will be by the religious. I'm a humanist who embraces utilitarian ethics, which seeks to maximize freedoms and opportunities for the greatest number - not limit or inhibit them.

Then the previous comments make no sense to me.

Unless I have misread.

 

[Kathryn]

Again, though, I haven't seen this here.

I don't disbelieve you and I understand the gravity, but it seems local to you.

I think the issue we're facing is that you are in America, which continent has a far more, dare I say, deranged form of Catholicism. I have heard from a fellow I met on here when he worked in the US he saw anti-abortion leaflets on pew seats in his church (RCC). I have never ever seen such here in England, nor had he, hence his shock. There seems to be a rift between American Catholicism and European Catholicism. If we want to agree rather than disagree, consider this my branch. I simply, honestly, don't recognize the version of Catholicism you are talking about. It is very foreign here, where the RCC has very little influence, and what influence it has barely touches people under 40. I am 28, and due to my age have grown up in a very different environment.

The RCC I attended before becoming an Anglican had a liberal clergy and a more conservative congregation by comparison (veil wearing types), with whom I am very familiar, and their attitudes towards these issues are nothing like you describe. These are older ladies, you know the kind. One was my landlady, and while she is not for SSM, she is in no way a raging anti-gay bigot. She's 70-odd.

I do think this is rather more cultural, as far as I can tell. I don't see it any other way as what you describe is not anything like my experience of the RCC here, which main problem seems to be its sheer dismissiveness. My former landlady and I knew a more conservative, young priest, and he's basically given up. He no longer acts as a priest and is a priest-councillor at a local university full time. It happens to all the conservatives here; they're drowned out.

So I think these issues are more local than we think.

They are definitely more local than otherwise, and they aren't even evenly distributed among the states or regions or even counties! For instance, I just moved from Texas, where the Baptist Church rules supreme, and Catholicism is way, way down the list of politically active churches.. I've never seen a pamphlet or whatever in my seat or pew at any time, and I come from a diocese that is so conservative that the pope actually REMOVED THE BISHOP. lol I moved to an area where there are more Catholics but still, they seem very low key to me.

My daughter, on the other hand, is a very young woman and she wears a veil and attends a Latin mass. I get nothing out of it so I don't attend a Latin mass. So go figure.

 

[Kathryn]

It's a descriptive term. What people are saying is that "disapproving of homosexuality" IS homophobia. There is no rational reason to have that opinion. Maybe homosexuality repulses you. If so, and you must say something about your rejection, say that. Maybe you consider homosexuality a sin. Same answer. Say that if you must express an opinion for your unhappiness with homosexuals. But saying "I don't agree with their lifestyle" or something similar is to reject who they are and their humanity. It's to demean their character. It's destructive and irrational. And those who insist on "dissenting" about homosexuals being homosexuals will just have to wear the label homophobe whether they disagree or not.

And what's your objection to the label? That it demeans you, or that it demeans you unfairly? I'd say that it's the former. Go ahead and call me a homophobe. I'll disagree with you, but I won't object or go on defending myself. It's as meaningless as being called baby killer or Marxist, because such terms don't apply to me.

So why are you objecting to being labeled a homophobe but I wouldn't mind being called a baby killer? Why is this an emotional issue for you but isn't for me? Why do you feel the need to defend yourself when called a homophobe, but I don't when labeled Marxist? There's an answer to that.

Disagree. One is not being called a homophobe because he is a heterosexual. If he were, then your comment would be correct. He's being called a homophobe because he disapproves of homosexuals and homosexuality.

Why do you think that they don't like heterosexuality just because they don't like to engage in it? Nobody's teaching gay people to hate heterosexuals, and many have heterosexual family members that they love and approve of. I can see why they would fear and resent heterosexuals, but that's not bigotry. That's an appropriate reaction to persecution.

I'd say that it reduces the homophobe down to seeing the homosexual only in terms of his or her sexuality. Homophobe is not a criticism of homosexuals.

Or, you could write, "It's just political posturing in order to serve an agenda. That agenda is the demonization of [snip] homosexuality. In doing that homophobes just diminish their own worth as a person." Why is your comment more valid than the revised version?

You know what I don't like? I don't like thinking about who is having sex with who. Period. I don't like thinking about it while I am talking with them about paint colors or whatever, and I don't like being reminded of it either. I just want everyone to treat everyone with kindness.

 

[setarcos]

You've missed the point I was trying to make.

I'm pretty sure I got your point...we only need to flesh out the details between mine and yours apparently.

When I say "doesn't like homosexuality" I don't mean that the person dislikes homosexual acts. Of course a heterosexual won't like those in the sense of not wanting to indulge in them.

Uh huh...So if a heterosexual says they don't like homosexual acts though they've said nothing about any individual person are they still not labeled as homophobic? It certainly seems they are.

I mean he would dislike homosexuality as whole thing, a whole idea, and probably feels the world would be a better place without it.

Yet being labeled homophobic, which can be demonstrably proven -even from this very thread- does not distinguish between dislike of homosexual acts and hatred for the person. The word is derogatorily applied to anyone who dissents against homosexual acts period.
Its been applied to me and I don't wish homosexuals harm. Nor do I fear them in any reasonable sense of that word any more than I fear someone who likes to have sex with other species of animals.
Whether or not the world would have been a better place without the reality of homosexuality can be debated and should be if its an issue that may help people progress towards a more peaceful and understanding society.

A heterosexual that finds homosexual sex somewhat, er, icky but is perfectly happy to allow homosexuals to act out their own sexuality is not homophobic. Someone who hates or fears homosexual people on the basic of their sexuality very much is.

"er, icky" is in my view a pretty shallow assessment. Especially if the dislike extends into the instinctual.
Never the less, as I've said your distinction of how the term should be applied is not true to how the term HAS been applied. Which is what my post has said.

Someone who disapproves of a Jewish person's actions is not antisemitic. Someone who hates Jews simply because they are Jews, is.

And in case I haven't made myself clear...reread what I said above. Just observing all the protests happening as we speak we can see that many many people are confusing that difference. I think that's because its easier to stereotype and hate those that disagree with ourselves than it is to think through an issue reasonably even if it means our opinions must change.

Look...you've tried to realign the term in a more favorable light but that attempt is just not realistic. And part of the reason why you yourself stated.
Homosexuals, demonstrably, have taught society to equate their particular preference for how and who they prefer to have sex with with their humanity to the point that in your own words...
"If I say to (gay) John "I don't like homosexuality" he probably will, because you are criticizing something that is an essential part of him. "
One might from this conclude that its just as likely that my heterosexuality is an essential part of me as well.
Ergo if homosexuals don't like to have sex like heterosexuals do then they are criticizing that essential part of me.
Except you might argue that simply because they criticize heterosexual sex doesn't mean they are criticizing heterosexual people. Yet you've argued that they are.
So if who and how we prefer to have sex with is an essential part of ourselves but someone criticizes the practice then how can we distinguish between those that hate the practice from those that hate the practitioner because of the practice? Especially when the practitioner ensures that everyone knows that they equate the two things to the point that the practice has become the primary essence of the practitioner?
We are back to...everyone who shows disdain for homosexual practices necessarily shows disdain for those that practice homosexuality which means every dissenter of homosexual practices is homophobic and every homosexual is a heterophobe because of that reasoning. Hence my reasoning that the label has become little more than a political ploy to silence one opinion in an attempt to make another superior. In order to call a heterosexual a homophobe one has to diminish the homosexual to little more than the act of practicing homosexual sex, which, ironically, probably only reinforces what those that use that label are trying to diminish in others.

 

[Alien826]

I'm pretty sure I got your point...we only need to flesh out the details between mine and yours apparently.

Maybe. I won't be online for a few days, so I'll try to summarize.

Uh huh...So if a heterosexual says they don't like homosexual acts though they've said nothing about any individual person are they still not labeled as homophobic? It certainly seems they are.

I'm saying they shouldn't be. What people think and do is beyond my control.

Yet being labeled homophobic, which can be demonstrably proven -even from this very thread- does not distinguish between dislike of homosexual acts and hatred for the person. The word is derogatorily applied to anyone who dissents against homosexual acts period.
Its been applied to me and I don't wish homosexuals harm. Nor do I fear them in any reasonable sense of that word any more than I fear someone who likes to have sex with other species of animals.
Whether or not the world would have been a better place without the reality of homosexuality can be debated and should be if its an issue that may help people progress towards a more peaceful and understanding society.

Again, I can only give you my own view. I guess people will mischaracterize you no matter how hard you try to avoid it.

"er, icky" is in my view a pretty shallow assessment. Especially if the dislike extends into the instinctual.
Never the less, as I've said your distinction of how the term should be applied is not true to how the term HAS been applied. Which is what my post has said.

I took a while picking a word that might not offend anyone. Some people do have an instinctive reaction to lots of things, this included. It was true of me at one time. Thankfully I came to see the error of my ways.

And in case I haven't made myself clear...reread what I said above. Just observing all the protests happening as we speak we can see that many many people are confusing that difference. I think that's because its easier to stereotype and hate those that disagree with ourselves than it is to think through an issue reasonably even if it means our opinions must change.

I agree.

Look...you've tried to realign the term in a more favorable light but that attempt is just not realistic. And part of the reason why you yourself stated.
Homosexuals, demonstrably, have taught society to equate their particular preference for how and who they prefer to have sex with with their humanity to the point that in your own words...
"If I say to (gay) John "I don't like homosexuality" he probably will, because you are criticizing something that is an essential part of him. "
One might from this conclude that its just as likely that my heterosexuality is an essential part of me as well.

I imagine it is, as is mine.

Ergo if homosexuals don't like to have sex like heterosexuals do then they are criticizing that essential part of me.
Except you might argue that simply because they criticize heterosexual sex doesn't mean they are criticizing heterosexual people. Yet you've argued that they are.

I thought I was arguing the opposite. Trying to anyway.

So if who and how we prefer to have sex with is an essential part of ourselves but someone criticizes the practice then how can we distinguish between those that hate the practice from those that hate the practitioner because of the practice? Especially when the practitioner ensures that everyone knows that they equate the two things to the point that the practice has become the primary essence of the practitioner?

Part of the "primary essence".

We are back to...everyone who shows disdain for homosexual practices necessarily shows disdain for those that practice homosexuality which means every dissenter of homosexual practices is homophobic and every homosexual is a heterophobe because of that reasoning. Hence my reasoning that the label has become little more than a political ploy to silence one opinion in an attempt to make another superior. In order to call a heterosexual a homophobe one has to diminish the homosexual to little more than the act of practicing homosexual sex, which, ironically, probably only reinforces what those that use that label are trying to diminish in others.

I don't think that necessarily follows.

What it all really means is that a given person's attitude is whatever it is, and that is not, in some cases, easily determined. I will agree that the word "homophobia" is often inaccurately used, which may be all you are getting at.

Thanks for an interesting and civilized discussion.

 

[paarsurrey]

pope made homophobic slur​

Does it make the pope a bad pope, please, right??! :

"The Bad Popes is a 1969 book by E. R. Chamberlin that documents the lives of eight of the most controversial popes (papal years in parentheses):

• Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]: 19
• Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
• Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy.
• Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy.
• Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[1]: 153
• Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[1]: 204
• Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony.[1]: 218
• Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

The Bad Popes - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org
So, aren't the popes used to it, right, please>
Right?

Regards

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think the issue we're facing is that you are in America, which continent has a far more, dare I say, deranged form of Catholicism. I have heard from a fellow I met on here when he worked in the US he saw anti-abortion leaflets on pew seats in his church (RCC). I have never ever seen such here in England, nor had he, hence his shock. There seems to be a rift between American Catholicism and European Catholicism. If we want to agree rather than disagree, consider this my branch. I simply, honestly, don't recognize the version of Catholicism you are talking about. It is very foreign here, where the RCC has very little influence, and what influence it has barely touches people under 40. I am 28, and due to my age have grown up in a very different environment.

Yes, American Catholicism is very politicized. This is mainly due to the bishops hobnobbing with politicians. There's a problem with bishops in a lot of areas forcing very conservative policies on their diocese, which the laypeople and even many of the priests don't support.

We just went through something similar here. The current bishop, who is a younger man of Indian descent and more conservative, forced the Paulist fathers out of the parish that serves the OSU college community. They were known for running an inclusive parish that was more accepting of LGBT people, so a lot of people took refuge there. But he ended that and forced diocesan priests on them, to take over the parish. The community was very angered and saddened over it.

A year after Paulists' removal from Ohio State, community 'fighting anger and grief'

In 2022, Columbus Bishop Earl Fernandes removed the Paulist Fathers from Ohio State, where they had ministered for some 60 years. A year later, the community stays connected while still reeling from the change.

www.ncronline.org

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

You know what I don't like? I don't like thinking about who is having sex with who. Period. I don't like thinking about it while I am talking with them about paint colors or whatever, and I don't like being reminded of it either. I just want everyone to treat everyone with kindness.

In my opinion, that's the right attitude to have, because I don't think that the love life of a homosexual is any concern of yours or of other Abrahamic theists who oppose homosexuality because they believe it's a sin and contrary to their beliefs. I'd say the same about a straight person's love life, too.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Well, this is the debates section of RF, not an Abrahamic section. The North American politics section is often an offensive and depressive place for me. If I started a thread advocating summary execution of all meat eaters in a debates section I'd probably expect a little pushback. Promoting or defending what most people identify as a negative (in this case, homophobia) in a debates section is never going to go well for the promoter/defender.

^ This. Well said, in my opinion.

 

[Rival]

The Pope apologized, by the way.

 

[Kathryn]

In my opinion, that's the right attitude to have, because I don't think that the love life of a homosexual is any concern of yours or of other Abrahamic theists who oppose homosexuality because they believe it's a sin and contrary to their beliefs. I'd say the same about a straight person's love life, too.

Me too!

 

[Maninthemiddle]

Considering the Bible is Homophobic it should come as no surprise.

 

[Kathryn]

In my opinion, that's the right attitude to have, because I don't think that the love life of a homosexual is any concern of yours or of other Abrahamic theists who oppose homosexuality because they believe it's a sin and contrary to their beliefs. I'd say the same about a straight person's love life, too.

You know when I think it's someone else's business, for anyone, not just gay people? When a consenting adult is asked to participate. Or more than one, who knows. Otherwise, it's no one's business. I mean, basically.