The Pope on women and gays

[JoStories]

It's such a stupid argument that Jesus was silent on sodomy. He called out 'sexual immorality' and he quoted Leviticus which means he considered it authoritative. It's dishonest to say that Jesus defined 'sexual immorality' any way other than how the Old Testament defines it

No, actually, it is not dishonest. Christians have interpreted and reinterpreted various verses within the Bible to suit whatever needs they might have at the time. Christ did speak of sexual immorality but what is sexual immorality? It is immoral for two committed people to be in a committed relationship, devoid of adultery? Sure, Christ also quoted Leviticus however, do you only wear non mixed fibers or not eat pork or shellfish? It is this arbitrariness that troubles me. You pick and choose what you wish to adhere to. If Christ did consider Leviticus to be an authority, then it follows that ALL the laws would be in place today yet other than observant Jews, I don't know of any Christians that follow ALL the laws set down, do you?

 

[JoStories]

I don't know about that. Iowa pastor Phillip Kayser suggested at a GOP conference last November that the death penalty should be used to put gay people to death in the U.S. As recently as last February, Kansas pastor Curtis Knapp said the same thing basically...that the U.S. government should be putting gays to death.

I didn't hear anyone shouting these two down. On the contrary, they have a lot of local support.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/death-penalty-gays-literature-right-wing-conference

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/kansas-pastor-curtis-knapp-gays-death_n_1556061.html

Excellent point Demon however, don't you think there will always be nut cases such as these men out there? I knew a woman once who swore that any sex other than the missionary position in the dark was a sin. And in particular, she was dead set against oral sex of any kind, quoting verse after verse that she thought supported her position. These crazy arse men are no different than that. But can you really envision the US suddenly putting all gays to death? Based on what? The US is not a theocracy, thank the Light, and never has been, albeit a somewhat veiled theocracy in a some ways but that is a topic for another thread.

 

[JoStories]

The following media outlets reported, either in the headline or in the story, that the pope said the Catholic Church owes gays an apology:

New York Times, AP, Washington Post, ABC News, CNN, USA Today, New York Magazine, Slate, NPR, Daily Beast, Huffington Post, BBC, Daily Mail, Reuters.

They are all wrong.

After the pope initially said, “I think that the Church must not only ask forgiveness…to the gay person who has been offended,” he quickly clarified what he meant. He pointedly said that “when I say the Church, I mean Christians! The Church is holy, we are sinners.”

In other words, the teachings of the Church are not the problem—the Church is “holy”—it is the words and deeds of those Christians who have sinned that is the problem.

Why is this important? The headline in today’s New York Times says it all: “Gay Catholic Groups Want Vatican to Act After Apology.” This is a game: The media, led by the New York Times, misrepresents what the pope said, thus teeing it up for dissident and ex-Catholics to demand reforms. This is dishonest—the premise is false to begin with. The pope drew a distinction between the institution of the Church and the individuals who comprise it. Ergo, no action is required.

In most cases, both the news headline and the text of the story got it wrong. In some cases, the story correctly offered the pope’s clarification, but the headline was wrong. No matter, the public is being deceived and the truth is being distorted.
http://www.catholicleague.org/popes-remarks-about-gays-distorted/

Whose truth? Yours? Or that that I hold to be true? The article did say that the Pope and the RCC still held to the standards of the OT or Tanahk, and I never said otherwise. What I did say was that his views on forgiveness of the treatment of gays in the past was refreshing and forward thinking. Whether or not you believe that gays live in 'sin', again a term I find arbitrary and not a little morally superior on the part of the RCC, is debatable. The argument remains that if you believe that one verse is still a law from God, why not the rest? Why just that one?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Three men over six feet tall invaded a women’s bathroom in Atlanta, scaring the daylights out of young African-American girls. The victims’ mother, Maya Dillard Smith, is furious. What makes this so newsworthy is that Ms. Smith is the interim president of the ACLU’s Georgia chapter.
MEN INVADE WOMEN’S JOHN—FUROR ERUPTS

Bill Donohue is a very angry, hateful man. He is the complete opposite of being Christ-like. That one statement in your link is full of raving vitriol. He needs to repent to God for his hatefulness towards his brothers and sisters. He also tried to pin the sex abuse crisis on gays. Shameful.

 

[YmirGF]

That is very true but don't you think that this pope is at least trying to come to a more modern view of gays? Even if the RCC and by extension, this pope, still sees being gay as a 'sin', again a word I simply loathe, is not approaching the community of gays and asking forgiveness for past treatment a step into more modern thinking? I see it as such and maybe one step closer to them stopping this ridiculous mindset that gays are somehow flawed from birth.

I think it's more of trying to stay relevant in a changing world. This pope is far from being one of my favorites, but any pope does have the centuries of church doctrine to wade through, so I suppose his thoughts on the matter are worth something, however little those words end up meaning in practice. If he moves to put women and gays into the priesthood then he will show that he actually means it. (Font size changed for your benefit @JoStories )

 

[metis]

I don't doubt your word here, but is that the tolerance and love of lay Catholics, moreso than the teachings of the Church? I thought the teachings of the Church is that gay people are to aspire to celibacy? I would think that was much like telling a straight person that wants to love and find happiness they must be celibate.

It is a teaching of the church but it's largely assumed that parishioners will set their own course, sorta like how a driver may or may not respond to a Roman traffic cop. It's pretty hard to get drummed out of the RCC.

 

[metis]

That is pretty unusual , you have to admit, particularly for the stand on gays by the RCC. Is your choir director within a committed relationship with his or her partner? Or are they remaining celibate owing to the standards of the RCC? It is this double standard that makes the entire issue seem arbitrary to me, particularly when based on a book written so long ago, its no longer germane in many respects. We clearly know the earth is older than 6 thousand years and that rabbits do not shew their cuds. Do we accept that these were mistakes written by men but continue to adhere to the laws about gays? Therein lies the arbitrariness of this issue that troubles me.

I don't know any of the details about the choir director, so I can't answer that question. Secondly, the RCC does not have the concept of inerrancy in their theology. Therefore, is it possible that the theology about gay sexual relationships could change in the future? Maybe, but don't hold your breath that it'll take place anytime soon. It'll probably take place at about the same "speed" that it took the church to officially recognize that Galileo was correct after all.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

No, actually, it is not dishonest. Christians have interpreted and reinterpreted various verses within the Bible to suit whatever needs they might have at the time. Christ did speak of sexual immorality but what is sexual immorality? It is immoral for two committed people to be in a committed relationship, devoid of adultery? Sure, Christ also quoted Leviticus however, do you only wear non mixed fibers or not eat pork or shellfish? It is this arbitrariness that troubles me. You pick and choose what you wish to adhere to. If Christ did consider Leviticus to be an authority, then it follows that ALL the laws would be in place today yet other than observant Jews, I don't know of any Christians that follow ALL the laws set down, do you?

Peter had a vision in chapter 10 of Acts where God supposedly told him that nothing is unclean. The Church accepts this teaching as legit. As much as some people wish God rewrote his command on sexual ethics it's just not there and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. Like I always say, If you don't want want to obey Gods laws have enough integrity to call yourself what you are and stop twisting scripture to justify yourself

 

[Demonslayer]

Excellent point Demon however, don't you think there will always be nut cases such as these men out there?

Yes I do. As long as millions of people are following religious dogma, there will always be a certain percentage of them who end up taking the extreme.

I knew a woman once who swore that any sex other than the missionary position in the dark was a sin. And in particular, she was dead set against oral sex of any kind, quoting verse after verse that she thought supported her position.

Right, so here's the thing. Not every woman who reads the Bible has their sexuality adversely effected like this, right? Of course not. BUT, in the vast majority of cases like this where people have demonized human sexuality, it is religious teachings that are the cause.

These crazy arse men are no different than that.

Correct, and again with the same idea. Certainly not all people who follow the Bible or Qur'an want to put gay people to death. But for all people who want to put gay people to death, their religious teaching is the basis of that idea.

There are no atheists, in other words, who want to put gay people to death. But there are thousands upon thousands of Muslims and Christians who would.

Whether or not you believe that gays live in 'sin', again a term I find arbitrary and not a little morally superior on the part of the RCC, is debatable.

It's not debatable to me. There is nothing wrong with being gay. And again, the only source of "gay is wrong" that I'm aware of are the holy books.

The argument remains that if you believe that one verse is still a law from God, why not the rest? Why just that one?

It's a darn good question, innit?

 

[JoStories]

I think it's more of trying to stay relevant in a changing world. This pope is far from being one of my favorites, but any pope does have the centuries of church doctrine to wade through, so I suppose his thoughts on the matter are worth something, however little those words end up meaning in practice. If he moves to put women and gays into the priesthood then he will show that he actually means it. (Font size changed for your benefit @JoStories )

1. you are a sweetheart for making the font so much larger for me. Thank you for that.
2. I suppose you do have a point, although I do like this particular pope. Perhaps it is his humility that appeals to me but whatever the case, I find him much more approachable by the average person than most of the past popes, save John Paul II. Gays already serve in the priesthood, although not openly, obviously. And women may someday also serve, although both, I suspect, will be some time in coming.

 

[JoStories]

I don't know any of the details about the choir director, so I can't answer that question. Secondly, the RCC does not have the concept of inerrancy in their theology. Therefore, is it possible that the theology about gay sexual relationships could change in the future? Maybe, but don't hold your breath that it'll take place anytime soon. It'll probably take place at about the same "speed" that it took the church to officially recognize that Galileo was correct after all.

Perhaps that may be true however they did find Galileo to be correct after time so while I wouldn't be holding my breath, I do have hope that someday they will change. After all, the youth of today are so much more accepting and less prejudiced and racist than my generation is, and mine is older of course. To ignore that fact may mean that the RCC would likely lose members to other faiths in droves. Can they really afford that?

 

[JoStories]

Peter had a vision in chapter 10 of Acts where God supposedly told him that nothing is unclean. The Church accepts this teaching as legit. As much as some people wish God rewrote his command on sexual ethics it's just not there and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. Like I always say, If you don't want want to obey Gods laws have enough integrity to call yourself what you are and stop twisting scripture to justify yourself

Doesn't wanting to obey God's laws depend upon what God we are discussing here? There are myriad you realize. I don't believe in your version of God but I most certainly DO believe in God. Does that mean I am wrong and that my view of God is the wrong one? No, it does not. And if nothing is unclean, as you note above, why all the blather? Like it or not, Christ never spoke about homosexuality. He spoke about man being faithful to his wife but he did not say that that was the only type of relationship. And btw, inferring that I am a liar is really very bad form sir.

 

[JoStories]

Yes I do. As long as millions of people are following religious dogma, there will always be a certain percentage of them who end up taking the extreme.

Absolutely. There have always been fanatics. One can make the case the St Theresa was a fanatic based on her ascetic lifestyle and fasting practices, and so on. Paul could arguably be seen as a fanatic when compared to the teachings of Christ as well. However, as we know the term today, most extremists are violent or violently tended. And all faiths have that kind of person.

Right, so here's the thing. Not every woman who reads the Bible has their sexuality adversely effected like this, right? Of course not. BUT, in the vast majority of cases like this where people have demonized human sexuality, it is religious teachings that are the cause.

Also true, unfortunately. Religion has much to answer for which is why my path is more spiritual than religious and something I feel should be taught to children now. Leave the religious rigor out of it and simply teach a path that embraces walking a path that is correct and in keeping with a moral compass, whether that means one believes in God or not.

Correct, and again with the same idea. Certainly not all people who follow the Bible or Qur'an want to put gay people to death. But for all people who want to put gay people to death, their religious teaching is the basis of that idea.

There are no atheists, in other words, who want to put gay people to death. But there are thousands upon thousands of Muslims and Christians who would.

Another very valid point. My father, which I know you have read about before, was a lifelong atheist and not a more moral and good man would you find. Religion can be said to be one of the most dangerous forces on earth.

It's not debatable to me. There is nothing wrong with being gay. And again, the only source of "gay is wrong" that I'm aware of are the holy books.

It wasn't the being gay part I was referring to, it was the 'sin' part. I loathe the concept and find it has no valid part in a secular society nor in a religious one. Teaching a child that some mistake they might make could lead to hell is abusive, IMO.

 

[metis]

Perhaps that may be true however they did find Galileo to be correct after time so while I wouldn't be holding my breath, I do have hope that someday they will change. After all, the youth of today are so much more accepting and less prejudiced and racist than my generation is, and mine is older of course. To ignore that fact may mean that the RCC would likely lose members to other faiths in droves. Can they really afford that?

But the irony with the above is that it is more the fundamentalist churches, especially Pentecostals, that are growing the most, and they tend to be quite strongly anti-gay. Mainline Protestant churches and Anglicans, which tend to be more open towards gays and trans-gender people, are losing congregants. Go figger.