Pope Francis and Gay People

[Sydney Grew]

For anyone impatient of the cause, or the mention, of Gay Rights - and bearing in mind the general mission of many major religious organisations to try to improve the quality of peoples' lives (especially those oppressed or impoverished by the imbalance of political/economic power), irrespective of whether or not they preach to them or would like them to follow their creed, THIS - THIS, is why it matters, and why the change in tone and vocabulary, if nothing else, in a Pope's sayings about Gay people, matters. PLEASE read it carefully, whatever your outlook on life...

https://theguardian.com/world/2013/j...orst-countries

Thank you for linking to that article. May I mention two further points that are omitted there?

1) Compensation must be awarded to the victims of past injustices. In Britain alone there are now living many thousands of elderly gentlemen who were thrown into prison for harmless actions. Much more attention needs to be given to these survivors whose lives were utterly wrecked. Do not forget so easily!

2) Much more consideration should be given to the question of "ages of consent." At present these are set in an arbitrary and artificial way, and vary wildly from one country to another. The majority of homo-sexualists become aware of the natural orientation of their sexual desires at puberty - sometimes before - and so it follows does it not that the "age of consent" should be puberty. Otherwise the young person is obliged to pass through a number of confusing and frustrated years waiting for some birthday - years in which he remains prohibited from following his natural inclination by an evil gang of hetero-sexual bigots who delight in continuing to impose their will on him. In other words, let the young person himself decide; and change the terminology from "age of consent" to "age of wanting to"!

[jayne lee wilson]

Thank you for linking to that article. May I mention two further points that are omitted there?

1) Compensation must be awarded to the victims of past injustices. In Britain alone there are now living many thousands of elderly gentlemen who were thrown into prison for harmless actions. Much more attention needs to be given to these survivors whose lives were utterly wrecked. Do not forget so easily!

2) Much more consideration should be given to the question of "ages of consent." At present these are set in an arbitrary and artificial way, and vary wildly from one country to another. The majority of homo-sexualists become aware of the natural orientation of their sexual desires at puberty - sometimes before - and so it follows does it not that the "age of consent" should be puberty. Otherwise the young person is obliged to pass through a number of confusing and frustrated years waiting for some birthday - years in which he remains prohibited from following his natural inclination by an evil gang of hetero-sexual bigots who delight in continuing to impose their will on him. In other words, let the young person himself decide; and change the terminology from "age of consent" to "age of wanting to"!

Yes, especially with your first point: as the politicians line up to bask in the latest photo-opportunity of conscience - the communal wringing of hands over Alan Turing, those forgotten elderly gentlemen are precisely the people we should remember, and (if only...) compensate.

[ahinton]

Ahinton, I can assure you that I too find a lot of things in life very 'sad' indeed, not least the seemingly permanent inability of some to accept that others may have a totally different outlook on life to their own.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I have no problem in "accepting" that others' outlook on life might differ in some particulars differs from mine; that doesn't make either "right", nor should it compromise anyone's entitlement to point it out.

Surely an acceptance of this is an indication of true tolerance?

Not entirely and not necessarily; when someone feels aggrieved that certain sectors of society are frowned upon or disadvantaged by certain organisations, it hardly seems to be merely "tolerant" to ignore it; that sounds more like complacency than tolerance to me.

The Catholic Church is not about the ever-fickle 'concerns of humanity', whatever that means in any case. My concerns are obviously quite different from yours!

Oh. I'd though that Christ Himself was very concerned about those. Obviously I was wrong.

It is about never-changing, rock-solid morality.

I do not see how a morality can be "never-changing" if those who are supposed to subscribe to it undergo the kinds of change that have occurred since the time of Christ; "rock-solid", fine, but not "never-changing".

It has never been about fashionable change. That's all. There's nothing particularly complicated about it.

"Fashionable". Pabmusic has cited the change in the Church's attitude towards slavery; was that, or the legislation that sought to outlaw it, a mere whim of fashion? Has the various ways in which the treatment of gay people and women of both sexual predilactions over genertions amounted to nothing more significant than whims of fashion? I think that you are gravely undermining the importance of these social changes here, scotty and I don't understand that, given that I am unaware tht you are opposed to some of those changes that have already taken place, even though you may be against certain others that are now on the cards.

You may not subscribe to this morality but that is your own business and not in any way the fault or responsibility of the Catholic Church!

Did I suggest that I blame the Catholic Church for that?!

[MrGongGong]

Ahinton, I can assure you that I too find a lot of things in life very 'sad' indeed, not least the seemingly permanent inability of some to accept that others may have a totally different outlook on life to their own. Surely an acceptance of this is an indication of true tolerance? .

As demonstrated by countless members of the organisation I suppose ?

It's not "True" tolerance to embrace bigotry

It is about never-changing, rock-solid morality.

I find it extraordinary that folk still cling desperately to this lie

The Catholic Church is not about the ever-fickle 'concerns of humanity'

Do you get this on a card to keep in your wallet ? So that when you do something really bad you can whip it out like some cosmic credit card and use it to get out of jail free ?

[scottycelt]

For anyone impatient of the cause, or the mention, of Gay Rights - and bearing in mind the general mission of many major religious organisations to try to improve the quality of peoples' lives (especially those oppressed or impoverished by the imbalance of political/economic power), irrespective of whether or not they preach to them or would like them to follow their creed, THIS - THIS, is why it matters, and why the change in tone and vocabulary, if nothing else, in a Pope's sayings about Gay people, matters. PLEASE read it carefully, whatever your outlook on life...

theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/30/gay-rights-world-best-worst-countries

What the Jesuit Francis said the other day was exactly the same as that taught by Jesuits at my old school half-a-century ago. There is no change, in fact he quite deliberately referred to the Catholic Catechism. Ah, brings back all those schoolboy memories!

If some are pleased at the charming, smiling, knockabout style of Francis compared to the comparative remoteness and alleged strictness of Benedict that's certainly to be welcomed if it helps to clear up any previous misunderstandings about the Church's attitude to homosexuals. Nevertheless, this is unlikely to last very long, imv.

You see, nothing at all has changed including the inevitable media hype. Any misguided expectation of change in Church teaching can only result in the further disillusionment and bitterness of some which doesn't help anyone, including themselves.

A hefty dose of realism regarding the very nature of the Catholic Church is never a bad idea whatever our views on the institution itself.

At the same time we can all continue to be nice to each other and treat those with whom we disagree, and even our avowed enemies, with respect. That is Church teaching too so presumably there shouldn't really be much of a dispute amongst all people of goodwill about that?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Intolerance is a strange thing. I have several friends who are vegetarians. They don't wear their lifestyles on their sleeves. But when it crops up in converstaion that they don't eat "fish, flesh or fowl", the traditionalists immediately look for a chink in the armour and attack, as though they have been threatened. If the vegetarian had preached at the carnivores, it would be understandable, but the issue here is the expectation to conform in every way.

Rather like the National Curriculum.

[jean]

What the Jesuit Francis said the other day was exactly the same as that taught by Jesuits at my old school half-a-century ago.

There's a change of emphasis - or is that merely Jesuitical equivocation on Francis's part?

Here's more from a liberal Catholic source:

I’ve just watched the actual video of Pope Francis’ airplane press conference, and it’s even more remarkable than the quotes we gleaned earlier from reporters like John Allen. What’s so striking to me is not what he said, but how he said it: the gentleness, the humor, the transparency. I find myself with tears in my eyes as I watch him. I’ve lived a long time to hear a Pope speak like that – with gentleness and openness, reasserting established dogma with sudden, sweeping exceptions that aren’t quite exceptions – except they sure sound like them...

...What Francis is doing is not suddenly changing orthodoxy; he is instead pointing us in another direction entirely. He is following Saint Francis’ injunction: “Preach the Gospel everywhere; if necessary with words.” He is a walking instantiation of the way Jesus asked us to live: with affection and openness, charity and forgiveness; and a reluctance to seize on issues of theology instead of simply living a life of faith, which is above all a life of action in the service of others:

"We all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much."

Yes, we do, Holy Father. We so sorely do.

[ahinton]

What the Jesuit Francis said the other day was exactly the same as that taught by Jesuits at my old school half-a-century ago.

Your school must have been thought quite progressive at the time if it taught the kind of thing about homosexuals that Pope Francis is talkking about now!

If some are pleased at the charming, smiling, knockabout style of Francis compared to the comparative remoteness and alleged strictness of Benedict that's certainly to be welcomed if it helps to clear up any previous misunderstandings about the Church's attitude to homosexuals. Nevertheless, this is unlikely to last very long, imv.

So you think that it's just a deceptive front then?

You see, nothing at all has changed including the inevitable media hype. Any misguided expectation of change in Church teaching can only result in the further disillusionment and bitterness of some which doesn't help anyone, including themselves.

Head. Sand. Nothing. Changed. Have you not actually heard what the Pope has said? No, of course he has not overturned the entire panoply of Church teaching as Jesus is reported as having done with the moneylenders. but there can surely be no doubt that what he has said represents a change of a kind -and one which may well lead to more.

A hefty dose of realism regarding the very nature of the Catholic Church is never a bad idea whatever our views on the institution itself.

You seem to be providing a hefty does of pessimism but, never mind, it may turn out to have been unwarranted.

At the same time we can all continue to be nice to each other and treat those with whom we disagree, and even our avowed enemies, with respect. That is Church teaching too so presumably there shouldn't really be much of a dispute amongst all people of goodwill about that?

Indeed - but, for some, presumably provided only that doing those things doesn't include being nice enough to gay men to welcome them to the priesthood or to give women opportunities that the Church does not give them now or to endorse the use of contraception or &c. &c.

[Pabmusic]

What the Jesuit Francis said the other day was exactly the same as that taught by Jesuits at my old school half-a-century ago. There is no change, in fact he quite deliberately referred to the Catholic Catechism. Ah, brings back all those schoolboy memories!...

All of which is very commendable, but how does the Church reconcile it with (now let's see...there's so much to choose from...) "Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" [Romans 1:32]? Does the Church not agree with St Paul that "those who practice such things" (ie: homosexual acts) deserve to die? Is that a shifting in its moral stance? Or have we all been misled for half a century?

[french frank]

The Catholic Church is not about the ever-fickle 'concerns of humanity', whatever that means in any case. My concerns are obviously quite different from yours! It is about never-changing, rock-solid morality. It has never been about fashionable change. That's all. There's nothing particularly complicated about it.

That does suggest that human beings were born before the time of Christianity, right from the beginning, with a wisdom and enlightenment to know what is 'right' and 'wrong', and that that has never changed (or else the Catholic Church at some much later point laid them down).

Attitudes shift as knowledge of humanity and ourselves shift, and the secular law changes to reflect that. Why should not the 'orthodoxy' of the Catholic Church also shift?

[scottycelt]

That does suggest that human beings were born before the time of Christianity, right from the beginning, with a wisdom and enlightenment to know what is 'right' and 'wrong', and that that has never changed (or else the Catholic Church at some much later point laid them down).

Attitudes shift as knowledge of humanity and ourselves shift, and the secular law changes to reflect that. Why should not the 'orthodoxy' of the Catholic Church also shift?

Well, of course, the Church itself originates from Christ and the very first Pope, St Peter.

If the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church 'shifts' in moral matters (based on its interpretations of the teachings of Christ) it simply becomes another Protestant sect or even secular. Converts are attracted by this very consistency and refusal to yield to fashionable moral trends. Of course others hate the very idea and despise it with a vengeance!

That is not to suggest that the Church cannot and shouldn't reform in other areas. It sorely needs to and I feel sure nobody is more aware of that than Pope Francis.

[Richard Barrett]

If the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church 'shifts' in moral matters

Which, as Pabmusic points out (giving one of myriad possible examples), it does. If you're giving the "unique selling point" of the Catholic sect of Christianity as its having remained consistent on moral matters since the first Pope you are just plain wrong, and I think very few Catholics would actually make such a bizarre claim. (I believe most people who describe themselves as Catholics are so principally because their parents were.)

[scottycelt]

All of which is very commendable, but how does the Church reconcile it with (now let's see...there's so much to choose from...) "Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" [Romans 1:32]? Does the Church not agree with St Paul that "those who practice such things" (ie: homosexual acts) deserve to die? Is that a shifting in its moral stance? Or have we all been misled for half a century?

I'm struggling to get your point here, Pab, as the Church's ruling on 'homosexual acts' (based on the words of Christ) is exactly the same now as it was then. Which is precisely the point I'm making.

Of course the language may have changed (undoubtedly for the better) but that is hardly surprising as secular language has changed mightily over the centuries as well!

[jean]

...the Church's ruling on 'homosexual acts' (based on the words of Christ)...

I don't think Christ ever said anything about 'homosexual acts', did he?

[MrGongGong]

I don't think Christ ever said anything about 'homosexual acts', did he?

I don't think he did
but maybe our Caledonian McBrain would enlighten us :-)