The Pope on women and gays

[Saint Frankenstein]

@kepha31

That's just disingenuous political posturing that is devoid of historical context or foundation. The Vatican has swayed and changed its views many times over the centuries on what are essentially socio-political issues, as this is. The Church is not some monolithic entity whose opinions on every single thing are set in stone. It's perfectly capable of, and does, reevaluate and reach different conclusions on a myriad of issues. There has always been a diversity of views within the Church, as well.

The Church has changed on several issues over the centuries, such as its anti-Semitism and teaching that non-Catholics are necessarily damned to hell. So there's certainly room for change here. The Church's views on LGBT people aren't as clear-cut as people like to think, either.

For example:

"A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[16]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_same-sex_marriage_in_Spain

Other resources:
http://legacy.fordham.edu/Halsall/pwh/index-med.asp#c5
http://web.archive.org/web/20001110011500/http://www.bway.net/~halsall/lgbh/
http://www.well.com/~aquarius/
http://www.alternet.org/story/14792...uth_--_early_christians_condoned_gay_marriage

This insistence on heterosexuality being some wonderful gift of God in modern Catholicism is absurd and doesn't square with the Church's teachings throughout history. In early Christianity, sex in general wasn't seen as some wonderful thing. It was degrading and a reminder of our sinfulness, in that the body is fallen and sinful, we're often the products of sin and we're born in a sinful state. Celibacy was the gold standard for all Christians. Only when you couldn't control yourself was it advised for you to marry. (1 Corinthians 7:9). Jesus, Paul and most of the Church Fathers were strict ascetics. Along with that, there is also quite a bit of homoeroticism in the writings of male Catholic mystics. They obviously viewed Christ as a lover and even viewed themselves as married to Him.

So there's a lot of queerness inherit in Catholic spirituality. Sadly, most are very ignorant of this, since it's buried in historical texts.

 

[kepha31]

@kepha31

That's just disingenuous political posturing that is devoid of historical context or foundation.

I said nothing political and historical context was not required for the content of my post.

The Vatican has swayed and changed its views many times over the centuries on what are essentially socio-political issues, as this is.

It's also a moral issue, which are unchangeable, except for those who wish to re-write the 10 Commandments.

The Church is not some monolithic entity whose opinions on every single thing are set in stone. It's perfectly capable of, and does, reevaluate and reach different conclusions on a myriad of issues. There has always been a diversity of views within the Church, as well.

I agree. The heated debates in formulating AMORIS LAETITIA illustrates this.

The Church has changed on several issues over the centuries, such as its anti-Semitism and teaching that non-Catholics.

Protestants were taught that Catholics are necessarily damned to hell. Has that changed?

So there's certainly room for change here. The Church's views on LGBT people aren't as clear-cut as people like to think, either.

For example:

"A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[16]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_same-sex_marriage_in_Spain
The priest was a heretic and probably got defrocked.

This insistence on heterosexuality being some wonderful gift of God in modern Catholicism is absurd and doesn't square with the Church's teachings throughout history. In early Christianity, sex in general wasn't seen as some wonderful thing. It was degrading and a reminder of our sinfulness, in that the body is fallen and sinful, we're often the products of sin and we're born in a sinful state.

That's Gnosticism, not Christianity. Where do you get your information?

Celibacy was the gold standard for all Christians. Only when you couldn't control yourself was it advised for you to marry. (1 Corinthians 7:9). Jesus, Paul and most of the Church Fathers were strict ascetics. Along with that, there is also quite a bit of homoeroticism in the writings of male Catholic mystics. They obviously viewed Christ as a lover and even viewed themselves as married to Him.

Marriage is good, celibacy is better. Good/better, not either/or.

So there's a lot of queerness inherit in Catholic spirituality. Sadly, most are very ignorant of this, since it's buried in historical texts.

All the writings of the Early Church Father's are available on line, and the Vatican Archives are open to researchers. If anything is buried, how do you know it's there?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

@kepha31

Homosexuality isn't mentioned in the 10 Commandants, so that's irrelevant. How we should view Jews and other non-Christians is also a moral issue. How we treat others is a moral issue in general. The fact is that Christianity has had a variety of views on homosexuality throughout the centuries. It's very much influenced by culture in which it finds itself. My point is to bring to light the nuance of the Christian position on it that has existed in history. It was never a black and white issue.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Founded religions like Christianity come with doctrine in the form of scriptures. If you don't accept them, you just have to find another religion.

Why find any religion at all?

 

[kepha31]

@kepha31

Homosexuality isn't mentioned in the 10 Commandants, so that's irrelevant.

It's very relevant. Homosexual behavior (not inclinations) violates the 6th Commandment by extension. Rape, incest, and prostitution also fall under #6.

CCC2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.
"Man's dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end."
CHAPTER TWO "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF"
ARTICLE 6
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT

see CCC2367 on the same page.

How we should view Jews and other non-Christians is also a moral issue. How we treat others is a moral issue in general. The fact is that Christianity has had a variety of views on homosexuality throughout the centuries. It's very much influenced by culture in which it finds itself. My point is to bring to light the nuance of the Christian position on it that has existed in history. It was never a black and white issue.

The culture doesn't change the Church, the Church changes the culture. (inculturation).
Moral Relativism Refuted

I think God is calling you to a more complete life in Christ by being chaste, and you are arguing with Him.

https://couragerc.org/

 

[kepha31]

CALIFORNIA BILL THREATENS RELIGIOUS COLLEGES
The California State Assembly is considering a bill that would gut the religious identity of faith-based colleges and universities in the state.

SB 1146, which has already been passed by the state Senate, is sponsored by Sen. Ricardo Lara, one of seven members of the legislature’s LGBT caucus. It’s ostensible purpose is to protect LGBT students against discrimination. In reality, however, it is a heavy-handed exercise in anti-religious discrimination.

The bill would severely constrict religious exemptions from federal Title IX regulations. Previously applicable to all students in religious colleges, these exemptions would now be restricted to only those educational programs in such colleges that prepare students for clerical ministry or other religious vocations, or for teaching theological subjects pertaining to religion.

For all others students, religious colleges and universities in California would no longer be able to require theology or religious studies classes, attendance at worship services, or corporate prayer in convocations or classes. The schools’ ability to include religious ideas in regular course work could be threatened. And of course, maintaining separate male and female bathrooms and dormitories would be prohibited.

“SB 1146 is a direct and blatant attack on the religious freedom of Catholic and Christian citizens of California advanced by the state’s LGBT legislative lobby,” said Dr. Derry Connolly, president of John Paul the Great Catholic College in Escondido, California. “It severely impacts citizens’ constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion.”

This bill should be defeated, and religious freedom upheld in California for all faith-based institutions of higher learning.
http://www.catholicleague.org/california-bill-threatens-religious-colleges/

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And of course, maintaining separate male and female bathrooms and dormitories would be prohibited.

I really, REALLY doubt they going to have bathrooms with both men and women using them, not unless they are single-user restrooms. And heaven forbid someone who doesn't believe not be required to attend mass.
As for SB 1146, oh well. We're much better without religion being able to plea for special exemptions in order to discriminate.
Oh, yeah, and it passed BTW.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think God is calling you to a more complete life in Christ by being chaste, and you are arguing with Him.

https://couragerc.org/

I'm not sure what you think I get up to, but I'm probably far more "chaste" than most people my age are, or even the clergy. I have such a lack of in-person social contact with people that I'm practically a hermit.

I'm not interested in Courage. No, thank you. I'm a transsexual so I'm damned regardless of who I have sexual relationships with, according to conservative Catholics.

 

[JoStories]

The Pope on women and gays.
I believe that all we owe the LGBT community is the love of Christ. They are part of God's creation and deserve the same love and respect that we would expect from others. That said we don't have to agree with what they stand for or for what they are or who they love. It is their business, we should pray for them. The same way we should pray for any other groups or labels. They don't deserve to be senselessly slaughtered, they need to be prayed for.

ronandcarol

Perhaps they will be praying for you to understand that "what they are" is no different than you. They are just as human as you are and btw, I was born Bisexual friend. And IMO, God made me this way.

 

[JoStories]

This is what bothers me about these grand statements by Pope Francis.

It's all "oh yeah we should be nicer to gay people" but then he continues to be the head of an organization that refuses to accept gay people as "normal."

It's patronizing. "Be nice to that abomination over there." What kind of message is that? I suppose it's better than the alternative of "Don't be nice to that abomination over there," but as long as the church has and officially anti-gay doctrine including the discrediting and denial of gay marriage, anything the Pope says just smells like damage control to me. Let's make it look like the Catholic Church is evolving, even though no actual changes are being made.

I can see your point Demon and its a valid one. He may very well be trying to enact damage control, as you put it. OTOH, his views on women were rather forward thinking. I agree that mouthing platitudes about gays being accepted, while ultimately not being is hypocritical at best. However, as you say, perhaps the RCC is evolving and we can hope they find, at least one day, that gays are as human as they are.

 

[JoStories]

I think it's fascinating that this Pope actually seems to not only be Christ-like, but that he also is aware of the mistreatment of many groups at the hands of the Church and seems to be stepping up and accepting responsibility over it by saying the Church should apologize to homosexuals and women, that it's no one's place except god's to judge people, and even that atheists aren't a bunch of Hell bound, God-hating heathens.
That only thing that would make him better is if he was accepting and cool with transsexuals.

Perhaps I was mistaken but I had thought that he meant that that would include transsexuals in the grouping of LGBT as he made the statement. I could be very wrong however Shadow but I do agree he seems to be much more accepting and he has been addressing the church's pedophilia rather well as well. I like the man myself.

 

[JoStories]

Since April? The article I linked to was based on a report put out by the Pope in April 2016.


Maybe if we're just talking about marriages within the Church, but he's also opposed to secular governments offering same-sex civil unions to non-Catholics.


In what way is he actually asking that gay people be treated better? Please be specific.


What piece of dogma that has been traditionally accepted by the Church is rejected by Francis?

In terms of dogma, Francis is no different from Benedict, the Pope that everyone liked to compare to Emperor Palpatine. The only difference between the two of them is that Francis is better looking and a more charismatic speaker. That's it. Francis is "The Emperor" without the bags under his eyes.

Ouch Penguin. I apologize if what I posted has offended you. It was merely an interesting article IMO. You are correct that he does follow the whole Bible but you also know my loathing for Paulian dogma and IMO, being more accepting of women and their role in the Church runs contrary to what Paul did write. I cannot tell you any more than the article stated with regard to how he thinks gays should be treated. All I can do is say I find the man more refreshing than Pope Nazi. But do keep in mind that I am no Christian and still find the RCC a rather negative force in the world overall. Again, however, I apologize if my posts have offended you.

 

[JoStories]

The Pope, regarding the treatment of homosexuals, hasn't said anything that is not already in the Catechism.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

I see. Then I would assume all heterosexuals would be celibate as well, no? Sexuality is a natural part of our human physicality. Like it or not, we are all sexual creatures. Being gay is how some people are born. Did you choose to be heterosexual or was it a natural choice, like breathing? I could care less what Catechism teaches one. I am Buddhist and not Christian. When you ask all gays who do believe in the Christian God to remain celibate because a book say so you disrespect them entirely. There is no compassion in requiring a person to remain celibate. There is no sensitivity. Do you expect them to use masturbation to assuage the sexual need? There are some churches that state that that, too, is denied by the Bible and seen as a sin. The story of Onan is just about that; see Gen 38 or Lev 15. So what should gays do? Cease to exist?

 

[JoStories]

Pope Benedict retired because he was too old and tired to do the demanding job effectively. Being coerced, forced or manipulated is just anti-Catholic media hype.

Pope Benedict was a Nazi in his youth and you will never convince me that his 'retirement' was just about being tired. The Church was in disarray because of his overt conservatism and he drove many young away, which the Church could not afford.

 

[JoStories]

Why? Where does the Bible suggest that loving, committed same-sex couples and their children should be deprived to the same civil rights as different-sex couples and their children enjoy?

Nowhere, however, the RCC has taken that stand as well as most of other denominations.

 

[JoStories]

. And of course, maintaining separate male and female bathrooms and dormitories would be prohibited.

Seriously? This is just crazy talk. But do keep in mind that some countries in Europe do have bathrooms that are utilized by both men and women, with the obvious stalls to separate independent usage. And having dormitories where both men and women reside has been around for some time now. Its not like they are sharing rooms you realize.

 

[JoStories]

It's very relevant. Homosexual behavior (not inclinations) violates the 6th Commandment by extension. Rape, incest, and prostitution also fall under #6.

How was being in a totally committed relationship with my late partner, wherein neither of us strayed on the other, or IOW, committed adultery, committing same? That is a rather far reached stretch that doesn't make the connection. Adultery is defined as stepping out and having an affair with someone other than one's committed partner. If a SS couple does not do this, in no way have they then violated your 6th commandment.

 

[JoStories]

It's also a moral issue, which are unchangeable, except for those who wish to re-write the 10 Commandments.

And yet the ten commandments were written by men and are very much mutable. They can and have changed with the moral tone of society over time. Murder, stealing and so on will likely never change, or I hope not, but having other Gods, or other of the rest are no longer in effect for those who don't adhere to your commandments. Furthermore, Hinduism is far older than your faith and is largely polytheistic. What of that? Do you wish to state that all peoples of any other faith are wrong? I would be willing to bet you will. Which leaves you at a stalemate friend. No one can know this side of death whom is right or wrong. You may very well be the one who is wrong.

 

[JoStories]

I'm not sure what you think I get up to, but I'm probably far more "chaste" than most people my age are, or even the clergy. I have such a lack of in-person social contact with people that I'm practically a hermit.

I'm not interested in Courage. No, thank you. I'm a transsexual so I'm damned regardless of who I have sexual relationships with, according to conservative Catholics.

I have been similarly celibate since the death of my partner. Mostly in honor of her memory as she was my soul mate and no one would be ever able to take her place. Frank, you are not damned my friend. God, IMO, cares for us all.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It's very difficult for a Christian to reject biblical teachings, because once they start, where does it end? 57 varieties of Protestantism, some much nastier than anything that's gone before - that's where.

The New Testament is pretty much a rejection of the Old one in many ways.

But how many could bring themselves to do that?

I can. I not only do not worship a book, but even if God is being immoral, if we truly desire morality and value it, we will call out even God for breaking it.

Same sex "marriage" is impossible; the Church will never give in to moral faddism.

They didn't mind doing same sex marriages in the early days. What changed?

Pope Benedict retired because he was too old and tired to do the demanding job effectively. Being coerced, forced or manipulated is just anti-Catholic media hype.

John Paul 2 looked pretty much like a barely animated corpse by the end and HE didn't retire.

It's also a moral issue, which are unchangeable, except for those who wish to re-write the 10 Commandments.

I missed where gays are in the Ten Commandments.

Gays, meanwhile, are continuously slandered by hetero Christians (who are more often than not 3 seconds away from being on the news because they were caught on Grindr). Gays aren't in the Top Ten, but BEARING FALSE WITNESS is.

It's very relevant. Homosexual behavior (not inclinations) violates the 6th Commandment by extension. Rape, incest, and prostitution also fall under #6.

Depending on who's numbering, it's don't kill or don't commit adultery. Married same sex couples aren't committing adultery. It's also offensive you don't seem to know the difference between adultery, fornication, rape, incest, and prostitution. Consent is a wonderful thing. You should learn the definition some time.

CCC2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.

They didn't get rid of ALL marriages because ...

The bill would severely constrict religious exemptions from federal Title IX regulations. Previously applicable to all students in religious colleges, these exemptions would now be restricted to only those educational programs in such colleges that prepare students for clerical ministry or other religious vocations, or for teaching theological subjects pertaining to religion.

I'm thinking that won't work very well. However, I DO think Catholics need to have their hospitals taken away from them, as they have no right to trump valid medical decisions for people, Catholic or not. If they want to have a pseudomedical witch doctor building, let them. I want my board-certified med facilities to know the difference between medicine and bullcrap.

All I can do is say I find the man more refreshing than Pope Nazi.

Me too. He's a breath of fresh air. However, my patience with him blowing JUST air is starting to wear thin.