Pope Francis: “Being Homosexual Isn’t a Crime.”

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,695
659
118
Yes, i meant the past as in he 80s. Back then liberation theology was quite divisive.

Nowadays ? Not so much.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,482
926
118
Country
USA
Pretty new within the history of the Church. Lest we forget that Ratzinger called homosexuality a tendency towards an "intrinsic moral evil", that people had "no conceivable right" to be gay, and that its practice can be "legitimately limited"-- an essential endorsement of legal restrictions.
On the off chance you have read the source of those words, you wildly misunderstood them.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,073
1,210
118
Country
United States
On the off chance you have read the source of those words, you wildly misunderstood them.
On the off chance you have read your own source, you wildly misunderstood it.

"Ratzinger called homosexuality a tendency towards an 'intrinsic moral evil'"

2. Since “n the discussion which followed the publication of the (aforementioned) declaration..., an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral or even good”, the letter goes on to clarify: “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed towards those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not” (no. 3).
"that people had 'no conceivable right' to be gay"

7. “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. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

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, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase” (no. 10).
13. Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homo- sexuality (cf. no. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.
"that its practice can be 'legitimately limited'"

12. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. no. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.
(Emphasis in all quotes is mine, of course)
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,075
5,815
118
Country
United Kingdom

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,482
926
118
Country
USA
"Ratzinger called homosexuality a tendency towards an 'intrinsic moral evil'"

"that people had 'no conceivable right' to be gay"

"that its practice can be 'legitimately limited'"


(Emphasis in all quotes is mine, of course)
So, you see this thing you did? The thing where you repeatedly removed phrases from context to change the meaning to incorrect interpretations? Don't do that.
I see absolutely nothing in that despicable, hateful tract that contradicts my characterisation. Everything I stated is there... is there.
Incorrect, blatantly incorrect. You want despicable? Despicable is constructing a sentence in which part of it is a quote and the rest isn't, and pretending that the entire thing is an accurate representation. Don't do that.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
So, you see this thing you did? The thing where you repeatedly removed phrases from context to change the meaning to incorrect interpretations? Don't do that.

Incorrect, blatantly incorrect. You want despicable? Despicable is constructing a sentence in which part of it is a quote and the rest isn't, and pretending that the entire thing is an accurate representation. Don't do that.
Indulge me. What context can those quotes be put in that makes them sound as good as you would have us believe?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,459
2,746
118
I don't think there is such a thing.
I'd say that broadly I agree. It seems such a shame because some people need something bigger to believe in (I feel just getting some sort of hobby would help a lot of these people), but organised religion always seems to fuck it.

I come from a catholic family and my grandparents were, from my point of view as a child, kind and gentle people, deeply into their religion. But they raised one child who, as an adult, hates gay people, and another who they turned a blind eye to their priest trying to abuse (I have to assume legit didn't believe because the alternative is monstrous). So, you know, not great.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,482
926
118
Country
USA
Indulge me. What context can those quotes be put in that makes them sound as good as you would have us believe?
No context is going to make them sound good to you, because you disagree with them.

But...

The current Pope saying, roughly, "homosexuality isn't a crime, but it is a sin" is not a change in direction from the previous Pope saying "we ought to condemn crimes committed against homosexuals without elevating homosexuality to a specifically protected class."
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,503
2,169
118
the previous Pope saying "we ought to condemn crimes committed against homosexuals without elevating homosexuality to a specifically protected class."
Sure, but you must understand the concept of anti-discrimination laws, which exist because people are discriminated against.

The logic behind saying that homosexuality should not be a protected class seems to imply that homosexuals should not be protected by anti-discrimination laws. But I can't help but think there are problems here. Anti-discrimination laws are based on people having core elements of their being that they do not have choice over: like their race, sex/gender, etc. So is the RC church arguing that these other characteristics do not merit people having inherent rights for either, and by extension that anti-discrimination law is wrong in toto? Is it suggesting that homosexuality is a choice?

Or is it just a completely arbitrary carve-out because it doesn't like gays?
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,073
1,210
118
Country
United States
So, you see this thing you did? The thing where you repeatedly removed phrases from context to change the meaning to incorrect interpretations? Don't do that..
Did you even read my post? Because I didn't remove any "phrases" from context. Each quote was a fully numbered section of the document in which the "phrases" in question were one to three full sentences within.

I ask if you even read my post and the provided quotes because the only other possibility that would lead to such a response is that your reading comprehension is truly childlike, and you're just blindly repeating what someone else told you about this document. Well that or you're just arguing in bad faith again...
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,482
926
118
Country
USA
Is it suggesting that homosexuality is a choice?
It is stating homosexual activity is a choice, which I don't think is particularly controversial. Nobody initiates sex acts or gets married by uncontrollable accident.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,482
926
118
Country
USA
Did you even read my post? Because I didn't remove any "phrases" from context. Each quote was a fully numbered section of the document in which the "phrases" in question were one to three full sentences within.

I asked if you even read my post and the provided quotes because the only other possibility that would lead to such a response is that your reading comprehension is truly childlike, and you're just repeating what someone else told you about this document.
I did read your post, you did do the things I'm accusing you of. I quoted them. I don't particularly care about the rest. If you respond to me with that half quote nonsense, I don't care about the rest of it, I don't want to acknowledge anything else. The content is irrelevant when the practice is so despicable.

I should not have to explain that "to be gay" is not an appropriate stand-in when the initial version referenced "behavior", and "its (homosexuality's) practice" is not an appropriate stand in for "the right to work, to housing, etc." But even if they were, it's still not acceptable to pull a half dozen words out of a thorough document and recontextualize them into something else like a clickbait headline. You defended that. You didn't deserve a response like this, you deserved to be chastised and dismissed.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,075
5,815
118
Country
United Kingdom
I did read your post, you did do the things I'm accusing you of. I quoted them. I don't particularly care about the rest. If you respond to me with that half quote nonsense, I don't care about the rest of it, I don't want to acknowledge anything else. The content is irrelevant when the practice is so despicable.

I should not have to explain that "to be gay" is not an appropriate stand-in when the initial version referenced "behavior", and "its (homosexuality's) practice" is not an appropriate stand in for "the right to work, to housing, etc." But even if they were, it's still not acceptable to pull a half dozen words out of a thorough document and recontextualize them into something else like a clickbait headline. You defended that. You didn't deserve a response like this, you deserved to be chastised and dismissed.
What absolute horseshit.

The quotes are not out of context, and the context doesn't change the substance of what I said either.

If your "context" is merely that Ratzinger referred to gay acts rather than being gay, then functionally that just means an exception for... those who practice lifelong celibacy. In short, repression and self-denial will earn gay people the ability to avoid the censure and condemnation of the Church. Oh, that's not bigoted at all, then!

The Catholic Church is enormously hostile to gay people, and is explicit about it. The fact that it adds a caveat about how it's "behaviour" that earns its unprovoked hostility does not change that, because the "behaviour" is just a refusal to repress oneself, to hate and deny ones own nature and give up a chance at a relationship for life. It doesn't change the targeted nature or hateful substance one iota.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
The current Pope saying, roughly, "homosexuality isn't a crime, but it is a sin" is not a change in direction from the previous Pope saying "we ought to condemn crimes committed against homosexuals without elevating homosexuality to a specifically protected class."
So the Catholic Church is still a backward, regressive net drag on humanity. Glad we cleared that up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,581
2,290
118
Country
Ireland
I did read your post, you did do the things I'm accusing you of. I quoted them. I don't particularly care about the rest. If you respond to me with that half quote nonsense, I don't care about the rest of it, I don't want to acknowledge anything else. The content is irrelevant when the practice is so despicable.

I should not have to explain that "to be gay" is not an appropriate stand-in when the initial version referenced "behavior", and "its (homosexuality's) practice" is not an appropriate stand in for "the right to work, to housing, etc." But even if they were, it's still not acceptable to pull a half dozen words out of a thorough document and recontextualize them into something else like a clickbait headline. You defended that. You didn't deserve a response like this, you deserved to be chastised and dismissed.
So gay people are fine as long as they don't form romantic relationships or act on their sexuality. Thanks for clarifying how much you hate queer people. I mean you do it almost everytime you talk about them.

And it's funny, you lot will compare our intolerance of your bigotry to your bigotry. But like, you hate queer people because we exist. We hate the Church because they hate us. Very fucking different.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,695
659
118
So gay people are fine as long as they don't form romantic relationships or act on their sexuality.
Exactly. Just like priests. And unmarried people. And (oh, the horror) divorced people. I am pretty sure divorced people having sex is a far greater transgression than gay people doing so.

Also it is just a sin ... like hundred of other things regular people do all the time. Catholicism assumes that everyone is a sinner because there are so many sinful things that it is impossible to avoid them without superhuman perfection. It certainly does not tell you to behave shitty towards known sinners. Just the opposite, actually. It does tell you that other people's sins are not your business but between them and god. That is not on Catholicism, that is on the specific people who do so.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,135
3,322
118
So, you see this thing you did? The thing where you repeatedly removed phrases from context to change the meaning to incorrect interpretations? Don't do that.

Incorrect, blatantly incorrect. You want despicable? Despicable is constructing a sentence in which part of it is a quote and the rest isn't, and pretending that the entire thing is an accurate representation. Don't do that.
I didn't realize posting full quotes in context is removing phrases to change context. It looks like this jackhole in question stopped just short of declaring the cure for homosexuality comes in a caliber.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,482
926
118
Country
USA
What absolute horseshit.

The quotes are not out of context, and the context doesn't change the substance of what I said either.

If your "context" is merely that Ratzinger referred to gay acts rather than being gay, then functionally that just means an exception for... those who practice lifelong celibacy. In short, repression and self-denial will earn gay people the ability to avoid the censure and condemnation of the Church. Oh, that's not bigoted at all, then!

The Catholic Church is enormously hostile to gay people, and is explicit about it. The fact that it adds a caveat about how it's "behaviour" that earns its unprovoked hostility does not change that, because the "behaviour" is just a refusal to repress oneself, to hate and deny ones own nature and give up a chance at a relationship for life. It doesn't change the targeted nature or hateful substance one iota.
You replaced half of his sentences with explicitly the wrong things.