Gay Christians denounce the Pope

[Zoë Sumra]

While the Catholic church in England and Wales is producing official guidelines for priests on how to be nice to non-straight parishioners, the following article in [url="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/gay-christians-denounce-popes-comments-1208757.html"]the Independent[/url] implies the Pope has countered that somewhat:

[quote name='part of Indy article']Lesbian and gay Christians today denounced Pope Benedict's claim that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.

The Pontiff said humanity needed to listen to the "language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman and that behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations was a "destruction of God's work".

He called on the Church to protect man from the "destruction of himself" saying that tropical rainforests deserved protection but man as a creature "does not deserve any less".

But the Rev Sharon Ferguson, chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, described his remarks as "totally irresponsible and unacceptable in any shape or form."

She said: "It is more the case that we need to be saved from his comments. It is comments like that that justify homophobic bullying that goes on in schools and it is comments like that that justify gay bashing.

"There are still so many instances of people being killed around the world, including in western society, purely and simply because of their sexual orientation or their gender identity.

"When you have religious leaders like that making that sort of statement then followers feel they are justified in behaving in an aggressive and violent way because they feel that they are doing God's work in ridding the world of these people."[/quote]

But as reported [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/23/pope-gender-sexuality"]in the Guardian[/url], the Vatican says the Pope was misinterpreted and actually intended to attack women instead of gays:

[quote name='part of Grauniad article']Father Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, said today that the pope had not wished specifically to attack homosexuality or sex change operations in his speech. "He was speaking more generally about gender theories which overlook the fundamental difference in creation between men and women and focus instead on the role of cultural conditioning," he said.[/quote]

... and [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/23/pope-benedict-xvi-gayrights"]a Grauniad comment piece[/url] takes the whole situation as evidence that we are already into the Christmas journalistic silly season, among another few comments.

[quote name='part of second Grauniad article']Being gay is about your love life. Gay men and women aren't people who perform certain acts; they are people who love in certain ways. The L-word is never mentioned by those who condemn homosexuality. I suspect that they don't talk about homosexuality as a form of loving because if they did, their arguments would fall away. For what is life without love? No life. And that is, in effect, the no-life they are asking gay men and women to lead. To declare love as a whole section of humanity experiences it as simply deviant (or worse) is about as fundamental an attack on a human being as there can be.

The paradox is that you'd think that Christian leaders, above all others, would realise that. After all, it is they who declare that God is love: "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." (1 John 4:16.) They may excuse their opinions by saying they are challenging the sin not the sinner, or the practice not the orientation, or by some other such sophistical formula. But the truth is that writing off all gay love makes about as much sense as writing off all heterosexual love.[/quote]
Thoughts?

[MinDonner]

*heaves a sigh of despair*

Good old popes. Hopefully this will continue to enhance the reputation of old, white, celibate religious leaders as completely irrelevant and out-of-touch with modern society and thus hasten their downfall. Personally I won't be happy until the bastard is convicted of mass murder for maintaining the prohibition on condoms, but that's another story. Nice touch that they thought it was a good defence to say "oh, we're not homophobes, just misogynists" too.

It's kind of a shame that the Guardian could only get opposing quotes from LGBT organisations though; makes it look like these comments are something that only gay people would be offended by, rather than EVERYONE.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[quote name='BruceDonner' post='1628725' date='Dec 23 2008, 10.26']Nice touch that they thought it was a good defence to say "oh, we're not homophobes, just misogynists" too.[/quote]

Don't even get me started on those assholes. :mad:

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The Pope has a responsibility to the scriptures, which explicitly condemn homosexuality. Sorry, but thems the breaks. You don't have to like what the Bible says, but all the Pope is doing is sticking to it in the face of popular opinion

[Xray the Enforcer]

Except, of course, all those gay christians who disagree with his [b]interpretation[/b].

[Chaldanya]

I saw this this morning and thought of posting about it, but y'know what it's just another day in the Catholic Church with [s]Senator Palpatine[/s] Pope what-is-mooey at the helm.

I've got any number of rants about the hypocrisy, misogynism and general backward thinking of the Catholic Church but I just don't have the energy.

Fuck 'em says I.

N

[Xray the Enforcer]

[quote name='Chaldanya' post='1628763' date='Dec 23 2008, 10.52']I've got any number of rants about the hypocrisy, misogynism and general backward thinking of the Catholic Church but I just don't have the energy.

Fuck 'em says I.[/quote]

You have the right idea. Fuck it, it's time for eggnog.

[Red Sun]

[quote name='Bruce Midgetsbane' post='1628752' date='Dec 23 2008, 16.44']The Pope has a responsibility to the scriptures, which explicitly condemn homosexuality. Sorry, but thems the breaks. You don't have to like what the Bible says, but all the Pope is doing is sticking to it in the face of popular opinion[/quote]


The Catholic Church does not subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible, and so it would be possible to allow a historical interpretation of the scriptures, including those parts talking about homosexuality. Aside from this, many things in the Catholic Church are not rooted in the Bible, but are the result of an evolution of the religious praxis and the dogmata. (ETA: Those things have always changed, why not change them again.) However, the higher ups in the RCC chose not to go futher on a way of more acceptance and openess, that's definitely a choice that allows me to call them misogynic bigot assholes.


ETA to add a colourful word.

[gryphon strike]

I can see how a misunderstanding can occur what with the various languages in use, however there are supposedly experts who are there to stop exactly that from happening. too many times he seems to have had a translation problem.

Tormund I am sorry but I have yet to see any quote from a prophet or messiah condeming Gods work according to scripture. Ohh yeah sure Paul condems it but that dude is not even a disciple of Jesus let alone what could be regarded as someone speaking with Gods authority.
Homosexuality clearly goes way past mere humans and is common in the animal kingdom also. Thus if anything it is my contention that the various Christian churches should be embracing it as a part of Gods design, rather than condeming it in public while hiding the fact that members are actually practising it in secret. Not all members but the official policy of most churches seems to be one of hiding the fact and moving the priests when they are discovered, the same thing they do with pedaphiles I believe.
So to have the head of a church, that in the past has publicly condemed contraception yet owned a condom factory, saying that homosexuality is wrong and a major problem ranked on the level of rainforest destruction really is just more hypocrisy as far as I am concerned.

Then again politics is more about apearances than actions I guess so what can I say they are politicians rather than spiritual leaders?

[Chaldanya]

BTE, your sig line from Yagathai fits neatly in this thread. It pleases me.

N

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I've given a lot of thought to how homosexual sex is treated by traditional christian churchs. A lot of the antagonism to homosexual sex comes from Paul's letters. Paul was writting about a Greek culture that tolerated casual homosexual relationships in everyday life. Perhaps that's what he objected to the casualness of the relationships. After all you don't see him talking up casual sex among heterosexuals. I have to wonder if the nature of homosexuality (it likely being inate and not a social choice) should be factored in by the Church. If sexual orientation is inate then, in our view, it is placed there by God. That being the case should the choice to engage in homosexual sex within the confines of a marriage be condned, even supported, by the Church?

I think there is room to work here. However, it is difficult to overcome two Millenia of tradition condemning homosexual sex. It will take time for the Churches to come around.

[Zahir al Daoud]

Actually, the Bible says all kinds of things that the Catholic Church chooses [u]not[/u] to regard as an absolute rule laid down by God. Lots of other Churches look at the same text and find no reason to condemn gays or their preferences--just as the same book was used to justify and condemn slavery, women's rights, etc.

To be sure, the Catholic Church is a very old institution and anyone rising to the highest ranks of course bows to the vast majority of past tradition, especially in such a rigidly hierarchical organization, but that hardly excuses Pope Benedict from personal responsibility.

Structurally, methinks the Roman Catholic Church is trapped in several conundrums of its own making, mostly regarding the infallibility of its doctrines (which have gotten plenty of people killed for telling what turned out to be the truth). But that is somewhat tangential to this discussion.

The Bible's actual words on homosexuality are few, roughly four references and when taken in context not nearly the thorough condemnation too-many-Christians believe (sadly, too few Christians actually study the Bible). Jesus himself never brought up the subject.

More fundamentally, treating the Bible as some kind of instruction manual for life has always led to disaster in varying degrees.

I say this as a devout Christian, btw.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

[quote name='Bruce the Enforcer' post='1628761' date='Dec 23 2008, 08.49']Except, of course, all those gay christians who disagree with his [b]interpretation[/b].[/quote]

I have investigated their interpretations and find them lacking. Apparently, so has the Pope, and just about all the other christian scholars for the last several thousand years.


[quote name='Red Sun' post='1628770' date='Dec 23 2008, 08.56']The Catholic Church does not subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible, and so it would be possible to allow a historical interpretation of the scriptures, including those parts talking about homosexuality.[/quote]

Historically (in New Testament times) homosexuality was far more publicly practiced and accepted than now. I'm not sure how a historic interpretation could be more favorable.

[quote]. I have to wonder if the nature of homosexuality (it likely being inate and not a social choice) should be factored in by the Church. If sexual orientation is inate then, in our view, it is placed there by God.[/quote]

The desire to pursue many activities that are frowned upon by God is innate.


Disclaimer: I feel that the church treats gay people terribly and is rife with hypocrisy concerning this issue. I simply can not get all huffed up when a church leader says that sin is sin. You and I may disagree on the nature of sin, but some things are very clearly forbidden by the scriptures of various religions, and I can't fault their leaders for saying so.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tormund,

[quote]The desire to pursue many activities that are frowned upon by God is innate.[/quote]

Yes, but not in their entirety. Sex outside of marriage is considered sinful but not prohibited outright. Guluttony is considered sinful, but not eating. Averice is considered sinful but not being monetarily sucessful.

I'm wondering if there is room for homosexual sex within a Christian framework if it is part of marriage?

[Red Sun]

[quote name='Bruce Midgetsbane' post='1628793' date='Dec 23 2008, 17.15']Historically (in New Testament times) homosexuality was far more publicly practiced and accepted than now. I'm not sure how a historic interpretation could be more favorable.[/quote]

Well, I only meant that the text should be read in context of the society for which it was written and for which audience, and it also means that one is conscious that many things in the Bible are written by humans and not verbal inspirations of God. So, a historical reading could place the quote in certain circumstances, instead of generalising it as a sort of law. (ETA: It's pretty similary for all quotes regarding the place of women in society. The are products of a certain time and can be intepreted as such, instead of following them by the letter.)

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

[quote]Sex outside of marriage is considered sinful but not prohibited outright.[/quote]

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" is pretty outright.

[quote]Guluttony is considered sinful, but not eating. Averice is considered sinful but not being monetarily sucessful[/quote]

That is because one is not the other. You can use the same context to say "homosexual sex is considered sinful, but not sex in general".

[quote]I'm wondering if there is room for homosexual sex within a Christian framework if it is part of marriage?[/quote]

Lots of people who call themselves christians believe so. I guess it depends on how you define Christianity. If you define it as following what is written in the Christian Bible then no. If you define it (as many do) as trying to be a good person following the inspiration of the person Jesus. Then I guess so.

[El-ahrairah]

Although I am not a Catholic, I am in complete agreement with His Holiness on this issue.

[Bellis]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1628837' date='Dec 23 2008, 11.45']Although I am not a Catholic, I am in complete agreement with His Holiness on this issue.[/quote]

You agree the private acts of consenting adults is a global catastrophe on the level of mass environmental degradation? :o

oy vey

[Lord of Oop North]

[quote name='Bellis' post='1628847' date='Dec 23 2008, 11.50']oy vey[/quote]
aye.

[potsherds]

[quote name='Bellis' post='1628847' date='Dec 23 2008, 16.50']You agree the private acts of consenting adults is a global catastrophe on the level of mass environmental degradation? :o

oy vey[/quote]
Funny, I muttered something very similar when I heard NPR's report on how damned important it is to the Nazi-Pope to stop homosexuality and homosexual acts. And then I said something about how much I hoped this Pope would die asap in the hope someone better could fill the position.

I really hate this guy.