Pope Francis and Gay People

[french frank]

Having returned from time away, the level of overreaction on many sides in various precincts of the Forum is striking. There seems to have been a thread about speaker cables that got out of hand...

For Pete's sake!

This seems a perfectly legitimate thread in this 'political' section of the Forum. Can't those bored with the topic just stay away?

And unless people have something substantially new to say, perhaps they could wait until someone else does?

[scottycelt]

To return to the original and now over-worn topic there has been no new developments on this issue as there never can be ...

Pope Francis has merely re-stated church teaching as all Popes do. He has said or suggested nothing different from his predecessors.

Why are some so obsessed with this issue? The Church isn't going to change it's teaching to suit modern mores.

Maybe we should simply heed our own advice and 'learn to live with it' especially if we are not even members of the particular church in question and it doesn't affect us personally?

Logic and consistency, please!

[amateur51]

To return to the original and now over-worn topic there has been no new developments on this issue as there never can be ...

Pope Francis has merely re-stated church teaching as all Popes do. He has said or suggested nothing different from his predecessors.

Why are some so obsessed with this issue? The Church isn't going to change it's teaching to suit modern mores.

Maybe we should simply heed our own advice and 'learn to live with it' especially if we are not even members of the particular church in question and it doesn't affect us personally?

Logic and consistency, please!

Why then did we have to suffer the persecutory tone started by John Paul II (one of whose lieutenants was Cdl. Ratzinger of course) which was then built on by Benedict (né Ratzinger)? You tell me nothing has changed but I assure you that I wouldn't have started the thread if I had not detected a marked change in the Vatican's line on this topic, which I have been studying carefully for over forty years.

I think it's a bit rich to chide me about being obsessed something which is so essential to my being when the Catholic church is every bit as obsessed about it, an institution whose representatives (witness Cardinal Bertone) until recently have given forth quite objectionably about the topic. It's the old 'mote' and 'eye' business, I reckon.

[Mary Chambers]

I'm probably going off at a bit of a tangent here, but one thing that puzzles me is why gay Catholics - or Anglicans for that matter - cling to an establishment that rejects them? Someone will probably say that it doesn't reject them, but as far as I'm concerned an institution that forbids them physical expression is doing just that. Perhaps they just hope things will change.

[Flosshilde]

The Church isn't going to change it's teaching to suit modern mores.

It has certainly changed its teaching in the past on many issues - whether that was to reflect 'modern mores' of the time I can't say.

I'm probably going off at a bit of a tangent here, but one thing that puzzles me is why gay Catholics - or Anglicans for that matter - cling to an establishment that rejects them? Someone will probably say that it doesn't reject them, but as far as I'm concerned an institution that forbids them physical expression is doing just that. Perhaps they just hope things will change.

I've often wondered that, too, Mary. I used to think the same about the armed forces, but at least they have changed

[jean]

I'm probably going off at a bit of a tangent here, but one thing that puzzles me is why gay Catholics - or Anglicans for that matter - cling to an establishment that rejects them?

It's the music, Mary.

And I'm not sure that cling is quite the right word - it's more a sort of reluctance to sever contact entirely.

[scottycelt]

Why then did we have to suffer the persecutory tone started by John Paul II (one of whose lieutenants was Cdl. Ratzinger of course) which was then built on by Benedict (né Ratzinger)? You tell me nothing has changed but I assure you that I wouldn't have started the thread if I had not detected a marked change in the Vatican's line on this topic, which I have been studying carefully for over forty years.

I think it's a bit rich to chide me about being obsessed something which is so essential to my being when the Catholic church is every bit as obsessed about it, an institution whose representatives (witness Cardinal Bertone) until recently have given forth quite objectionably about the topic. It's the old 'mote' and 'eye' business, I reckon.

It's you that always seems to raise the subject. Everyone is free to join whatever Church (or none) as they so wish.

If you have been studying the Vatican's line for 'over forty years' you have learned astonishingly little. Popes will inevitably change but doctrine doesn't change any more than Marxism will suddenly embrace Capitalism. In matters of sexual morality, heterosexuals are just as affected as homosexuals. Ask any Catholic!

For goodness sake, give it a rest, amsey ... this subject has now been flogged to death and we shall all just have to agree to differ.

[ahinton]

I'm probably going off at a bit of a tangent here, but one thing that puzzles me is why gay Catholics - or Anglicans for that matter - cling to an establishment that rejects them? Someone will probably say that it doesn't reject them, but as far as I'm concerned an institution that forbids them physical expression is doing just that. Perhaps they just hope things will change.

I think - although, as I've already made clear, I am not a Christian - that they do so because they believe in God and the wish to follow and spread the teachings of Jesus Christ and that these factors hold sway above all others, including what their Church might think of them; I do not say that I am right about this, but that's what I suspect.

[ahinton]

It's you that always seems to raise the subject. Everyone is free to join whatever Church (or none) as they so wish.

If you have been studying the Vatican's line for 'over forty years' you have learned astonishingly little. Popes will inevitably change but doctrine doesn't change any more than Marxism will suddenly embrace Capitalism. In matters of sexual morality, heterosexuals are just as affected as homosexuals. Ask any Catholic!

For goodness sake, give it a rest, amsey ... this subject has now been flogged to death and we shall all just have to agree to differ.

Scotty, I find it sad that, as Roman Catholic, you have so little faith in the possibility of your Church moving with the times but not against itself thereby; the Church serves humanity, or is supposed so to do, so it must take on board the concerns of humanity - all of them - if it is to progress and be a constructive force in the progress of humanity as it's supposed to be.

[pilamenon]

I assure you that I wouldn't have started the thread if I had not detected a marked change in the Vatican's line on this topic, which I have been studying carefully for over forty years.

Just wondered, amateur, whether by this you are referring solely to the Pope's "Who am I to judge?" comment on the plane, or is there other evidence of a shift in position?

I should imagine there are a multiplicity of reasons why some gay people stick with the Catholic Church - some perhaps don't see their sexuality as such a big issue as their faith, or are more moved by the sense of history and tradition, or by the great music it has produced, or are comforted by the ritual, or by the social cohesion and security. I also know a couple of militant gay activists who refuse to sever all connection with the church, however much it denies the validity of their relationship.

[amateur51]

Just wondered, amateur, whether by this you are referring solely to the Pope's "Who am I to judge?" comment on the plane, or is there other evidence of a shift in position?

I should imagine there are a multiplicity of reasons why some gay people stick with the Catholic Church - some perhaps don't see their sexuality as such a big issue as their faith, or are more moved by the sense of history and tradition, or by the great music it has produced, or are comforted by the ritual, or by the social cohesion and security. I also know a couple of militant gay activists who refuse to sever all connection with the church, however much it denies the validity of their relationship.

I'm referring to Pope Francis interview cited in the OP, pilamenon - during the times of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict gay men were vilified and misrepresented; I thought I saw something quite different from this in what Pope Francis said and I felt that it was worth reporting.

[scottycelt]

Scotty, I find it sad that, as Roman Catholic, you have so little faith in the possibility of your Church moving with the times but not against itself thereby; the Church serves humanity, or is supposed so to do, so it must take on board the concerns of humanity - all of them - if it is to progress and be a constructive force in the progress of humanity as it's supposed to be.

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? 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.

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!

[jayne lee wilson]

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/jul/30/gay-rights-world-best-worst-countries

[Richard Barrett]

THIS, is why it matters

Does anyone have an idea why the Russian government is presently acting in this way towards gay people?

[Pabmusic]

...The Catholic Church is not about the ever-fickle 'concerns of humanity', whatever that means in any case... 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...

Whatever one thinks about the outcome, Scotty is exactly right to say this. This is how most religions see themselves - they tell people how to live - even though some do try to court popularity by seeming to 'move with the times'.

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

This is the one part I don't agree with, on reflection. The Catholic Church has changed its mind about morality before now. It no longer supports slavery for instance (condoned by both old and new testaments, including St Paul) so that the "rock-solid morality" can change dramatically.

There are some philosophical issues around 'morality' of course. Here's one that is rather basic. If one accepts that our morality comes directly from a god, that raises the question: Is he alerting us to a morality that exists independently of him, in which case his omnipotence is rather seriously curtailed; or is he simply ordering us to behave in a certain way (or else!) - in which case his morality is arbitrary and he could change his mind whenever he likes.