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

[Absent]

"Listen, we all agree that racism is bad and that violence against black people is inacceptable. This doesn't mean we approve their skin colour, though."

 

[tstorm823]

I don't think anything you've posted here can be viewed in a way other than the Catholic church defending the right to discriminate against homosexuals as long as it falls short of criminal victimisation such as theft, violence, etc.

Is that advocacy for making homosexuality a crime?

 

[Silvanus]

It's not about laws banning homosexuality. It's not about laws limiting homosexuality.

Is that advocacy for making homosexuality a crime?

You've shifted this conversation onto whether or not the letter endorsed outlawing homosexuality, rather than whether or not the letter endorsed legal discrimination against gay people.

In that way you've entirely avoided addressing or acknowledging the latter, which it unambiguously does: it identifies the "right to work" and "right to housing" as areas that can be "legitimately limited" for gay people.

What, you expect some kind of medal and happy acknowledgement that the letter didn't go full Iran? No. It endorses legal discrimination, and over and over again it condemns gay people. "Intrinsic moral evil". It's a despicable, hateful little tract from a despicable, hateful man, advocating for the use of the law to discriminate against gay people in various areas.

 

[Satinavian]

It might not be explicitly advocating society should discriminate against homosexuals in these areas, but it is clearly suggesting that society can defensibly do so with good reason.

That is not in the catechism. That is Benedicts take on the matter.

 

[tstorm823]

You've shifted this conversation onto whether or not the letter endorsed outlawing homosexuality, rather than whether or not the letter endorsed legal discrimination against gay people.

Read the thread title.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You can't read.

I made the faulty assumption that all of you can read.

It is reasonable for you to disagree, my complaint here is people maliciously misinterpreting the words.

Maybe you actually don't understand what he was talking about. Let's read the forward:


It's not about laws banning homosexuality. It's not about laws limiting homosexuality. There is no advocacy within to use the law against homosexuality. This was written in response to legislation actively treating homosexuality as a protected class. It is not about the law discriminating, it is about the law banning discrimination, which can (and already has) caused major issues for a global organization that works heavily in adoption, education, and shelter assistance.

I'm gonna take a stab in the dark that you would have understood that had you started reading that from scratch. But you probably read those half quotes somewhere without the context and just repeated them, and then can't stop for a moment to think "Hmmm, did someone lie to me on the internet? No, it must be the Catholics trying to ban the gays."

I read just fine, you however have become rather illiterate. Either that or willfully ignorant and I'm thinking the latter because of this post:

Oh my dear god, are you an idiot? Did you read what I said? Do you know what Jim Crow laws were? Jim Crow was not "you don't have to treat the races equally." Jim Crow was "you have to treat the races unequally." It's like you can't comprehend any of the space between "banned" and "obligatory".

Because your link very explicitly advocates treating homosexuals unequally, specifically treating them as a mental defect which allows the state to straight up take away their rights, something else your church advocated doing and you really don't want us to read.

The Jim Crow comparison is very apt. You're also very ironic in your choice of words to describe Jim Crow, as the whole point (supposedly) of Jim Crow was "Separate but equal". You acknowledging that it was not equal treatment is you admitting to knowing that logic like the one in the letter you posted is a bunch of horseshit, but having the cognitive dissonance of not allowing your daddy's church to come off like the Jim Crow advocates they are.

 

[Dalisclock]

What, you expect some kind of medal and happy acknowledgement that the letter didn't go full Iran? No. It endorses legal discrimination, and over and over again it condemns gay people. "Intrinsic moral evil". It's a despicable, hateful little tract from a despicable, hateful man, advocating for the use of the law to discriminate against gay people in various areas.

The church wants you to know you should be glad it's not explicitly persecuting you and you should be grateful for it's act of simple human decency. Also it would like a medal in the nicest gold you can source. And a pony.

 

[tstorm823]

The Jim Crow comparison is very apt. You're also very ironic in your choice of words to describe Jim Crow, as the whole point (supposedly) of Jim Crow was "Separate but equal". You acknowledging that it was not equal treatment is you admitting to knowing that logic like the one in the letter you posted is a bunch of horseshit, but having the cognitive dissonance of not allowing your daddy's church to come off like the Jim Crow advocates they are.

Did you convince yourself halfway through this response that I was advocating for Jim Crow? What a silly response. The letter does not advocate for government mandated discrimination, "equal" or otherwise.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Did you convince yourself halfway through this response that I was advocating for Jim Crow? What a silly response.

Oh so you are illiterate. Darn.

The letter does not advocate for government mandated discrimination, "equal" or otherwise.

It literally does though, a bullet pointed list of precisely how the government should discriminate against homosexuals and the secular rationale for how to justify it. It advocates for it in detail, and anyone can see it.

 

[Silvanus]

Read the thread title.

Read the posts in the thread.

We haven't merely been talking about whether he endorsed the outlawing of homosexuality. We've been talking about legal discrimination against gay people, very clearly. You know that, and you replied numerous times to posts that were obviously about that.

Will you acknowledge, now, that he endorsed legal discrimination against gay people, and that he termed it a "tendency towards an intrinsic moral evil"? Are you willing to actually defend the hateful horseshit he did come out with?

EDIT: Oh, while we're here...

Oh my dear god, are you an idiot? Did you read what I said? Do you know what Jim Crow laws were? Jim Crow was not "you don't have to treat the races equally." Jim Crow was "you have to treat the races unequally." It's like you can't comprehend any of the space between "banned" and "obligatory".

You mean, like here, where Ratzinger says that limiting rights is sometimes "obligatory" for such disorders, under which he includes homosexuality?

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.

So not "you don't have to treat gay people (and the physically/mentally ill) equally". But rather "its sometimes obligatory to discriminate against them when it comes to housing and work". Fitting neatly and exactly into your description there of Jim Crow.

 

[Ag3ma]

That is not in the catechism. That is Benedicts take on the matter.

Not exactly.

That isn't a personal statement, it is guidance produced by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith during then Cardinal Ratzinger's period as leader. The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is sort of the Catholic Church's policy unit, and as a result is effectively its official organisational position.

One can say it's not the Catholic Church's immutable final word on the matter - policies can after all be changed - but it is to all intents and purposes what it believes here and now. (Unless it's issued new guidance since then, I don't keep track to know.)

 

[Satinavian]

That is true. But the congregation under Ratzinger made that guideline in 1986. And it doesn't really reflect what the church or even the bishops thinks and do now. Attitudes have changed in the last couple decades. The last meaningful decisions seem to have been the results of the family synods from 2014 and 2015. They are significantly less hostile. (And even before it was regularly argued about. In the catechism of 1966 homosexuality is not even condemned at all. But in the 70s the hardliners got their way again)

And yes, this is one of several areas where people, including many bishops regularly want reforms. And that is also why, despite really not liking Benedict, i am not praising Francis very much. Francis is not a reformer. He might not be as backward as his predecessor, but he hasn't really touched a single point of intra church conflict in a meaningful way. He has also pushed back pretty heavily against certain reform movements, including on this very topic. He is also pushing back against ending celibacy and ordaining female priests.

Sure, it is good to remind priests to be humble and frugal. But is basically the extend of his legacy so far.

 

[tstorm823]

Read the posts in the thread.

So.... you're trying to change the subject to dodge the point of the thread?

To be clear, the way this has played out:

1) Inspiration for the thread is "being homosexual is not a crime."
2) I responded: "Nothing new here, the news is stupid."
3) You disagreed with me, claiming "Pretty new within the history of the Church", and then you supported your claim with a letter that does not claim homosexuality is a crime.
4) You tried to make the conversation about something else.
5) You accused me of shifting the conversation by maintaining the original argument.

Not really your best work.

 

[Cheetodust]

So.... you're trying to change the subject to dodge the point of the thread?

To be clear, the way this has played out:

1) Inspiration for the thread is "being homosexual is not a crime."
2) I responded: "Nothing new here, the news is stupid."
3) You disagreed with me, claiming "Pretty new within the history of the Church", and then you supported your claim with a letter that does not claim homosexuality is a crime.
4) You tried to make the conversation about something else.
5) You accused me of shifting the conversation by maintaining the original argument.

Not really your best work.

So not a crime but sometimes it's necessary to discriminate against them because it's an intrinsic evil and gay people shouldn't be allowed thinking living as a gay person is okay. Absolutely get fucked with this shit. It's literally saying it is necessary to discriminate against gay people because homosexuality is evil and the best you have is "um actually he never said it should be illegal."

Like seriously go fuck yourself. And if the mods do anything anything about this post fuck them too. If it's okay to say homosexuality is evil but not okay to say people who think that can get fucked that is fucking insane. Telling every queer person here that it's okay to discriminate against them because their lifestyle is evil? Fuck you and your sophistry you bigoted shit.

 

[tstorm823]

If it's okay to say homosexuality is evil...

Lust is a deadly sin. Whatever sexuality you want to talk about is going to maintain that condition.

 

[Buyetyen]

Lust is a deadly sin. Whatever sexuality you want to talk about is going to maintain that condition.

You make shit up, dude. You really do.

 

[Gordon_4]

That is true. But the congregation under Ratzinger made that guideline in 1986. And it doesn't really reflect what the church or even the bishops thinks and do now. Attitudes have changed in the last couple decades. The last meaningful decisions seem to have been the results of the family synods from 2014 and 2015. They are significantly less hostile. (And even before it was regularly argued about. In the catechism of 1966 homosexuality is not even condemned at all. But in the 70s the hardliners got their way again)

And yes, this is one of several areas where people, including many bishops regularly want reforms. And that is also why, despite really not liking Benedict, i am not praising Francis very much. Francis is not a reformer. He might not be as backward as his predecessor, but he hasn't really touched a single point of intra church conflict in a meaningful way. He has also pushed back pretty heavily against certain reform movements, including on this very topic. He is also pushing back against ending celibacy and ordaining female priests.

Sure, it is good to remind priests to be humble and frugal. But is basically the extend of his legacy so far.

I personally find it unlikely that any reformists are going to get their way with the Catholic Church so it might be time for them to take a page from Martin Luther and nail a declaration to the door of St. Peter’s and split off.

 

[Dalisclock]

I personally find it unlikely that any reformists are going to get their way with the Catholic Church so it might be time for them to take a page from Martin Luther and nail a declaration to the door of St. Peter’s and split off.

That would be the third time now?

Are we counting the protestant reformation as 1 or 5 splits?

 

[Cheetodust]

Lust is a deadly sin. Whatever sexuality you want to talk about is going to maintain that condition.

Then heterosexuality is evil too. Prick

 

[Silvanus]

So.... you're trying to change the subject to dodge the point of the thread?

No, I'm recognising that the entire discussion topic is not contained within the thread title, because that's blindingly obvious to anyone paying even the scantest attention.

To be clear, the way this has played out:

1) Inspiration for the thread is "being homosexual is not a crime."
2) I responded: "Nothing new here, the news is stupid."
3) You disagreed with me, claiming "Pretty new within the history of the Church", and then you supported your claim with a letter that does not claim homosexuality is a crime.
4) You tried to make the conversation about something else.
5) You accused me of shifting the conversation by maintaining the original argument.

Not really your best work.

What was "pretty new" was the willingness of the current Pope to approach the topic of homosexuality by focusing on "dignity", "love", etc, rather than the condemnation and bile of the previous occupant of that post. And the fact that one endorsed legal discrimination, while the other one didn't. That's quite a fucking change.

If you see no difference in focus between Ratzinger's letter and Francis' interview, you're being wilfully obtuse. It's night and day.