Has The Pope Hit The Bottom Of The Pool?

[wenglund]

First, there is skepticism that what the Pope has been reported to say is actually what he said. Pope Francis has been Pope for a year, and at first I thought perhaps journalists are unable to understand what he is saying. But after a year of seeing everything he says in relationship to moral topics, being spun to what people would like to hear, rather than what has actually been said, I don't believe the journalist spin and wait for the English translation to read it for myself. Here is the English translation of the interview:"

"Many nations have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety."

As a Cathokic, I hear marriage is between a man and woman. There are civil/legal matters that the state regulates in regards to non-marital cohabitation, which would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

CNN reports, the Pope is in favor of civil unions for same sex couples!

He never said any thing of the sort.

 

(late edit to fix spelling)

 

I will take your word for it. I appreciate the clarification.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

I think you're coming at this from the viewpoint that the church is trying to treat them as respectfully as possible, while still saying that SS relationships are sinful and prohibiting them on penalty of church discipline/loss of worthiness. I agree that they are being as respectful as they can within those limitations, but the results of that are still enormously harmful to the well-being of gay people in the church.

...which is the opposite of "branding," and showing sensitivity and respect is not a means of doing harm to gay people in the Church. Gay people that are offended by the Church get offended just just like anyone else does--their human nature gets in the way of an eternal persepctive.

You can't say that the church doesn't treat them differently when it also doesn't recognize their marriages.

Of course I can. But what I said was that the Church doesn't recognize some male-female marriages, either. In any case, the gay and straight persons are treated the same way, with love, respect and an invitation to do right.

[CV75]

It's not about my wants. It's about standing up for what's right - and in this instance, what's right, as I see it, is stopping or preventing a tremendous amount of harm that is being done to gay people.

But you haven't produced, and can't produce, a policy that harms gay people.

[Calm]

. I agree that they are being as respectful as they can within those limitations, but the results of that are still enormously harmful to the well-being of gay people in the church.

Is your conclusion of the harm based on the belief same sex romantic and sexual behaviour (not inclinations) are not actually sins?

If they are sins, then where is the harm coming from given the Church is giving out proper instructions?

[Gray]

...which is the opposite of "branding," and showing sensitivity and respect is not a means of doing harm to gay people in the Church. Gay people that are offended by the Church get offended just just like anyone else does--their human nature gets in the way of an eternal persepctive.

Of course I can. But what I said was that the Church doesn't recognize some male-female marriages, either. In any case, the gay and straight persons are treated the same way, with love, respect and an invitation to do right.

 

I think anyone who has lost a temple recommend or been excommunicated feels branded. There is no loving way to excommunicate someone.

 

 

 

 

Of course I can. But what I said was that the Church doesn't recognize some male-female marriages, either. In any case, the gay and straight persons are treated the same way, with love, respect and an invitation to do right.

 

 

I think we're talking past each other. They treat them the same in the ways you mention, but differently in the ways I mentioned. 

[Gray]

But you haven't produced, and can't produce, a policy that harms gay people.

 

It is harmful for gay people to remain celibate or enter into mixed orientation marriages. Church policies encourage gay members to at least do the former. 

Edited March 13, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

Is your conclusion of the harm based on the belief same sex romantic and sexual behaviour (not inclinations) are not actually sins?

If they are sins, then where is the harm coming from given the Church is giving out proper instructions?

 

Whether or not you consider them sins, living a celibate life (not engaging in romantic relationships with those of the same sex) or entering into mixed-orientation marriages causes an enormous amount of psychological harm, leading to depression and sometimes suicide.

 

From the teaching that we can know the truth of a doctrine by living it, I have personally concluded that committed same sex relationships cannot be sinful. I understand why others feel differently.

 

If we had a teaching that left-handed people ought to spend their lives in the dark, alone, I would reject it for the same reason - it would be an enormously unhealthy situation for anyone. 

Edited March 13, 2014 by Gray

[wenglund]

If you think the two claims I bolded have some correlation, please support with direct evidence.

 

Doing so would put me at high risk for accusations of "gay bashing" and suspension, and so it behooves me to decline your request. However, please keep in mind that you already believe there is a relationship between intolerance and suicide, and have stated as much, and so I am not sure why you are asking me for direct supportive evidence.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

It is harmful for gay people to remain celibate or enter into mixed orientation marriages. Church policies encourage gay members to at least do the former. 

 

In an upside-down world, discouraging people from engaging in presumably harmful behaviors and relationships, is considered, itself, as harmful.

 

In principle, it is like suggesting that the Word of Wisdom is harmful because it wont let people smoke cigarettes.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[saemo]

I will take your word for it. I appreciate the clarification.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

A friend sent me this link to a Catholic blog post:

 

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/this-one-weird-trick-can-make-you-holy

 

Says it better than I did.

[Gray]

Doing so would put me at high risk for accusations of "gay bashing" and suspension, and so it behooves me to decline your request. However, please keep in mind that you already believe there is a relationship between intolerance and suicide, and have stated as much, and so I am not sure why you are asking me for direct supportive evidence.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I'll take that as a retraction of your claim.

[Gray]

In an upside-down world, discouraging people from engaging in presumably harmful behaviors and relationships, is considered, itself, as harmful.

 

In principle, it is like suggesting that the Word of Wisdom is harmful because it wont let people smoke cigarettes.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I am of course speaking of actual real world harm, not hypothesized harm. 

[wenglund]

I am of course speaking of actual real world harm, not hypothesized harm. 

 

Me too--hence the "real world" example of cigarette smoking.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

I think anyone who has lost a temple recommend or been excommunicated feels branded. There is no loving way to excommunicate someone.

 

I think we're talking past each other. They treat them the same in the ways you mention, but differently in the ways I mentioned. 

RE: temple recommend, they feel branded, but no one has branded them. And yes, there is a loving way to excommunicate (read the manual!).

 

RE: talking past each other, "they treat them the same" even in the ways you mention. The policy and the manual do not determine a person's reaction to the policies and procedures any more than scriptures or conference talks determine a person's reaction to them. It is very evident that you are not making the distinction. A faithful gay person simply responds differently to the Church than an unfaithful gay person, the same as any other person.

[CV75]

It is harmful for gay people to remain celibate or enter into mixed orientation marriages. Church policies encourage gay members to at least do the former. 

It is really any more harmful for gay people to remain celibate (whether by choice or happenstance) than straight people? Neither are not being treated differently; the law of chastity applies to all. You keep portraying gay people as more codependent on physical intimacy than straight people, and that is just plain bigoted.

[MiserereNobis]

First, there is skepticism that what the Pope has been reported to say is actually what he said. Pope Francis has been Pope for a year, and at first I thought perhaps journalists are unable to understand what he is saying. But after a year of seeing everything he says in relationship to moral topics, being spun to what people would like to hear, rather than what has actually been said, I don't believe the journalist spin and wait for the English translation to read it for myself. Here is the English translation of the interview:"

"Many nations have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety."

As a Cathokic, I hear marriage is between a man and woman. There are civil/legal matters that the state regulates in regards to non-marital cohabitation, which would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

CNN reports, the Pope is in favor of civil unions for same sex couples!

He never said any thing of the sort.

 

(late edit to fix spelling)

 

Yes, it is interesting to compare what the Pope actually says to how it is interpreted when it is reported.  While he is definitely less militant than previous Popes, he hasn't come out and said what lots of people think he has said.

 

One quote often left out of reporting on the Pope is when he was asked directly what his personal opinion was concerning the controversial moral teachings of Catholicism (contraception, abortion, homosexuality, etc).  He said, "I am a child [son] of the Church!"  The Church is often called Holy Mother Church, because She watches over us, protects us, teaches us, and loves us.  Pope Francis was affirming his love, connection, and fidelity to Her.

 

He is a son of the Church, indeed!

 

Did you see that congress (both houses) sent him a letter inviting him to address a joint session?  As a Catholic, I'm tickled silly to think about the Pope talking to both the house and the senate, with most likely the president in attendance, too.

 

[MiserereNobis]

One has to be careful about some articles on the Internet about Pope Francis and civil unions as there are several hoaxes and parodies which have gone viral. That being said, although I am not Catholic, I am an admirer of this Pope as we seem to finally have a person of international prominence teaching the teachings of Christ instead of the thinly veiled cultural concepts of a more vicious age.

 

While I agree that is a wonderful gift to have someone promoting the social aspects of Christ's teaching, I do take umbrage at your thinly veiled attack on the Middle Ages

 

Each age has its faults.  There are so many beautiful things in the Middle Ages that have been discredited by today's modern age, which is quite hypocritical in my view due to some of the nastiness of the modern age, which is often accepted as being superior to a time when culture and religion co-existed to create beauty.

 

I highly recommend reading George Bernard Shaw's intro/preface to his play "Saint Joan" where he points out some glaring problems with the modern age's thoughtless and unsubstantiated derision of the Middle Ages.

 

I don't mean to derail the thread (and I don't mean to insinuate that you hold such views, Stone helm), but it is a pet peeve of mine when the Middle Ages are castigated

 

Carry on.

Edited March 13, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[Calm]

 And yes, there is a loving way to excommunicate (read the manual!).

I know a few individuals who felt that their excommunication was done with great love and compassion and expressed much gratitude for the way it was done.

[california boy]

I know a few individuals who felt that their excommunication was done with great love and compassion and expressed much gratitude for the way it was done.

I being one of them.  I personally do not hold any animosity towards the church for being excommunicated.  The church has rules, I didn't abide by them.  I think that most gays know the expected results of their actions.

 

I also have to say that I meet a LOT of gay exMormons.  It has been my experience that by far, those that are gay end up leaving the church.  I don't know if there has ever been a study about this, but I personally know very few gays that choose to remain involved in the church.  I assume the church is ok with this and have set up a policy that best suits the churches needs and what they feel is best for the gay members that choose to stay.  

[Calm]

Gracious of you to say, cb.

[Gray]

Me too--hence the "real world" example of cigarette smoking.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Except gay people are helped, not harmed, by committed same sex relationships.  Just like us straight people benefit from opposite sex committed relationships. We all have similar needs.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

RE: temple recommend, they feel branded, but no one has branded them. And yes, there is a loving way to excommunicate (read the manual!).

 

RE: talking past each other, "they treat them the same" even in the ways you mention. The policy and the manual do not determine a person's reaction to the policies and procedures any more than scriptures or conference talks determine a person's reaction to them. It is very evident that you are not making the distinction. A faithful gay person simply responds differently to the Church than an unfaithful gay person, the same as any other person.

 

I guess we just disagree on a lot of fundamental subjects, including whether it is possible to lovingly expel someone from fellowship. I'm not saying it isn't necessary in some cases.

 

 

 

 

A faithful gay person simply responds differently to the Church than an unfaithful gay person, the same as any other person.

 

It is actually only the faithful gay members that are harmed by church policy. Those who want nothing to do with the church are free to pursue healthy relationships. That needs to change - we need to carve out a healthy space for gay people in the church. Not for them to just endure, but for them to thrive. 

Edited March 14, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

It is really any more harmful for gay people to remain celibate (whether by choice or happenstance) than straight people? Neither are not being treated differently; the law of chastity applies to all. You keep portraying gay people as more codependent on physical intimacy than straight people, and that is just plain bigoted.

 

 

 

 

It is really any more harmful for gay people to remain celibate (whether by choice or happenstance) than straight people?

 

No, but I didn't imply that it was.

 

 

 

 

Neither are not being treated differently; the law of chastity applies to all. You keep portraying gay people as more codependent on physical intimacy than straight people, and that is just plain bigoted.

 

While I appreciate your attempt at eisegesis of my statement, I can't be responsible for defending the arguments you make on my behalf. Intimate relationships are something that we all need. It is only gay people who are specifically asked to abstain by church policy, and that is where the harm comes in. The church encourages straight people to seek committed relationships. They are not treated equally.

[wenglund]

Except gay people are helped, not harmed, by committed same sex relationships.  Just like us straight people benefit from opposite sex committed relationships. We all have similar needs.

 

That may be how it seems when one not only ignores the spirit aspect of the real world and the impact of the spirit on the physical aspect of the real world, but also the physical harm (to body, mind, and heart) and devolutionary nature of homosexual behaviors and relationships in the real world.

 

Again, in this increasingly upside-down world, it is comparable in principle to teenagers only looking at cigarette ads with people smiling and having a great time, and learning of regions where people tend to live much longer than the average though they smoke like a chimney, and figuring to themselves that they personally would be harmed not to be allowed to smoke. In short, cigarette smoking, too, can be packaged to look like a wonderful blessing and a necessity as long as people ignore all the health risks and Surgeon General warnings.

 

Now, part of the reason that individuals may not see the physical as well as spiritual harm of homosexuality is because, in addition to the brilliant marketing strategy of gays and gay sympathizers, people, like some monitors on this board, consider it "gay bashing" to expose the harms of homosexuality. And, while I view this reverse stigma as sad and deleterious, it is their rules and their board, and I must comply or be suspended, which I have decided to do, comply that is--I say this in anticipation of you asking for evidence of the physical harm of homosexuality and me being prevented from doing so here by board management.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 14, 2014 by wenglund

[Gray]

That may be how it seems when one not only ignores the spirit aspect of the real world and the impact of the spirit on the physical aspect of the real world, but also the physical harm (to body, mind, and heart) and devolutionary nature of homosexual behaviors and relationships in the real world.

 

 

Now you're getting into hypothetical harm, with a healthy dose of psuedoscience .