The media are falling all over each other to praise Pope Francis and his new “enlightened” stance on gays. He seems to be a humble man, sleeps in a small bed in an unprepossessing room, wears cheap shoes (unlike Ratzi), and rides in the Popemobile without being completely protected. He’s seen as a man of the people. And, on his flight back from Brazil, Pope Francis said this, as reported by EuroNews:
In some impromptu comments on the plane journey home from Brazil, Pope Francis has said homosexuals should not be marginalised but integrated into society.
There was no problem with homosexual orientation, he added. But he reaffirmed Catholic Church teaching that homosexual acts are a sin, and condemned what he described as lobbying by gay people.
“All the lobbies are not good,” he told reporters, before adding: “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?”
When I first saw this on television, I thought, “Wow, now this is a forward-looking Pope!” But then I pondered the words. First, Francis says that there is “no problem” with homosexual orientation, but adds later that that is not a judge-able offense— “if the gay person seeks God.” But that’s already Catholic doctrine. As I wrote about previously, the official policy of the Catholic church is this (my bold):
From the Catholic Catechism:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
In other words, homosexual inclinations (not acts) are considered a “disorder”, and acting on those inclinations is a “grave depravity.” The latter is a Catholic euphemism for “if you don’t confess this, you’ll burn in hell.” And I see “seeking God” as a euphemism for “confession.” So if you confess that you’ve sinned by being gay, you’re all right. What’s new about that?
As for condemning the lobbying of Catholics, that’s just a sign that Francis is not going to bend to those who see the Church’s policy as backwards and discriminatory.
One could also be cynical and construe Francis’s words as meaning, “I won’t judge gays, but God will.” Nevertheless, so long as he fails to repudiate or overturn Catholic policy, his “conciliatory” words mean absolutely nothing.
I swear, I don’t know how gays—of which Andrew Sullivan is a prominent example—can practice Catholicism. “Working to change the church from inside” isn’t going to be effective—at least not in our lifetime.
I find the whole “working to change from the inside” notion insane. Would one accept it if Whitey Bolger said he was just working to change organized crime from the inside?
sub
“These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
The difficulties they may encounter come not least from the RC church and its followers.
Yes, hilarious – the difficulties aren’t with them, they come from the outside from bigotry that the RC Church leads!
Typical clumsy misdirection dressed up with assumed righteousness and delivered with clueless earnestness.
If this simple man of god . . ., or is it man of the people? I’m so confused. Anyway, if we are to believe that the above statement accurately reflects the pope’s position, then how in the hell can the following statement be reconciled with it?
Typical lying for jesus, or just a delusional old man?
Just consistent with church doctrine. Same with the atheists – you can get into heaven but you kinda need not to be atheists.
First quote likely should be understood as “I judge not lest I be judged”.
Second quote is authoritative “The catolicker church is the law. Homosexual acts cause burning by fire, speak out against and don’t show respect for any attempts that might result in gays being accepted as socially equal to catolickers”.
The two statements compliment each other if you have organized your mind in the stench of the poop. The christian is a deceptive, manipulative, disgusting, disordered subspecies.
….and like all poop, it belongs in the sewer system…..
Cardinal Dolan said as much as well. After the atheists getting the big let down, I knew the LGBT weren’t going to be strolling through the pearly gates either. I’ve already proclaimed that I’ll save them all a place in the Lake of Fire. 🙂
It seems this pope is trying to bridge some divides as best as he can however, given vatican dogma, all those bridges are flimsy, swaying rope bridges with giant holes in them like you’d see in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
I never could understand Andrew Sullivan. His explanations of “his” Catholicism is cherry picked and he refuses to see it or hold the Catholic Church accountable for their bigotry.
Of course, with regard to cherry picking… there isn’t an Xtian who doesn’t. Or Muslim… or Jew… or…
I’m in tight with the devil, we’ve already setup a party room for atheists of all genders. The christian sinners just drop into the fire and keep us warm.
You speak of the same Dolan who is alleged to have hidden church money while he was in the mid-west so it could not be lost to lawsuits. Scum.
Keep in mind that this pope is a jesuit – an expert in subtle and equivocating argumentation, and in casuistry.
That was subtle? Ah, you are being sarcastic, right?
Had a full scholarship to study with the jesuits. Glad I didn’t take it.
Subtle in the sense of sly, cunning, Machiavellian…
Probably the worst of the catholic orders.
I heard this said some time back : “No matter how thin you slice it, it’s still baloney”
Does that seem appropriate?
I think his comments have been misinterpreted as liberalisation. But surely, in saying “It is not for him to judge gays” all he’s doing is repeating the same old Christian mantra, that it is for god to judge, not people.
Of course, gods judgements generally align very nicely with the person making the utterance.
“I don’t judge gays, but god does”
I wonder what they will do when they find out god was created by man in his own image and likeness…
I suspect many in the Vatican already know this but they are just keeping things going because they are making a good living at it….like when you totally figured out Santa, the Easter Bunny & the tooth fairy weren’t real but you went along with it to your parents because you didn’t want to get cut off of the goodness. 😀
I suspect you are correct in many in the vatican not believing; but one does not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs!!
I’m convinced that a large portion of these holy men doesn’t truly believe in what they are preaching and that many of them are deists rather than theists.
Yer doin it rong.
Hint. It is not possible avoid unjust discrimination when you categorize homosexual acts as, . . .
Typical. You’re not getting the famous Jesuit subtlety. That would be just discrimination! Sigh – atheists are such dullards sometimes.
🙂
There is some truth in that. I don’t get that famous Jesuit subtlety. It’s too obvious.
As an ex-“born-into-it” RC (who is now both a “gay” and nearly finished a PhD in evolutionary biology), I can only head-desk repeatedly when Popes open their mouths and say the same thing, over, and over, and over again – albeit with slightly different words. I don’t understand Andrew Sullivan either, but some of my older close relatives still practice despite being “fully supportive” of my lifestyle – it’s really hard not to take as a backhanded compliment. I actually grew up knowing 3 gay priests who just never “acted” on their tendencies, they became priests I guess to avoid them. So, I’ve just stopped thinking about the nonsense of catholicism altogether. I wish the media would just shut up about it too.
They are, ironically, following original NT doctrine better than their hetero laity. I think its Matt 19 where Jesus basically says that complete abstinence is what you should strive for. Getting married and then having sex is just the lesser sin you do so as not to indulge in the greater one (sex outside marriage).
Of course that makes no sense when one considers what makes homosexuality so terribly wrong in the eyes of Catholic authorities:
“They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life.
And if complete abstinence is the ideal does that mean that extinction of the human race is ideal? Of course that makes no sense in light of the Catholic Church’s hardline stance against any form of birth control and abortion.
Could it be that Christianity, and perhaps all religions, are internally contradictory? No it can’t be that…according to the adherents of those religions.
Actually, that would seem to be a misinterpretation of that passage. Matthew 19:8-11:
The more reasonable interpretation is that the claim about being a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is that if you can’t handle marriage as Jesus described it, then you should indeed never marry and live a life of chastity. This is also supported as being essentially the same sort of advice as (paraphrased) “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off, because it’s better to lose a hand than lose the kingdom of God”.
….cut off the money they get and see what happens…always go for the jugular..
Andrew S – I despair sometimes over him; he’s an intelligent man, creator of what is really quite a good and stimulating middlebrow blog, or website, and often on the right side of many issues, and yet… there’s this strange childishness that leads him to hold fast to what he feels must be the ultimate goodness, beneath all the evils and the scandals, of the Catholic church (although, to be fair, the terror he must have felt on learning he had AIDS surely has a lot to do with his clinging to what he was taught in childhood), and there is also the ultimately frivolous emotionalism that led him to support the attack on Iraq – because the leftists he contemns for their supposed lack of patriotism were against it, he was for it. The Catholic anathemas against homosexuality are not superficial, they are not something that might easily be dropped or mitigated in some way, since they are, as Eric MacDonald has pointed out, inextricably involved in the Catholic conception of what human life is for.
I’m pretty sure Andrew Sullivan does not have AIDS. Perhaps you meant, “learning he was HIV positive?”
That seems to be the core problem, the source of many of the conflicts between religious view points and secular view points.
To me this is a clear cut case of duoble speek.
On the one hand the pope tries to give the impression that the catholic church has softened its stance on homosexuality, and on the other hand the papal dogma hasn’t changed.
I’m with Jerry on this one. It is hard for me to understand that any gay people would want to be a part of such an institution.
Their very nature is working against them and according to their faith they are committing a sin if they act upon it.
It must be excruciating to endure a lifetime of doing the “right thing” under threat of eternal pain and suffering.
I simply don’t get it.
Jerry,
You ask how gays can practice catholicism. As a product of 18yrs of practicing catholocism I can give you a well informed explanation. Typical members of catholic church are basically attendees of a weekly ritualistic, formal, rather bland gathering of people called ‘Mass’. Catholic Mass is absolutely nothing like the typical evangelist type worship service that most atheists or non-catholics imagine. People attend mostly out of a sense of duty, for the chance to meditate/pray for a bit, and to hear the priest’s sermon (which usually is life lesson type talk that may or may not include bible quotes or even god at all). No teaching of doctrine or dogma. Unless a person learned catholic dogma from catechism, one likely doesn’t know (or care) much about it. Our family never thought that sperm were life or that masturbation was a sin. The same goes for most catholics. All Catholics only buy into the concept of God while I’ve never known a one to buy into all the bizarre teachings of the church’s leadership.
If that is all they are looking for, then why not ditch the catholic hierarchy? Sever all ties with the vatican? Is it ignorance? Or is the typical oblivious catholic you describe not bothered by being a part of, and directly empowering, an organization like the catholic hierarchy?
I suppose I’ll have to yield to your greater experience with catholicism since I was raised in a not particularly observant family. But, I have been to many catholic services of various kinds, and some of my extended family are devout, and my experiences do not match yours at all.
So it’s more a matter of tradition and social relationships with your nearest surroundings, than it is a matter of accepting church dogma?
And the (not unrelated) “everyone is doing it”. Ah, peer pressure.
billrabara – I was also raised Catholic and didn’t know anything about most of the bizarre teachings of the church’s leadership. I found that out after ceasing to be a Catholic.
The problem is that you and the others you describe in your post (as well as the ones who are simply ignorant of the official church teachings, like I was) still, by attending those services, identifying as a Catholic, and putting anything in the collection plate (or basket), are propping up the Church’s bizarre teachings. If you are against the Catholic Church’s official stance on homosexuality or anything else, then you should leave the Catholic church altogether. By remaining a Catholic you are supporting the Church’s bizarre teachings that you don’t even personally believe.
Same old poison, slightly better-looking bottle.
To me, being a gay Catholic is roughly analogous to a black who supports segregation.
“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”
The only difference between homosexuality and child rape is that child rape is not a bad thing in “Sacred Scripture.”
In this quoted example, not in the real world…
That is hilarious, because exactly the same thing can be said about catholic priest sexual abstinence.
In fact, the whole idea doesn’t pass the smell test [suitably changed]:
“2357 Sexual abstinence refers to relations between persons who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents abstinence acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “abstinence acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated abstinence tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Abstinence persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”
An abstinence act described in the catholic mythos as a grave depravity would be Onan, I believe.
And the numbers of abstainers in spirit, with or without religion, isn’t negligible. ~ 1 % of a population are non-sexuals, IIRC. How many practice abstinence, I don’t know.
On the contrary, it can be said that religious abstainers more effectively “close the sexual act to the gift of life”. Homosexuals can marry, copulate and have children (mostly by adoption; using own gene material is optional). The catholic church leaders can not.
Oops. No specific time ordering between marry and copulate was intended.
Come to think of it, homosexuals likely choose to have greater freedom re customs. (But to donate genetic material et cetera and _last_ copulate would still be rare, I would hope. =D)
Are the “better knowing” people expecting that the Vatican would begin making the apology of same gender sex?
Yep. Bears continue to crap in the woods, and the pope continues to be a Catholic.
Francis is trying a delicate balancing act between humility and infallibity.
On one side of his mouth he says “who am I to judge” and “we shouldn’t marginalize these people”. On the other side of his mouth he affirms the only good homosexuals are the celibate homosexuals and we cannot allow “these people” to marry.
How do Catholics explain why their God made people gay in the first place? A prepayment on Purgatory?
Well, they seem to be under the impression that homosexuality it is a matter of choice and that god has granted us all free will, and therefore it is a sin that they bring upon themselves if they act on their desires.
Something like that.
When Andrew Sullivan goes to confession what is that like? Maybe he just likes to publicly recount his sexuality?
Andy: Forgive me father for I have committed 42 acts of the homosexual since my last confession. I’ve also called out the lord’s name in vain during the 13th homosexual act.
Priest: You have been a naughty naughty boy Andy. So that the lord may accurately assess your sin and choose your punishment, describe in detail the occurrence of your 13th homosexual sin’a.
Andy: Well, it all started when we (my boy friend and I) stopped by the store to get a nice bottle of christ. I swear to doG we had no intention of committing sin before we started consuming the blood of christ. Well, soon we started getting real hot due to the power of the christ that had become alive within us.
Priest: Yes, Andy. So that the lord can properly judge you, you’ll need to confess with some detail. Andy, how hot did the blood of christ flow within you?
Andy: Oh, very very hot father, it was as if the blood of christ was’a boil’n within…
They have to play games. If they change, it looks like they bowed to outside pressure. If they don’t change, they look out of touch. Keep ’em guessing for as long as possible! So much for Christian ethics….
The classical Catholic stand on homosexuality is further complicated by the fact that Roman Catholicism is just about the only religion that says you can spend an eternity in hell for a single mistake, i.e mortal sin even if it is not habitual/chronic behavior. Once done, you are stuck in a “state of sin” until reception of a sacrement (confession) restores you to a “state of grace”. (Now they say “grave matter” instead of “mortal sin”).
However, I disagree with Prof Coyne in claiming that when the Pope says “seek God” he simply means going to confession. This phrase can be used to mean a wide variety of devotional acts.
He’s just not being frank…
/@
I think most people got the sex to have children thing wrong. The purpose of sex is to procreate and produce offspring, one may argue, that may be the ultimate purpose, but that is not how nature works. Too much engineering, a simpler program is all that’s needed to get’er done.
The purpose of sex is to have sex, an inexorable indiscriminate urge, applied over the entire race so that enough will produce offspring. Nature plays a numbers game – with very large numbers. All of the varieties of sexual expression, to borrow from Sam Harris – is just nature throwing her clay.
Homosexuality is just one of her casts, among others.
As an enlightened social species, however, we draw the moral line at sex between consenting adults and sanction against coercive and deceptive sexual predation on the vulnerable and unsuspecting. It wasn’t always so.
Seems to me that this pope wants to distract attention away from the vile (evil?) human consequences of RCC doctrine by obsequious personal displays of humility and a softening of tone towards towards sinners. Nothing has fundamentally changed, nor is likely to.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/matthewparris/article3832997.ece
Sorry, the link above was supposed to come at the end of the following:
Mathew Paris believes the new pope is saying “we may have got this [homosexuality] wrong.
Paris is wrong, I believe. When Pope Francis says some lobbies are wrong I’m certain he means those who insist that homosexual activity is inherently no less and no more moral than heterosexual activity. The RCC may be forced into humiliating admission of errors on scientific matters but to admit that it can get it totally ass-backwards on moral matters would be to admit that the Church’s Magesteria Mores have not been guided by God. That ain’t going to happen in this millenium, Mathew.