Homosexuality/ Cardinal Ratzinger

[Pure]

JP II canonized one of the few married couples in saintdom (the company of saints--beatified or canonized-- apparently numbers a couple thousand, afaik). It appears to be quite hard to be a married couple (non-martyred), and saintly.

But they did indeed live as brother and sister for more than 20 years, their god-given duty --four children--having been accomplished.

And some say he's not inclusive!

http://www.the-tidings.com/2003/0425/essays.htm

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Well, _selfish pursuits_, particularly of sexual pleasure, are persistently denounced by JP II and Ratzinger: they are outside the sphere of morality and the moral authority of the Church. That you voluntarily place yourself there will, as they say, have 'grave consequences.'

And if there are, I'm prepared to face them. I believe it's worth it (for me).

 

[Pure]

What do you mean, "If"?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

What do you mean, "If"?

Well, I haven't experienced any consequences as of yet. I have never been subject to differential treatment in my church because of my sexual preferences. So, "if".

 

[Liar]

Is there some natural law that requires one to follow anyone else's orders?

I wouldn't maybe take ít that far. But Homo Sapiens is a pack animal after all.

 

[sweetnpetite]

The homosexual lifestyle is 'intrinsically disordered' (against nature) and depraved (morally corrupt), as stated by Cardinal Ratzinger (with the blessing of Pope JP II)?

Do you agree?

Certainly no more so than celebacy.

 

[shereads]

Penguins do it.

 

[Liar]

Penguins do it.

And in public too.

 

[Pure]

penguins do it

from which it follows: some penguins are depraved

 

[rgraham666]

Penguins do it.

(singing)

Birds do it,
bees do it,
even educated fleas do it,
let's do it, let's fall in love

In Spain the best upper sets do it,
Lithuanians and Letts do it,
let's do it, let's fall in love

the Dutch in old Amsterdam do it,
not to mention the Finns,
folks in Siam do it,
think of Siamese Twins
some argentines without means do it
People say in Boston even beans do it
come on let's fall in love

Electric eels, I might add, do it
though it shocks them, I know
why ask if shads do it?
say, waiter, bring me shad roe
In shallow shoals English soles do it
goldfish in the privacy of bowls do it
let's do it, come on let's fall in love

 

[BlackShanglan]

Actually, I've spent part of the day reading through the "Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" letter and the sections of scripture to which it relates. Most intriguing. I've found the selections from Genesis and Leviticus intensely trying and difficult to assess. I can certainly see the church's reading of them; I can see another reading of them. I'm all too aware, as well, that I'm battling constantly with what I really, at heart, want them to say. It's been a morally trying day, and one that's left me deep in thought and particularly intrigued and frustrated with Leviticus.

However, I do bear good some good news, and especially for Lauren.

I can't find a line in either that says a word about female homosexuality.

The Genesis section on Sodom and Gomorrah I think open to a variety of interpretations. The sin might have been male homosexual sex; it might also have been rape, group sex, or violation of the laws of hospitality and sanctuary. But it's quite clear that the offenders are male and their targets are male.

Leviticus is even more specific; it is a sin for "a man to lie with a man as with a woman." It's mentioned twice, including the point where it's assigned the penalty of death. There are some contextual factors that lure my personal hope that this isn't a necessary doctrinal reading; amongst other things, it's relatively close in position to dictates on Jewish dietary law, required animal sacrifices, impurities of semen and menstruation, and not wearing clothing of linen and wool mixed together, all of which we tend to set aside in modern times. To be fair, however, it's also in very close proximity with injunctions against bestiality and incest, which we still think very important prohibitions.

One point on which it's quite clear, however, is that the sin involves two men. I think this especially intriguing in light of how the sins of incest are handled. It doesn't say "it's a sin to commit incest"; it says that it's a sin to "uncover the nakedness of" ... and proceeds to repeat the same general formula with mother, sister, daughter, aunt, half-sister, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, etc. It's very specific in each relationship. Similarly, with bestiality, there are two laws: gender-specific injunctions about men mating with animals and women mating with animals. In this context, it seems hard to me to argue that gay sex between women is forbidden. It's quite glaringly not mentioned in the course of a text that is otherwise very specific about who is forbidden to do what, and with whom.

I'm curious to dig further and see what the Vatican has to offer on this topic. With male gay sex, I can at least see how they got their reading out of the text, but I really can't see any support there for injunctions against lesbians.

Shanglan

 

[elsol]

the text acknowledges that homosexual persons "do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial," and forbids any disrespect or failure of compassion for homosexuals

So it's okay then... cause man's nature is to sin and in the grand scheme of things sucking cock isn't on the List of Ten Dealbreakers.

It's also a trial, and so God has made room for the "God, that one was too tough... Did you see the size of it and the perfection of its form? I mean YOU created that cock, and it was GOOD! My bad, sir, I failed that one... what's the tally... Ran into a burning building to rescue a little girl at the risk of my own life, sucked 12 cocks... we're square right? That little girl grew up to be a doctor, you know."

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[elsol]

Considering the empty seats in churches nowadays... what are the odds that the Chuch wil adopt a 'Don't ask, Don't tell' policy?

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[BlackShanglan]

As I understand it, I think the Vatican differentiates somewhat between individual "failings" of a homosexual nature and embracing a homosexual lifestyle. That is, they see gay sex as a sin, and therefore approach it as they would other sins in differentiating between having lapses and making it a routine. To compare - and to be clear, I am not suggesting that I consider these equivalent, only that the church does - there's a difference between saying "I'm sorry, I did have sex with my neighbor's wife. It was a bad thing to do, and I will strive never to do it again" and saying "There's nothing wrong with adultery, and I plan to continue having sex with my neighbor's wife for the forseeable future." In El Sol's example I think that this is significant; if one imagines the speaker repentant for a limited number of lapses which s/he acknowledges to have been sinful, one creates a different image than that of one who acknowledges no sin and has exercised no attempt at restraint.

This is significant from a doctrinal point of view because the church tends to associate forgiveness with repentance. You can't be forgiven if you don't repent. That said, I rather hope that God recognizes how confusing this all is for many of us. We've only got little monkey brains (or the superior equine model) to try to work it out with.

Shanglan

 

[elsol]

I believe that in Leviticus, it also says that if a child raises a hand to their parent they are to be put to death.

So... so... so...

There's a few others in Leviticus like that...

Not that I'm a biblical scholar... I just watched the whoopi goldberg special and she mentions the other 'Leviticus' zingers.

But the Bible is one of those books that I can't help but see as a trial also... a trial to separate that which God said and that which man which God had said.

Cause if I had been given the opportunity... I would definitely added a few sins of my own.

Thou shall be silent for 1 part in 24 parts of a day when thy mate comes in from labor of the field.

Seriously... that's a big one for me. "Honey... shut the fuck up for a little bit so I can put work away!"

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[BlackShanglan]

*laugh* I like your addition.

I agree completely on Leviticus. It's a real morass, because there's so much that's already been dropped from any doctrinal application mixed in with rules against things like bestiality and incest that I would really hate to see thrown aside. It seems clear that some of it is no longer applicable, and that some of it still has value. How to decide which is which is deeply perplexing.

I'm also torn on the Genesis sections on Lot and Sodom, possibly because I've done too much work with orally transmitted texts for my own good. We end up with the story of Lot going into the mountains and conceiving children by his two daughters, who allegedly sleep with him after getting him drunk. There are a lot of problematic issues there. First, I have to admit that if someone rolled into town saying he'd been living up in the mountains with his two female children whom he'd impregnated, but it was all their idea, my answer would be "Bullshit. Here, by the way, is the business end of my baseball bat." If we accept Lot's story to be about a real man and his real life, I think it opens very grave moral questions.

There are also strange text gaps. Lot tells the men of Sodom that he has two virgin daughters whom he will give to them. Later, we hear mention of his sons-in-law, who evidently live with him and whom he tries to warn about the impending destruction of the city. Yet he leaves the city with his wife and only two daughters. Why did he leave his sons-in-law? How are these two daughters virgin if they are already married? Some of this reminded me, actually, of stories like the birth of Cuchulain in the Tain (an orally transmitted bodies of legends from pre-Christian Ireland). Cuchulain has three births and three implied fathers. One could read this as an attempt to show how important he is, as three is a magical number in that culture. On the other hand, one might also be tempted to read it as the result of people passing around different versions of the story of his conception and birth and eventually trying to reconcile them with each other. Then you get odd connections and sometimes whole extra stories that spring up in order to try to explain conflicting versions of earlier tales. So was Lot a real man who really had all of those things happen to him, or is the eventual story the result of one person getting two versions of the tale - one where his wife dies and another where he has more children - and trying to make them fit together? It's a densely knotted little puzzle and throws confusion over much of what surrounds it.

I'm with you, El Sol. It's hard to pick out what's God and what's man. I also found, with Leviticus, that the "it's a divinely inspired text and must be right" didn't help either. If we look at it as a work of men and inherently flawed, then it's hard to know what's important. If we look at it as a work of God and divinely shaped to take the perfect form, then we're all screwed for eating rabbit and wearing wool/linen blends.

You'd think they'd make this whole "eternal salvation" thing a little easier, wouldn't you?

Shanglan

 

[elsol]

I'm waiting for the aliens Black...

I want a comparative study of 'religious' texts across worlds... cause if ET comes down and he's go a list Ten "Don't Even Fucking Think About These" and they match our list...

Let's just say I'm going to be REAL interested in attending church.

You know what though... I have to answer for my sins and so do the administrators of the church.

If I had to stand before God's judgment, I'd choose my relatively paltry sins (a little lying... some premarital nookie) to facilitating the rape of children.

I can see myself in the line to Heaven's gates and hearing "Elsol, get out of the way, I want to talk to the fucker behind you!"

Or maybe to hear the words: "Is that what I said... Is that what I SAID to write! It's not, is it? Do you know how many people you fucked up with this shit. So many that I've made a special place just for you!"

And as to the '1 in 24 parts thing' if that were actually in the Bible I bet many of would go to church on sunday... 1 1/2 hours of church for 5 hours of silence when I get home from work.

It would be SOOOOO worth it.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[BlackShanglan]

Thanks, El Sol, for giving me many a good laugh this evening.

On a more serious note - I think to some extent I'm almost more horrified at the actions of the bishops than of the abusers themselves. There's one faint argument to made about the abuse: it's conceivably possible that the abusers are gravely mentally ill people who might not be able to control their urges.

But the bishops? What excuse do they have? They facilitated the rape of children in the spirit of CYA and a conviction of their own superiority.

I have many sins on my conscience. I'm very glad that I don't have that one.

 

[elsol]

Thanks, El Sol, for giving me many a good laugh this evening.

On a more serious note - I think to some extent I'm almost more horrified at the actions of the bishops than of the abusers themselves. There's one faint argument to made about the abuse: it's conceivably possible that the abusers are gravely mentally ill people who might not be able to control their urges.

But the bishops? What excuse do they have? They facilitated the rape of children in the spirit of CYA and a conviction of their own superiority.

I have many sins on my conscience. I'm very glad that I don't have that one.

It's interesting that the Church talks about 'trials', I wonder if they understand that a fair and just God would pass trials onto the Church also.

That's how I see the world, and the Church has passed some and like me, they've tanked a few doozies.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thanks, El Sol, for giving me many a good laugh this evening.

On a more serious note - I think to some extent I'm almost more horrified at the actions of the bishops than of the abusers themselves. There's one faint argument to made about the abuse: it's conceivably possible that the abusers are gravely mentally ill people who might not be able to control their urges.

But the bishops? What excuse do they have? They facilitated the rape of children in the spirit of CYA and a conviction of their own superiority.

I have many sins on my conscience. I'm very glad that I don't have that one.

To my mind, the covering up is so morally reprehensible it invalidates any claim anyone involved has to being a holy man, a man of god, even a man in any sense beyond a genetic disposition.

Pedophiles don't wear signs, they don't have distinguishing marks and some are so adept at hiding their prediliction no one could tell before they are discovered, generally through chance of the accusations of exceeedingly brave victims. In an organization as large as the RCC, it is inevitable that some men who become priests are pedophiles, rapists, egomanical opportunists, etc. It's simply a matter of numbers and no amount of screening will catch every one who has an ulterior motive for taking clerical vows.

I do not blame them for individual incidents of abuse, it's simply inevitable that it will happen. It's the fact that individuals were given the opportunity to create multiple victims AFTER they were found out that boggles the mind. For that, there is no amount of pious bullshit that will even begin to mitigate the betrayal of everything that is even remotely spiritual about those involved.

To my mind, the RCC, through institutionalized covering up, forfieted any right to claim they are acting in god's name. I can't find an excuse, an reason, even an inkling of how the men who covered this up still hold high office. Frankly, the corruption this represents is, to me, significantly more horrible than the corruptions that fired the reformation.

I may be an abomination in the eyes of god, but at least my depravity harmed no one. those who would condemn me, can't even claim that most basic thing.

Bottom line, when the protectors of child abusing rapists tell me I need to get right with god all I can say is they have a lot of fucking nerve.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

The homosexual lifestyle is 'intrinsically disordered' (against nature) and depraved (morally corrupt), as stated by Cardinal Ratzinger (with the blessing of Pope JP II)?

Do you agree?

Scientifically, it's not neccessarily against nature because biological impulses are at least partly responsible for the actions. It is against nature in the narrow sense that male-female sexual reproduction is how we reproduce as humans, but homosexuality is a natural and cross-species deviation from that practice. With the existence of homosexual animals in sexually reproducing animals, it could be said to be a standard repeating mutation no different say from the "deviations from nature" that give birth to midgets, albinos, people with strange eye color, left-handedness or taking an even further look back, the very existence of a cognizant homo sapien in the first place.

To take it even further, the very idea of sexual reproduction is a small-scale abberation to the more productive and "natural" method of asexual reproduction practiced by most of Earth's residents.

And some might say since the deviation is to one area which impairs survival of species (ability to reproduce), but this is also inaccurate because the same science which has alleviated the failings of our other survivabilities (weakness against predators, thin skins, unstable biped movement, etc...) has made in vivo reproduction theoretically moot. While it may be strange, it still maintains survivability of the species and that is the sole "natural" law there is in biology.

Thus it is not so much a "crime against nature" or even "against nature", more a "natural deviation, standard repeated mutation, or possibly a simple allele or set of alleles working in tandem.





For the second part, moral corruption, I would not agree, but what am I? Moral corruption to me centers around methods of hurting or using others for the purpose of dehumanizing or abusing them. Murders, tortures, driving someone to suicide, treating a person like a slave or less-than-a-person, or raping someone are all examples of morally corrupt beliefs.

Speaking from a Christian standpoint, Christ was very clear about avoiding rants on "perceived immoralities" and instead focusing on your own sin and striving to conquer it. He spoke this often, about thrice as often as his famous pleas for forgiveness and tolerance and a hundred more times than he ever showed anger. The only times he showed anger were against religious figures who did disservice to their religion.

Perhaps by being a strict Old Testamentarian, one could avoid such a paradox and preach hate, but *shrug*. People do with their faith as they do and though I wished more would start their own personal faiths rather than wreaking the faiths they already belong to, it isn't my place to drag em through the mud for it.




On marriage, every church has full right to decide who shall be married in their building in the eyes of their deity. What they fail to realize is that marriage has transcended a religious ceremony into a civil recognition of a "in-love" couple.

While they have full right to turn aside a gay couple seeking bonding in the eyes of the Catholic Church and God, they have no right to have them bonded in another Church in the eyes of another deity or in fact God himself (and furthermore, such actions have been occuring since at least the early 90s in famed "commitment ceremonies in various friendly places of worship) nor are they allowed the couple to have such unions created or recognized by a secular governmental institution. It is a direct attempt to send the message that it isn't merely a disagreement over what is "for or against nature" or what is "morally corrupt or just" but rather an attempt to dehumanize a segment of the population, take over a government by force to do so, and to legally persecute against people you just don't like. This is illegal, unconstitutional and all Americans and members of secular republics everywhere have a neccessity to oppose regardless of disagreements of the morality of it. Unfortunately homophobes are also unAmerican.

The Church has the right to decide who is bonded in the eyes of their deity or deities. Every church has that right and the right to turn aside those they do not wish to wed. But they also have no right dictating what a secular institution or other religious institutions do in terms of marriage. Especially not a secular institution, whose birth largely centered on providing a civil union service for those not a member of any Church group. The use of misunderstanding of blurring the idea of a Church's idea of marriage and the recognition of marriages by a government is an attempt by unrighteous frightened men to illegally discriminate in an open atmosphere and to dehumanize sectors of people because of personal beliefs. And that to me, in my definition of what is moral, is an unjustifiable morally corrupt act.







And overall I maintain that this debate will have the same ending as all the other debates on marriages ended. Inter-European marriages way back when, morally corrupt, evil, unconscienable. "Would you lay with a Gaulian whore?" Now, people rarely bat an eyelash when a German marries a Swede. Inter-faith marriages, not more than a hundred or two years ago, protestants and catholics marrying each other was a just cause to disown the offending perpetraters, to mark them as sinners and shun them. Now, we barely even mention it on TV or in movies even in extreme couplings like Southern Baptist and Wiccan. Inter-racial marriages, 50-100 years ago such a sinful disgrace that one would sooner stone such beasts than allow them freedom. I aint going to pretend like its fully roses and peaches now, but such couplings receive a much softer treatment these days in some forms it is seen as special and applause-worthy or even as not a big deal (as is most of the white-Asian, black-white couplings where I live). Gay marriage will likely join their ranks. Those who railed against it openly will be openly mocked in history's eye. We'll all pretend like "we were homoophobes, but now we're all gay-loving family and we're all better now" and that'll be sickening, but it will also serve as a stepping stone for the gradual acceptance that comes with time. Will homophobia disappear as soon as gays can universally wed. Hell no. But people will be forced to regard gays as people, as equal people in the people hierarchy (which is an elaborate lie, a make-believe hierarchy), and to admit that the Earth-shattering destruction of the meaning of the event has yet again failed to happen. That's why I am optimistic about it and not overly shaken by the raised visibility and tone of the homophobe nutcases and anti-human bigots. History has them yelling, seeming dominant, but every time they slip up and lose another battle.

So yeah. Simple answer became long multi-part rant.

 

[elsol]

To my mind, the RCC, through institutionalized covering up, forfieted any right to claim they are acting in god's name. I can't find an excuse, an reason, even an inkling of how the men who covered this up still hold high office. Frankly, the corruption this represents is, to me, significantly more horrible than the corruptions that fired the reformation.

All I know is, if I were God, I'd be pissed about the bad press this child molestation has brought to his Church.

If I were someone that facillitated it, I'd be thinking about trying to avoid that conversation.

Hell or Pissed Off Creator; a Pissed off Creator or Hell.

That's a toughie!

On the one side, you have the opportunity for eventual forgiveness BUT on the same side you have to consider that God could make a place WORSE than Hell just to store you in for Forever - 1.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Colleen Thomas]

All I know is, if I were God, I'd be pissed about the bad press this child molestation has brought to his Church.

If I were someone that facillitated it, I'd be thinking about trying to avoid that conversation.

Hell or Pissed Off Creator; a Pissed off Creator or Hell.

That's a toughie!

On the one side, you have the opportunity for eventual forgiveness BUT on the same side you have to consider that God could make a place WORSE than Hell just to store you in for Forever - 1.

Sincerely,
ElSol

Personally, if there is a hell, I hope God has a special place reserved for those who put avoiding bad press above the welfare of children. On earth, I wish the DA had declared the RCC Dicoese of Boston a corrupt organization and used the RICO statutes to put every man who had a hand in the cover up in jail for the rest of his life. Which I would hope would have been as nasty and brutish as our prison system could make it for them.

 

[Pure]

Leviticus

Hi Black,

you said in part,

I agree completely on Leviticus. It's a real morass, because there's so much that's already been dropped from any doctrinal application mixed in with rules against things like bestiality and incest that I would really hate to see thrown aside. It seems clear that some of it is no longer applicable, and that some of it still has value. How to decide which is which is deeply perplexing.

[...]
I'm with you, El Sol. It's hard to pick out what's God and what's man. I also found, with Leviticus, that the "it's a divinely inspired text and must be right" didn't help either. If we look at it as a work of men and inherently flawed, then it's hard to know what's important. If we look at it as a work of God and divinely shaped to take the perfect form, then we're all screwed for eating rabbit and wearing wool/linen blends.

About the 'morass', here are some points worth making, as regards Ratzingers arguments, which are said to be of such high quality. Some of these points are additional to yours, and some repeat or recast points of yours made here and elsewhere. 1) He is no fundamentalist. Finding a line in the Bible is not crucial for him; there are any number he would discount for reasons of Church tradition.

2)So it is basically opportunistic to go through the hundreds (the orthodox jews say its 613) of OT prescriptions and proscriptions, looking for, say, support for 'homosexual acts are against nature.' A term used is 'cherry picking.'

3) Even after the cherries are picked,---oops, there's nothing about lesbians. Well, then there's St. Paul**, tradition, natural law in Aquinas, etc. As far as Genesis material quoted, esp. about woman being made for man, the commandment to be fruitful. Well, this doesn't apply to priests. **(There is, in Paul, iirc, one line about lesbians.)

I will say this is not peculiar to Ratzinger and JP II; few Christians besides Calvinists (Jehovah's Witnesses,etc.) have taken the OT seriously. Hence its use is generally opportunistic and without rationale.

4) Looking at the larger picture, most of the Church position on sexual matters is not in the OT; much is not in the NT either. Examples, abortion, contraception, and so on. a) On the plus side, the RCC, perhaps first among the churches has attempted to work out principles; there is Aquinas and others. b) But again we find opportunism: Aquinas was NOT particularly worried about fetuses before ensoulment (= quickening) so we'll ignore that and go by someone else.

5) So the real matter will come down--after thousands of words of apologetics, biblical ransacking, theological ruminations, dogmatic decrees-- to "sex is 'for' procreation" "natural law says so." (I believe you've said as much.)

This territory has been well worked over; its arguments are pathetically weak, but may be the subject of another posting.

 

[rgraham666]

To my mind, the covering up is so morally reprehensible it invalidates any claim anyone involved has to being a holy man, a man of god, even a man in any sense beyond a genetic disposition.

Pedophiles don't wear signs, they don't have distinguishing marks and some are so adept at hiding their prediliction no one could tell before they are discovered, generally through chance of the accusations of exceeedingly brave victims. In an organization as large as the RCC, it is inevitable that some men who become priests are pedophiles, rapists, egomanical opportunists, etc. It's simply a matter of numbers and no amount of screening will catch every one who has an ulterior motive for taking clerical vows.

I do not blame them for individual incidents of abuse, it's simply inevitable that it will happen. It's the fact that individuals were given the opportunity to create multiple victims AFTER they were found out that boggles the mind. For that, there is no amount of pious bullshit that will even begin to mitigate the betrayal of everything that is even remotely spiritual about those involved.

To my mind, the RCC, through institutionalized covering up, forfieted any right to claim they are acting in god's name. I can't find an excuse, an reason, even an inkling of how the men who covered this up still hold high office. Frankly, the corruption this represents is, to me, significantly more horrible than the corruptions that fired the reformation.

I may be an abomination in the eyes of god, but at least my depravity harmed no one. those who would condemn me, can't even claim that most basic thing.

Bottom line, when the protectors of child abusing rapists tell me I need to get right with god all I can say is they have a lot of fucking nerve.

The Church, like any large organization, is at the higher levels going to be populated mostly by courtiers and power mongers. They may, or may not, be believers, but their first instinct is going to be to protect their power and the structure their power derives from.

Like pedophilia, it's pretty much inevitable.