He is Here Pope Benedict XV1

[Freddie53]

Let's look at that in a different way:

DMW,

You didn't address the above and I think it's crucial. You don't address several of my points where I believe that I'm making it clear as to why I have a problem with what he has said.

That is NOT what he said. You're right in that your translation is unambiguous. It's also a far cry from his meaning. Two negatives make a positive in math, not in language.

Actually, they almost always do. It's a lot to quote so I will just refer those who are interested here: http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/023.html

That's a big difference.

I'm not attacking YOU, DMW (or Freddie) or any of the Catholics here. I suppose I'm a bit surprised, but I probably shouldn't be. I wish I hadn't used such strong language up above BUT it was part of a device attempting to prove a point and I did deliberately not use his real name, not to show allegiance to any particular clique but to soften the blow. I've considered removing it but it's been quoted, read and probably forgotten. I just hope it doesn't prolong Freddie's stay away.

Maybe 10 years ago, maybe before I witnessed the "joy and power" of what Islamic Fundamentalism can do, maybe before I saw that our Country would think that the best way to respond to crazy Islamic fundamentalism was with crazy Christian fundamentalism, but not anymore. I see no reason to coddle any longer those who use theology as a shield against logic and reason, and in fact I see it as dangerous to my, and our, very survival.

[post=304768]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]


I saw my name. I hope you saw where I gave to a compliment by giving the website to get the entire Letter that the new Pope authored.

I do hope that you are hearing everything Jacinto and I have said. I do agree with Jacinto in his statements. However, that has to be understood in the context that I have a strong background in Christian theology and and Jacinto has an even much greater understanding of Catholic theology in particular. I am Methodist, Protestant and closet gay. Jacinto is a practicing Roman Catholic and 100 percent open gay.

Consider where we are coming from. It is not likely that Jacinto would be defending what he defends if he didn't understand that the Pope does not in anyway endorse the bashing of gay people. I didn't read it that way either. Though I am not sure of how to read the disorder part. Jacinto disagrees with that portion as well if I understood him correctly.

Keep also in mind that that letter was not a single person's letter. It was a composite letter with John Paul's approval. By composite, I mean that all the previous statements by the Catholic Church had to be considered. The new Pope didn't have any authority to change church dogma or belief.

We do not know what kind of direction in this the Pope will take. He may take a very strong stand against violence against anyone. I hope he does. I hope he makes nonviolence as always the first option and hopefully the only option in settling disputes or dealing with people other than yourself.

Carolina, you have to consider that there was a time in the Dark Ages when sex was considered a sin by many Christians and theologians of that day. But it was allowed for the purpose of reproduction of humans.

One difference in theology between Protestant and Catholic churches concerns the brothers of Jesus. Catholics consider them to be older step brothers, because it would have been unholy for Mary to be anything but a Virgin her entire life. Protestants believe the brothers of Jesus to be the younger 1/2 brothers of Jesus. Joseph was their father. In both churches, God himself is the father of Jesus. The Holy Scriptures read, "And the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and she conceived and brought forth a son." The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God.

So, according to that doctrine, any homosexual activity would be sinful as its purpose would never be to bring forth children.

But this is the Catholic Church of 2005 and the Protestant Churches have a total different slant historically to begin with.

About the discussion of normal. From a scientific view, not a religious view, straight sex is normal. Why? Normal refers scientifically to what the largest group in a sample do. In human sex, it is estimated that 90 percent of humans will choose straight sex over gay sex. So that makes straight sex the norm. But no moral value is put into it. It is also the norm for people to start graying and losing the hair sometime after age 35. But I haven't found many rejoicing at the fact.

So the question to beg here is is there anything wrong with gay sex? Is it natural? Well from a biological sense it doesn't do what sexual drive is designed to do and that is to cause men to have sex with women and have babies. So again, scientifically it could be stated that it is unnatural. So, we have the term disorder used. That word is the key. The Pope didn't write this in English and it has been translated. It would help a lot if we really understood exactly what is meant by disorder. I can put a spin on that word that makes it a perfectly fine word. I can put another spin on it that would make you Carolina seeing red big time.

But I agree with everything Jacinto said. And the answer that Jacinto gave is the answer that Jacinto and I want to find in that letter to the priests.

There are some issues Jacinto didn't address that I wish he would give us some answers to.

1. Is, according to the Catholic Church official doctrine, engaging in homesexual activity a sin?

2. If it is, how according to Catholic doctrine do practicing homosexuals get into heaven?

To Jacinto, Nixxy, Carolina and many others on this site, let us remember that we are gay. There is no way that Jacinto and I as well as other Christians who are gay are going to defend any religious person who is out to just bash gays. We are all in the same boat. Let us remember that. We all have one thing in common. We want acceptance. Jacinto and I want it from our God and church. All of us want it from the world.

I am not a Muslim so I don't have to worry that much about what that religion teaches though from what I have read, Mohammad was pretty homophobic and the Koran reflects that from what I have read.

It is easy for me to say that Muslims can go fuck themselves if they want to bash gays. I am not a Muslim. It makes it harder for me to say that about a pope whose historical position in the church is Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter. That is true even if I were to strongly disagree with something he did or believed.

So do understand that we are not all reading that letter from the same prespective and we won't get the same response from ourselves either. That is to be expected.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Apr 25 2005, 11:25 PM
I think that the Pope's view as outlined in that letter was pretty clear. Since we've already posted it several times, I'll excerpt one point here:

"But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right"

[post=304887]Quoted post[/post]​

It is this point that I have concern about. It appears that the new Pope is opposed to civil and equal rights for gays and lesbians. But on the other hand the letter was written in 1986 and so hopefully the position of the Catholic Church will change on this subject.

Speaking to your point Jana about this whole issue here in the US of A: It concerns me that this has become a religious issue in public elections. I don't like it when any religous group tries to make its position on a controversial subject the official government line. Just don't like it at all.

To your point about pleasure. The animals have a sex drive. And it seems to work differently in each species. The animals don't seem to have the same sex drive that humans have except during the mating season. Humans seem to be in the mating season 24/7 as long as health permits starting with the early stages of puberty as far as sex drive goes.

Jana, you have some valid points. But here is the reality, the churches that have been liberal on this subject, Episcopol, Presbyterian, Luteran and in some areas Methodist are losing members in droves. Meanwhile the memberhsip in the fundie Churches who teach that all gays will go and burn forever in a lake of fire no matter what else they did or didn't do is growing. It is a disturbing fact. Liberal theology is losing ground. Fundamentalism is on the rise not only in Christianity, but Judaism and Islam as well.

It will ultimately lead to a a situation here in America like was going on in Northern Ireland for so long. It is scary. That is why I am hoping that this Pope will turn the direction just a little, if not a whole lot.

 

[13788]

hung_big: Just thought I'd comment on how long and well-written everyone's posts have been. I would say something but I really need to digest, and many have said it better than I ever could.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by surferboy@Apr 25 2005, 02:38 PM
Hey Jacinto, you know too much. Better watch out, cause no one expects the Spanish Inquisition! *hide Jacinto under my blanket* :9

[post=304725]Quoted post[/post]​

Actually, that reminds me of on alt.education. We've got our own Black Knight, a fundie named Jd who's obsessed with "neo-Sods". so we've been doing Monty Python sketches, including "NOBODY expects the Second Inquisition!"

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Originally posted by Freddie53@Apr 25 2005, 10:06 PM

Jana, you have some valid points. But here is the reality, the churches that have been liberal on this subject, Episcopol, Presbyterian, Luteran and in some areas Methodist are losing members in droves. Meanwhile the memberhsip in the fundie Churches who teach that all gays will go and burn forever in a lake of fire no matter what else they did or didn't do is growing. It is a disturbing fact. Liberal theology is losing ground. Fundamentalism is on the rise not only in Christianity, but Judaism and Islam as well.

[post=304897]Quoted post[/post]​

There was a recent article in The New Republic making that exact same argument. Liberal Catholics who think the church is going to get more progressive can hope for that, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will bring liberal Christians back into the fold. The Christian denominations in the U.S. that accept gay marriage, married ministers, etc., are losing churchgoers even faster than the Catholic Church is. The liberal Catholic groups are barely staying afloat.

It would seem that secularism has advanced to a point where Westerners are leaning farther and farther away from organized religion. The people who have stayed religious are that way because they LIKE the traditional beliefs that go with that. For better or worse, a minority of Americans and Europeans have stayed religious and the rest mostly do without it. If liberal Catholics believe strongly enough in gay marriage or abortion rights to completely reject the Vatican, but have strong Christian faith, then they'd be Episcopalians or Lutherans or whatever. But they're still Catholics, so it appears that they'd rather be Catholics or non-denominational. The assumption that a more progressive Vatican would save the Catholic church seems like wishful thinking.

I say all this as a born-and-raised Catholic turned agnostic. I know that at the local level, priests and nuns are often far more open-minded and accepting than the Vatican is willing to be. That makes it much easier to be a Catholic than the current media frenzy would have us believe. My lapsed-Catholic status is more because of lack of faith than rejection of their traditional ways, although I disagree with some of those. If I had more faith I'd still be going to Mass even though I'm quite disgusted with the handling of the child abuse cases.

Even so, I'm quite fascinated with the recent events. I'm not old enough (at 29) to remember popes prior to John Paul II, so it's a new thing to me to see another person in that role. I've been curious for a while to see what that would be like. My mother always told me that the previous popes were always a stodgy, old Italian guy that pretty much stayed in Rome all the time by comparison. So I'm interested to see what happens in the next ten years.

 

[madame_zora]

Aloofman, I think what you're saying speaks volumes as to why we're experiencing what we are in the world today. In sales, we learned "It's always the money" is the answer to every f&cking question in the world, and I think that's true. Churches are sales organisations, first and foremost. They have bills to pay, and want to turn a profit.
Bottom line, being popular is more important than being right. My frustration with this is immense, but I am fully aware that attendance at most churches is on a severe decline.
The greatest man of God would be of no value preaching to an empty room, so here we are, taking giant steps backward to appease the only people interested in attending. Yes, it's sad, but understandable from an accounting perspective.

 

[13788]

carolinacurious:

It would seem that secularism has advanced to a point where Westerners are leaning farther and farther away from organized religion. The people who have stayed religious are that way because they LIKE the traditional beliefs that go with that. For better or worse, a minority of Americans and Europeans have stayed religious and the rest mostly do without it. If liberal Catholics believe strongly enough in gay marriage or abortion rights to completely reject the Vatican, but have strong Christian faith, then they'd be Episcopalians or Lutherans or whatever. But they're still Catholics, so it appears that they'd rather be Catholics or non-denominational. The assumption that a more progressive Vatican would save the Catholic church seems like wishful thinking.

The flaw I see in this argument is that most of these people are still religious, they have just been turned off by the existing organized religions.

So what are the churches doing? Either a drastic shift to the right to chase after an ever shrinking, but relatively stable, minority or some tentative pansy-ass steps to the left to see if they can win back some of the people who are fleeing in droves.

So it may very well be that they just haven't attempted to be progressive enough. (Oh man, that's the funniest understatement I've seen in a LONG time, I had more to say but I've been laughing so hard I lost my train of thought.)

 

[madame_zora]

CarolinaCurious, that is the very reason I can't take religion too seriously.

Too many people who call themselves Christians say you must believe in the Bible in it's entirty, not just pick and choose what you want, then completely deny that THEY in fact are picking and choosing the things they wish to believe.

The only Christians I can respect at all are the ones who openly admit they do this, and do it for the greater good of humanity to the best of their ability, and I think that number is not small, just less vocal.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Let's look at that in a different way:

'Rape is horrible and can never be condoned but no one should be surprised when a woman gets raped for dressing provocatively.'

DMW,

You didn't address the above and I think it's crucial. You don't address several of my points where I believe that I'm making it clear as to why I have a problem with what he has said.

I didn't address it because I don't think it's a fair analogy. What a woman wears is a choice, and she can change it whenever she chooses. The same cannot be said about my sexuality. Also, the clothing is not the reason for rape; rape is normally a crime of hate resulting from the rapist's need for dominating women, not a reaction to her clothing. A gay-bashing, on the other hand, is a reaction resulting from the basher's homophobia.

No matter what else he says, no matter how offensive, he can always point back and say that he didn't advocate violence towards gays

No, it's something more than that. Not only did he not advocate violence towards gays, he condemned it. He was very straightforward about that point. There's no denying that he stressed that issue.

Where does he thinks all this violence against gays comes from? Possibly from the historical teachings of the church?

Probably not, if you mean the Catholic Church. The huge majority of gay-bashings in the US were committed by Protestants. And most of those were by members of fundamentalist denominations who have little love for the Papacy.

Your reworded version does not carry the same connotation. He is saying that we must recognize the impetus for the attack. If we ignore why a hate crime is committed, there can be no solution. He is saying that we can't say, "You were attacked, and I have no idea why." Your removal of the negatives suggests that we explain, "You're sick, and you were attacked because of that sickness." That's a big difference.

At this point I think it is YOU who are reading things into this that are not there. If I take your explanation to be the case how can I come up with anything other than, "the impetus for the attack was your disorder."

Actually, my point was that the impetus of the attack was homophobia, the attackers reaction to the perceived 'disorder', not the homosexuality itself.

MY charitable reading (of why the double negative might not cancel out to a positive) was that he was saying, 'ONE of the things we must not do is pretend there is no disorder out of sympathy for the victim, but it's not necessarily the ONLY thing.' when the "nots" are removed it seems to become the only thing. I gotta tell ya: the more I re-read that sentence the more convinced I am that my "translation" of canceling his double-negative really is the correct reading.

And the more I re-read it, the more I'm convinced that you missed the point.

What other explanation does he offer for the attack than: the disorder, societies acceptance of the "unacceptable", or people's demanding civil rights? At the moment of violence shouldn't we be talking more about the sickness of the violent perpetrator? Where does he discuss this at all?

The fact that he condemns the violent attacks implicitly condemns the attacker as well. The attacks cannot take place without an agent, and the malicious intent of the perpetrator is obvious. It's ludicrous to assume that he thinks that the bashing is unconscionable, but the basher is not responsible for his actions.

Last night, I struggled with whether or not to include the double negative example because I could see some vague difference between the meanings, even though that violated my philosophical training.

The difference is not vague. It makes all the difference in the world.

" He in no way suggests that the attacks are justified or excusable."

We may just have to agree to disagree here because that is exactly what I think he is saying(&#33, and exactly why he wrote it the way he did.

That is in direct contradiction to the quote: "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs." You cannot claim that an action deserves condemnation, but it's excusable. That's ridiculous.

So, "And that IS what he said." refers to "'All homosexuals are disordered and it is a distorted notion that they have any conceivable right to expect protection for their behavior.'" and NOT the double negative statement.

I suppose we can debate whether or not that is a fair paraphrase because of course it is not a direct quotation. I feel confident enough in my reading comprehension to say that it is a very fair paraphrase of what he said.

I took it to refer to your rewording without the double negative. Either way, it is a paraphrasing and we don't agree on the meaning. You will read something different into it than what I do.

But yet somehow, because it's attached to his religious convictions, I'm supposed to respect an opinion that would be unacceptable for ANY other reason.

No, you don't have to respect his opinion, but you should respect his right to hold his opinion. I don't agree with Benedict XVI's homphobic viewpoints; I hope I've made that perfectly clear. But he is entitled to his own opinions, clouded by his prejudices though they may be. His opinions are not really important: He is the Pope; his responsibility is to be the custodian of Catholic dogma and uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church. I think he will do so quite efficiently. I can respect Benedict XVI, the Pope, even if I'm not real fond of Joseph Ratzinger, the man.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Originally posted by carolinacurious@Apr 26 2005, 12:58 PM

It would seem that secularism has advanced to a point where Westerners are leaning farther and farther away from organized religion. The people who have stayed religious are that way because they LIKE the traditional beliefs that go with that. For better or worse, a minority of Americans and Europeans have stayed religious and the rest mostly do without it. If liberal Catholics believe strongly enough in gay marriage or abortion rights to completely reject the Vatican, but have strong Christian faith, then they'd be Episcopalians or Lutherans or whatever. But they're still Catholics, so it appears that they'd rather be Catholics or non-denominational. The assumption that a more progressive Vatican would save the Catholic church seems like wishful thinking.

The flaw I see in this argument is that most of these people are still religious, they have just been turned off by the existing organized religions.

So what are the churches doing? Either a drastic shift to the right to chase after an ever shrinking, but relatively stable, minority or some tentative pansy-ass steps to the left to see if they can win back some of the people who are fleeing in droves.

So it may very well be that they just haven't attempted to be progressive enough. (Oh man, that's the funniest understatement I've seen in a LONG time, I had more to say but I've been laughing so hard I lost my train of thought.)

[post=305090]Quoted post[/post]​

What I mean is that the various churches that have tried to be more progressive -- basically as progressive as society will allow -- are losing members, not gaining them. So there's no reason to believe that a more liberal Vatican will reinvigorate the Church's numbers. Believing that it will is wishful thinking by a conflicted Catholic, of which there are many. I would go so far as to say that almost everyone of every religion is conflicted in some way and wrestles with it from time to time.

 

[Freddie53]

.

.

quote]

Last night, I.

"

.

No, you don't have to respect his opinion, but you should respect his right to hold his opinion. I don't agree with Benedict XVI's homphobic viewpoints; I hope I've made that perfectly clear. But he is entitled to his own opinions, clouded by his prejudices though they may be. His opinions are not really important: He is the Pope; his responsibility is to be the custodian of Catholic dogma and uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church. I think he will do so quite efficiently. I can respect Benedict XVI, the Pope, even if I'm not real fond of Joseph Ratzinger, the man.

[post=305151]Quoted post[/post]​

Your last paragragh says it all for me, Jacinto. I won't try to add to that paragraph except to say "worded perfectly."

I do want to expound on the homophobic violence. Jacinto refered to the fact that it had come from the Protestant wing of Christianity particularly the fundamentalist.

I want to make it clear that no Methodist would be in good standing in a United Methodist Church for bashing and murdering people because they are gay. That is true of all the "mainline denominations in the United States. Those are the Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, and the Unitarian Church.

Most of the horrible bashings and particularly the murders are by people who are not actively religious at all. They may have their name on the roll somewhere, but they aren't active in the church.

 

[13788]

hung_big: AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

ATTACK OF THE QUOTES!!!!

 

[madame_zora]

Freddie, I am not sure that the ones who gay-bash are active church members or not, but I am sure that their behavior is not condoned outright by the vast majority of churches. The message is more subtle, suggesting (by religous leaders) that being gay is evil. This gives the hothead types all the justification they need for their ludicrous behavior. No, of course most leaders don't suggest violence as a way of solving the problem, but they don't suggest acceptance of others different from ourselves either.

I do realise that it isn't the Pope's job to solve our problems here in the States, it's just that he COULD. He's probably the one person that if he come out vocally against our current attitudes of judgement, it would actually matter. My regret is that he won't be that man, and at a time when the fundies have all but taken over, I fear he will add more fuel to the fire than he subtracts.

No, I don't see him as evil, and I don't expect anyone to wave a magic wand to make our idiocy disappear, it would just be nice if someone would help us a little. It would be nice if the Pope preached more about seeing first that our own house is clean before worrying about our brother's. Here will end my involvement with this tpoic as I feel it has been exhausted (at least by me). I am left feeling like just as with our government, religion will offer no solace for a while.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Apr 28 2005, 03:47 AM
Freddie, I am not sure that the ones who gay-bash are active church members or not, but I am sure that their behavior is not condoned outright by the vast majority of churches. The message is more subtle, suggesting (by religous leaders) that being gay is evil. This gives the hothead types all the justification they need for their ludicrous behavior. No, of course most leaders don't suggest violence as a way of solving the problem, but they don't suggest acceptance of others different from ourselves either.

JANA, THIS MAY BE TRUE FOR MANY CHURCHES. BUT MANY METHODIST CHURCHES HAVE KNOWN GAY AND LESBIANS ON THE PAID STAFF. IT IS TRUE THAT CHURCH LAW STATES THAT ORDAINED CLERGY BE CELEBATE IN SINGLENESS AND BE TOTALLY FAITHFUL TO THE SPOUSE IN MARRIAGE. THIS ONLY APPLIES TO ORDAINED CLERGY. BUT I HAVE NEVER HEARD A SERMON OR LESSON PREACHING THE EVILS OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN A METHODIST CHURCH. OF COURSE WITH MILLIONS OF METHODISTS THERE IS BOUND TO BE ONE SOMEWHERE. BUT PRESBYTERIAN IS THE SAME AS WELL AS EPISCOPOL.

I do realise that it isn't the Pope's job to solve our problems here in the States, it's just that he COULD. He's probably the one person that if he come out vocally against our current attitudes of judgement, it would actually matter. My regret is that he won't be that man, and at a time when the fundies have all but taken over, I fear he will add more fuel to the fire than he subtracts.

JANA I COULDN'T AGREE MORE. I JUST DON'T THINK I CAN ATTEND A FUNDDIE CHURCH. HOMOSEXUALITY IS JUST ONE OF THE REASONS.

No, I don't see him as evil, and I don't expect anyone to wave a magic wand to make our idiocy disappear, it would just be nice if someone would help us a little. It would be nice if the Pope preached more about seeing first that our own house is clean before worrying about our brother's. Here will end my involvement with this tpoic as I feel it has been exhausted (at least by me). I am left feeling like just as with our government, religion will offer no solace for a while.

JANA, I HOPE YOU ARE WRONG. BUT I SUSPECT YOU ARE RIGHT.

[post=305714]Quoted post[/post]​