Repost for Catholics in GD about New Pope on Gays

[readmoreoften]

I'm a queer atheist and I don't know how much control the pope has over his billion(s) of followers specific behaviors. I read that this pope could rule under a decree of infallibility (boy, I'm sure I got that phrase wrong, but hopefully, you'll understand what I'm talking about) that homosexuality is a radical evil and it seems that this would be somehow much different than Pope JP just SAYING that homosexuals are part of the new ideology of evil. What is the difference between an infallible decree or a pope just speakin' off the cuff?

Beyond the backlash of a billion Catholics being told it's righto good chap a-ok to hate gays, what more can he do to us?

I'm sorry for those of you who are Catholics who were hoping for a more liberal pick. I'm also curious as to why some Catholics on DU answered a recent DU poll saying that they were happy with Ratzinger. Why are you happy with him? Just wondering.

Cheerio, and thanks in advance.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. I don't think that will happen

Ratzinger is likely to moderate his rants. Besides, the first time he flies off the handle, his wacky speeches against sexuality, modernity, and rock-and-roll will be trotted out and he'll look like a royal jackass.

I don't think Joseph Ratzinger will reign long as Pope Benedict 16. He has progressing heart disease. My hunch is that he will try to make the last few years of his life as productive and Christian as possible -- which, even to conservatives, means no ranting, and a lot of emphasis on reconciliation. His elevation to the papacy may in fact be a final hurrah of the hard-ass conservative faction in the Vatican.

However, the gay community has a right to be concerned. Very few of the conservative clergy have come to grips with the fact that gays (and lesbians and other so-called "objectively disordered" people, in his words) are humans who suffer oppression far worse than anything the church has suffered since before Emperor Constantine. JP2 at least understood this; B16 will have to confront it early on if he wants the church to maintain credibility.

Right now he's a wild card. But I don't think he will unleash a worldwide pogrom against gays.

--p!

[TaleWgnDg]

2. Uuummmmmm . . . Pope Benedict XVI already has declared

.
Uuummmmmm . . . Pope Benedict XVI already has declared homosexuals as "evil," "immoral" and with "disorders" (meaning homosexuality is a mental disorder), together with many other negative declarations about homosexuals:

1.) On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated October 1, 1986 . . . signed by JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER Prefect w/ authority from Pope John Paul II . . . and I quote, "THE ROMAN CURIA . . . In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff (John Paul II) makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors."
http://www.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Pastoral_Care_of_Homosexual_Persons

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith (for an explanation of "what is" the Roman Catholic "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith")

[readmoreoften]

3. This confuses me. Are we evil, immoral, or disordered?

Evil seems to have connotation of otherworldy demonic possession or radical, fundamental depravity that is inalterable.

Immorality seems to be a *state* that one is in where one chooses to do wrong knowing the difference between good and evil.

Disorder is a clinical term for a science-based illness. Why would satan go through the trouble of using brain chemistry to make us evil or immoral?

Not that reasonableness is really the specialty of the day at Chez Homophobia, but there's got to be some rhyme to the unreason.

[TaleWgnDg]

5. Roman Catholic officials speak in religious terms. I don't.

.
Roman Catholic officials speak in religious terms. I don't. Therefore, I can only assume and speculate about their state of mind upon their assertions. What I think about what others may be thinking is quite pointless conjecture.

As for "mental disorder" as asserted by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) can be challenged on objective scientific indicia. He's wrong. After all, a Cardinal and/or Pope is not an expert in the field of psychiatry or psychology. Mental disorders, or lack thereof, are left up to the medical professionals as in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (DSM-IV) authored and edited by the American Psychiatric Association. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

[readmoreoften]

7. Right, I just don't understand why they bring it up the sciences.

But then again, it could just be an appeal to pseudoscience, the same way condom use causes the spread of AIDS by papal logic.

I'm just trying to take it all in. I'm getting pretty good at grasping the RW fundamentalist mindset but I'm still in the dark about the RW catholic one.

Thanks for your input.

[TaleWgnDg]

15. readmoreoften, here's more . . .

.
readmoreoften, here's more . . . from the same Holy See (Vatican) office, the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" which is headed by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect, u/ authority and approval of Pope John Paul II,

"CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS, LIBRERIA EDITRICE VATICANA, VATICAN CITY 2003"

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDfhomun.HTM

[readmoreoften]

17. thanks, tale!

I like this line:

"unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology."

(dirty gays exploiting your tolerance!)

Actually, this speaks volumes to the nature of the word 'tolerance'. How could you exploit someone's complete acceptance and approval?

I also like:

"Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil."

I like this for the way 'evil' gets tossed around nonchalantly.

Another hoot is " from the biological and anthropological order". Why drag science into it? Particularly because non-RW anthropology does not support the premise. The book title "African Homosexualities: Female Husbands and Boy Wives" attests pretty well to that.

"but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity"

Well, we largely inherited homophobia from the folks who tortured and genocided indigenous 'sodomite' culture into near extinction.

Eh. Same war. Different battle. Different 500 years.

[TaleWgnDg]

18. Yes, religion is based on faith . . .

.
Yes, religion is based on faith . . . And, faith by its very definition is not based in fact. Such words as "evil" and "moral," which are highly subjective, are used in faith-based issues that cannot be explained by them in objective factualities. It's a slippery slope of subjectiveness, not objective rationalities of fact. So, yes, "'evil' gets tossed around nonchalantly" by faith-believing folk, as does "moral" and "immoral."

I've often thought of it as someone talking while affixed with fly-paper trying to pass it off to me, the fly-paper, that is.

No, thanks. I pass. It's pointless.

A few hundred years from now the Roman Catholic Church, if it survives, will pronounce another mangled word-manipulated "sorrow" of its actions against homosexuals as it did to Galileo. So much for "infallibility."

[readmoreoften]

19. I'm betting on that happening in 3095

That'll be the year the RCC apologizes to gays and lesbians. But of course the world will end as the Mayan calendar predicts in 2012.

[cap]

4. wishful thinking ....

I would like to believe you are correct that Ratzinger would moderate his rants but I am not optimistic.

Ratzinger silenced this nun:

Sister Jeannine Gramick likes Ellen.
Especially the way the comedienne "outed" herself on network television.
"When people like Ellen 'come out,' who are perceived as good, wholesome human beings, it becomes easier for others at least to discuss homosexuality," says the nun, who will help convene a retreat for parents of gays on May 30.
"It helps parents to feel more comfortable in talking out their feelings."
Known as "Journey to Strength," the two-day retreat will be presented by the Catholic Parents Network, a group of families with gay and lesbian children. The location will be the Cenacle Retreat House in Lantana.
"I believe we are to approach gays with dignity and respect," says Sister Gramick from the CPN office in Hyattsville, Md. "In fact, I think we need special love and care for gays, as people on the fringes of society."

http://mysite.verizon.net/~vze43yrc/archives/arch97-5-10.html

[Zhade]

6. They're happy with him because they're conservative freeper assholes.

Self-righteous fucks who think it's okay to control people, put women in second-class-citizen-status without their inherent right to control of their own bodies, and who really do think us queers are sinful and wicked.

Fuck them.

[sandnsea]

8. A little

Currently, the Church could figure out some way to weasel back to the more moderate view they held back in the 70's. That homosexuality is likely innate which means the Church needs to be more understanding because, according to the Church, gays can never get married which means they should never have sex, which is especially difficult.

As opposed to now which is gay sex is evil, an opinion, which if it became infallible teaching would be much more difficult to move away from.

I think what happened is that Pope John Paul blamed homosexualty for the pedophilia scandal instead of pedophilia. Or used homosexuality as a scapegoat because he couldn't personally handle such a tragedy. Who knows.

None of it would seem to make a heck of alot of difference to gays, I wouldn't think. It's still second class citizenship and worse.

[readmoreoften]

9. how is an infallible teaching then overturned? n/t

[sandnsea]

10. lol, weeellllll...

According to the Church, it isn't. Ever. Otherwise it couldn't hardly be infallible, now could it? Actually, the Church doesn't have all that much infallible teaching. Most of it is "off the cuff". Or they decide it was really off the cuff and not infallible when they want to change it. Seems to me anyway.

But, part of infallible doctrine is that when the Pope issues some sort of teaching, Catholics are supposed to follow it. If you follow it in good faith and God decides it's wrong, it's not your fault. Unless, of course, it really really went against your own conscience and you did it anyway. So, you're required to develop your conscience and truly try to understand Church doctrine and not just swallow it without thought; but if you really can't decide, following Church doctrine is a good choice because the Pope has studied and has access to more religious scholars than you do.

Got all that? lol I was raised Catholic and this is how I understand it, but I haven't practiced in a very long time now. A right winger would say the Pope is infallible and you follow the Pope's teachings and that's that. Well, except for the really right wingers who say the Church is too liberal because it hasn't thrown out all the baby killing, gay loving Democrats.

[readmoreoften]

12. SO then...

If they Pope taught infallibly that gays are--what?--part of an ideology of evil then what would Catholics be accountable to do in order to follow the Church? Not be gay? But that's already disallowed. Would a teaching be a specific action? Like: you must follow drunk gay folks home from the bar and cry in front of their houses with tape over their mouths and signs? I'm half-joking, of course. But not really.

I'm actually very concerned on how this will impact gays outside of the US, particularly folks in Latin America, but here in the US as well.

The rhetoric just runs so high at this point, I wonder where it goes from here.

Hmmm. On second thought, could the new guy order them to vote against any politician who doesn't support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? Or would his infallible orders not be that specific?

[sandnsea]

14. Gee

I don't know. Ten years ago I would have said Catholics will ignore anything the Pope says anyway. But the Church has changed so much. Used to be Catholics were taught that when somebody is sinning, you admonish them if they're a loved one, and then you shut up and pray for them. Saving people and telling them they were sinners and all of that, wasn't done. My grandparents were devout Catholics and never said a bad word about anybody. But now?? I don't know.

The other part is confession. If somebody confessed their "gay sin" this morning, then they aren't in grave sin anymore. So a Catholic can't make a judgment on them. That used to keep us off each other's butts too. But also led to get drunk Friday night, go to confession on Saturday, take communion on Sunday.

It's the combination of a right wing Pope and the theocratic movement in this country that scares me. John Paul did have a loving heart that tempered people, I don't know that Ratzinger does.

[TaleWgnDg]

16. It isn't. Infallible teaching is not overturned. However . . .

.
It isn't. Infallible teaching is not overturned. However, how is "infallible teaching" corrected?

1.) If the pope's teachings are infallible,
2.) How, then, to correct "infallible" teachings whenever those teachings are proven incorrect?
3.) By manipulating words. And by removing the event from the people with many centuries of time before any words are manipulated in correcting past teachings.

[DanCa]

11. Well am not happy or a catholic

I am a straight Protestant and for the life of me I dont know why people would ever want this pope or are so hung up on a persons orientation. All's I know is that my god loves everyone regardless of thier orientation, political affilation, and stance on reproductive issues. And that he would want me to treat people the way I would want to be treated.

But back to the question at hand if being gay is such a sin how come it isnt mentioned in the top ten? I mean I wear glasses and I have a defect in my sight am I not allowed to approach the altar of god? There are things in the bible that are have been misinterpeted and slanted to fit another persons view point since the bible was written.

So while I hope and pray Pope Rat doesnt go off on a anti-gay or anti- reproducitve tirade I also pray that the Unitarians and the Episcopal Church and others speaks are forced to speak out against such hard line tactics. Hmm Cosmicaly speaking the scale is tilted so far to the right is that eventually its going to have to spill out to the left. Maybe this is the last grain of sand that tips the scale our way.

Any how have a gentle and healthy day people and be good to each other. And remember not all christians are conservatives. Some of us know that GOP doesn't spell GOD.

[readmoreoften]

13. welcome to DU!

No, I know, all christians are definitely not conservative. :hi: