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

[Absent]

I had a friendly conversation with some greek orthodox priests about homosexuality. They were very generously forgiving to homosexuals "who couldn't help it", but considered as sinners those who "did it for pleasure".

The underlying idea is that... homosexuality is a practice, a hobby, a sport ? A fad ? An activity of sorts. A sexual position, or something like that. It's the same sort of discourse one could have about alcoholism, or drug addiction. "Oh if it's a biological need, then it's not fair to disallow it, but when people indulge in it then it's a problem". It's a deviation from the divine/natural order, so it's a handicap or a disease and it requires "tolerance" and "compassion" (and "help") to overcome it or live with it.

Internally, it makes sense : any religion is, by definition, conservative about the cultural categories that it engraved at its historical foundation. It naturalizes and sanctifies a certain worldview, a certain (social, cultural, "natural") world order, from a certain cultural moment. It legitimizes its norms, values and representations through the authority of an intemporal god's will, ensuring the reproduction of these norms and values. In particular here : gender roles and traits attributions. This is manly, this is womanly. It's a partition that leaves no room for homosexuality, which becomes a categorial abomination : it crosses over the gender attributions. It doesn't fit in the cultural categories. It is disorder and chaos, and must be shoehorned back into the divine order and its preordained slots. These religions weren't built in cultures which categories accounted for the complexities of gender realities, so gender realities have to adapt to these sanctionned categories. Homosexuality as "an accident to correct or tolerate" is the only way to make sense of it within this framework.

It's a bad situation for religious people. The understanding of the world is bound to progress beyond the beliefs of the founders, and religion has to either deny it (burn copernicians at the stake) or take it in account somehow, in a way that minimizes friction with its established worldviews. Anthropological studies have progressed to reach a copernician moment, re-defining our cultural perception of genders (a perception on the behalf of which we've been sacrificing a lot of minorities through the ages). The stakes are actually higher than astronomy, as we're talking lives, loves, happiness and psychological destructions. But the times are different, and religions don't have as much of a say as they used to. Not only we live in mostly secular societies (especially in Europe), meaning that religions don't shape the laws as much as they used to, but also secular knowledge is widespread, overlapping with beliefs : most believers do also internalize scientific knowledge and negociate with their beliefs to make room for it. A lot of people believe in god(s) without being homophobic.

But certain people still struggle with the fundamentalist aspect of religion, and have a hard time adapting to our increasing self-knowledge. It's normal. You cannot internalize traditional categories and values since childhood and ditch them on a whim. Especially when it comes to a subject as intimate and loaded as gender. If you've grown up learning to shame any categorial overlap (in others or in yourself), there's a strong psychological investment that is hard to step back from. You're a hostage to what you've been thoroughly taught to feel about things. Imagine the retroactive shame to have all your life repressed, shamed, insulted, mocked the wrong things, things that actually didn't matter. It's violent in itself.

So, it's two violences facing off. The violence inflicted upon sexual minorities and the violence of having to feel sorry, awkward, ashamed for it. Society is torn on that fault line. Not for the first time, not for the last time. I expect the next generations to take increasingly for granted the things that are hard to accept nowadays. After all, we've learnt, as a society, to let women and black people vote, which required to ditch a lot of well invested cultural beliefs about them. And now it's (mostly) common sense.

Culturally we're at an awkward, heartbreaking age. But I'm optimistic about its general evolution. I think, even though we evolve with ebb and flow, I don't think mankind loses ground as steadily as it gains, overall. But we have to look at ourselves struggling, as a society, and be part of that struggle. It will be nasty and painful, as more and more injustices will become retrospectively measured (too late for how many people, do we dare looking), but it's the price to pay for realizing them and preventing them in the future.

 

[Ag3ma]

I had a friendly conversation with some greek orthodox priests about homosexuality. They were very generously forgiving to homosexuals "who couldn't help it", but considered as sinners those who "did it for pleasure".

The underlying idea is that... homosexuality is a practice, a hobby, a sport ? A fad ? An activity of sorts. A sexual position, or something like that. It's the same sort of discourse one could have about alcoholism, or drug addiction. "Oh if it's a biological need, then it's not fair to disallow it, but when people indulge in it then it's a problem". It's a deviation from the divine/natural order, so it's a handicap or a disease and it requires "tolerance" and "compassion" (and "help") to overcome it or live with it.

One might argue that - at least in terms of the Catholic Church - a bunch of men who chose celibacy might not be the most representative people to advise everyone else on matters of sex.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

One might argue that - at least in terms of the Catholic Church - a bunch of men who chose celibacy might not be the most representative people to advise everyone else on matters of sex.

Chose celibacy except where the behinds of young boys are concerned.

 

[tstorm823]

Then heterosexuality is evil too. Prick

Yes, frequently, in all of the same ways. I would suggest that those who define themselves as "straight" or "heterosexual" are committed to identical problems.

One might argue that - at least in terms of the Catholic Church - a bunch of men who chose celibacy might not be the most representative people to advise everyone else on matters of sex.

To be clear, it's not a choice of celibacy for the sake of celibacy. It's the choice of a vocation that does not include reproduction.

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

The old letter you half quoted:
" The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law. "

Snip

I want to respond to your post genuinely, but I just can't simultaneously tackle the myth of the conflict thesis, the lack of "anthropological" data on "gender realities", and the meaningless platitudes of progress that violate the nature of progress while also meaning nothing.

 

[Ag3ma]

To be clear, it's not a choice of celibacy for the sake of celibacy. It's the choice of a vocation that does not include reproduction.

Doesn't really matter, though, does it? One way or another, they are likely to have a very different perspective on sex.

 

[tstorm823]

Doesn't really matter, though, does it? One way or another, they are likely to have a very different perspective on sex.

Not having sex because you aren't creating children and having sex to create children are, in fact, the same perspective.

 

[Terminal Blue]

To be clear, it's not a choice of celibacy for the sake of celibacy. It's the choice of a vocation that does not include reproduction.

Which is intrinsically evil, right?

Committing to a view of yourself that prevents you from reproducing is morally wrong, and symptomatic of psychological disorder.

As if it needed to be said, obviously this is wrong. Of course celibacy is the point. It's always been the point. It's a taboo. But because we live in a world where taboos no longer make "rational" sense you have to make up something else.

The "anthropological" truth of it is that Catholic priests are celibate largely because their role is a continuation of the role of eunuchs in pre-Christian Roman society (although isolated incidents of Christian celibacy pre-date the establishment of Christianity in the Roman Empire). The point in both cases is that a celibate person becomes sacred, they are set apart from everyone else because they observe a taboo most people do not. Reproduction has nothing to do with it.

I'd also add that celibacy was not strictly enforced for Catholic priests until the counter-reformation, at the very earliest. Only marriage was really forbidden.

 

[Silvanus]

The old letter you half quoted:
" The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law. "

Yep. That bit followed the section saying I have a "tendency towards intrinsic moral evil", and is shortly followed by the section endorsing discrimination against me in "work and housing".

Out of interest, do you believe that? That i have a tendency towards an "intrinsic moral evil", and that discrimination against me is "acceptable", "not only licit but obligatory"? I want to know whether you're defending this letter out of an agreement with its content, or just a tribal wish to stand by anything produced by the Church.

Not having sex because you aren't creating children and having sex to create children are, in fact, the same perspective.

...no they're not. The former involves an instruction to abstain from something; the latter doesn't, unless you add "only" or "solely".

 

[Kwak]

How did consensual sex become a bigger evil in the mind of religious nuts than murder and torture and slavery?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

How did consensual sex become a bigger evil in the mind of religious nuts than murder and torture and slavery?

Because without the restrictive chains of "tradition" and "sanctity", the kind of guys attracted to this lifestyle would never get cummies. See the crossover between incels and the trad movements.

 

[Dalisclock]

How did consensual sex become a bigger evil in the mind of religious nuts than murder and torture and slavery?

Something has gone horribly wrong

 

[Absent]

How did consensual sex become a bigger evil in the mind of religious nuts than murder and torture and slavery?

As I said, it's got less to do with sex than with gender roles. Men with men, women with women, is disorderly. Does not match the religiously/culturally/socially prescribed behaviours and clean categories. And it's even worse with male homosexuals, because they betray the "superior, strong" sex by getting a female attribute - willingly "inferior, weak". How degrading, the absolute horror. Homophobia is generally aggravated by sexism : "masculine" women are badass (they get prestigious traits), "effeminate" men are shameful (they lose them). "Masculine" and "effeminate" meaning : showing traits that a given culture attributes to the male/female category.

Not to mention the fear of contamination in homophobic imagination (often linked to repressed homosexuality) : the supposed agenda or threat of homosexuals "making" homosexuals. As if homosexuality was a universally restrained temptation or potential, which would overcome mankind if unchecked. Wonder where the impression comes from, right ?

Essentially : homosexuality is subversive. It deconstructs traditional categories and demonstrates how arbitrary and fictional they are in reality. It's a terrible threat for the conservative mind. More than murder, torture and slavery, which don't threaten any cultural category. They fit nicely in their slots.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

How did consensual sex become a bigger evil in the mind of religious nuts than murder and torture and slavery?

Some of those are easier to threaten people with than the other. The roots of the Catholic church are a lot of murder, torture, and slavery. These things aren't as bad if they can be used to the benefit of the church. Killing people is bad...except for those heathens over their who dare to oppose our religious rule.

 

[Satinavian]

The "anthropological" truth of it is that Catholic priests are celibate largely because their role is a continuation of the role of eunuchs in pre-Christian Roman society (although isolated incidents of Christian celibacy pre-date the establishment of Christianity in the Roman Empire). The point in both cases is that a celibate person becomes sacred, they are set apart from everyone else because they observe a taboo most people do not. Reproduction has nothing to do with it.

To be clear : Catholic celibacy was established primarily to avoid getting priest dynasties that treat church positions and properties as family heirlooms.

It is not rooted in scripture and could be abolished relatively fast if the church would choose to.

That would be the third time now?

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

There were already a couple more, even if we only count those that directly split from the Catholics.

And yes, the threat of yet another shism regularly comes up, but so far no one is serious about it. Relations would have to deteriorate far more.

So far the worst that happened was some parishes doing same sex weddings and the Vatican telling them off and saying those were not valid. They didn't even sack the priests for it.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Homophobia is generally aggravated by sexism : "masculine" women are badass (they get prestigious traits), "effeminate" men are shameful (they lose them). "Masculine" and "effeminate" meaning : showing traits that a given culture attributes to the male/female category.

I don't think it's as simple as masculine women being badass and feminine men being shameful. Masculinity and femininity are not a single thing, there's no single script or "role" for how to play out one or the other, and as such a lot depends on the specific way people are read as masculine or feminine.

A young skinny woman who behaves in a more masculine way is likely to be seen as positive and aspirational, for example, but why? Largely, it's because those masculine traits don't actually interfere with the things that make her valuable to a heterosexist society, in particular her value to men. In fact, she's probably more interesting and appealing to most men than a hyper-feminine woman of the same age. She can have conversations about things men like. She's a more active participant in her own relationships. She's likely to be more open about her own sexuality. She's fun and spontaneous and not like other girls who are boring and only care about boring things like clothes and makeup (of course, she does wear makeup, she just doesn't talk about it because she's different from other girls).

Meanwhile, a middle-aged butch lesbian is not likely to be met with the same acceptance because her masculinity is not going to be read the same way. It doesn't match up with the way women are supposed to find value, and thus she's not going to be met with the same acceptance or value outside of spaces where people like her are appreciated.

Conversely, while "effeminacy" in men can certainly be socially maligned, there's also a weird phenomenon of dandyism.

See, one of the weird things about sexism is that many of the qualities ascribed to the subordinate class are actually highly desirable. Femininity is about being charming and appealing to others, it's about being pleasant to look at and smell, it's about being a person people want to do things for. Because of that, men who want to be attractive or socially successful, particularly men who want to be successful with women, often end up adopting stereotypically feminine traits. If you think of men in our society who are seen as really aspirational, they are not always hypermasculine. In fact, men who are quite gender non-conforming can be seen as highly prestigious if those traits are seen to make them better adapted to heterosexist society, for example if it makes them successful with women. It's only when those traits go beyond that acceptable limit of dandyness that they become shameful or maligned.

 

[Casual Shinji]

How did consensual sex become a bigger evil in the mind of religious nuts than murder and torture and slavery?

Because murder and torture can be done in The Name of God (and to further the Church's agenda), and sex is in service of selfish pleasure and the pleasure of one or two (or three) others, and is therefor...



Unless it's for procreation though, then it's fine... but don't you dare enjoy it.

 

[Ag3ma]

To be clear : Catholic celibacy was established primarily to avoid getting priest dynasties that treat church positions and properties as family heirlooms.

That's not what the Catholic Church itself argues. It may have been a factor to some degree, but it clearly does not appear to be the primary intent.

Celibacy had become the preferred norm in the Western church centuries before orders came from the top (somewhere around 1100 AD as I recall), and the texts discussing the matter almost exclusively dwell on the idea of someone dedicating themselves to God: following the example of Jesus himself, principles of asceticism, etc.

 

[tstorm823]

Out of interest, do you believe that? That i have a tendency towards an "intrinsic moral evil",

Yes, that is the idea of original sin. Every person to ever exist, with 2 very specific exceptions, has been subject to the inherent tendency toward moral evil. Lust is one of the many manifestations of that.

and that discrimination against me is "acceptable", "not only licit but obligatory"?

In the case of marriage, absolutely. A marriage for the purpose of creating children, producing the next generation, is a life's vocation. A marriage that does not or cannot do that is not the same. A promise of monogamy for the purpose of children is a promise that serves a purpose for society outside of yourself. A promise of monogamy for the purpose of just an individual's personal relations is an inward facing decision, a self-contained dead-end serving no broader purpose. Yes, I believe there is obligation to treat the two things differently.

That is not exclusive to gay marriages, I have nothing good to say about a straight Catholic couple that decides to get married but deliberately not have kids. But it is all gay marriages. No gay relationship ought be treated the same as people trying to have children.

I want to know whether you're defending this letter out of an agreement with its content, or just a tribal wish to stand by anything produced by the Church.

To be clear, I haven't been defending the letter prior to this post. I can and will defend it, but that hasn't been my point. My point is just that the statements then and now are entirely consistent.

 

[Absent]

I don't think it's as simple as masculine women being badass and feminine men being shameful.

Indeed nothing is ever as simple as anything. Everything can -and must- be complexified, because life is infinitely complicated and our little brains are only trying to catch up with that. That being said :

Masculinity and femininity are not a single thing, there's no single script or "role" for how to play out one or the other, and as such a lot depends on the specific way people are read as masculine or feminine.

Yes, the content of the male/female categories, the ways that traits are attributed, vary with subcultures, places, time. The issues are always within one cultural framework. And no culture is homogeneous (even in a 50 people tribe in the deep end of the Amazonian forest, you'll have people diverging about norms and beliefs). Despite one dominant, mainstream culture. So we describes cultures in broad lines, aware that most individuals would disagree one way or the other. It's a bit like an interpolated average line drawn through a graph's cloud of dots.

A young skinny woman who behaves in a more masculine way is likely to be seen as positive and aspirational, for example, but why? Largely, it's because those masculine traits don't actually interfere with the things that make her valuable to a heterosexist society, in particular her value to men. In fact, she's probably more interesting and appealing to most men than a hyper-feminine woman of the same age. She can have conversations about things men like. She's a more active participant in her own relationships. She's likely to be more open about her own sexuality. She's fun and spontaneous and not like other girls who are boring and only care about boring things like clothes and makeup (of course, she does wear makeup, she just doesn't talk about it because she's different from other girls)..

Yes, because these traits are "cool" and "positive" to men : she's interested in the cool stuff unlike girls (and, supposedly, homosexual men) who are interested in lame girly stuff. They can be promoted to Calvin's "Get Rid of Slimy Girls" club. Up to a point. Because becoming too butch starts signaling sexual unavailability to men, and that's a no no. Lesbians are sexy to men (especially to those who find male homosexuality monstrous), as long as there's an implied availability, but when the door shut on men becomes apparent, they become horrible witches. So "masculine" traits in women can be praised (one of us one of us gooble gobble) as long as these traits don't interfere too much. But also, a very feminine girl can be praised, because aww it's so cute and delicate, and so conform to its function of controlable, infantile and subservient creature requiring protection. This is a terrible flaw for men (who are assigned the role of proactive and self-reliant providers), but it's okay for women. Well, it plays into their assigned inferiority, but endorsing an inferior role is lauded when it's expected (hence the long history of women playing dumb to flatter men and thus be more succesful at conventional life).

It's especially visible during the very normative teenage years of insecure self-definition (heads-up, if you wish to draft young people in an extreme-right political crusade, try to play on gamers' sexual insecurities and frustrations for instance with, like, stories of game reviewers being corrupt by sexual intercourses and stories of emasculating threats on society). Behaviours and activities can easily become transparently linked to gender expectations, and noncomformity can be violently stigmatized by peers and authorities (I remember a gym teacher getting regularly mad at my schoolfriend's feminine way of running). There's a pressure on tomboys and girly boys, even though different. It's a time where things are explicit and somewhat clear-cut, because the teenage world is a universe with few nuances, where everything is either awesome or terrible. Life's complexity imposes itself later, to anyone I think even though to varying degrees.

As as the premises themselves are utterly absurd, of course you'll get contradictions. Which are hilarious to play with. Like the homoeroticism of over-virility, or the concern for appearance. Our demands and classification systems produce very amusing double binds where a "real man" image has to be well crafted and groomed even though concern for appearance is deemed womanly. The absurdity of gendered values (grunt) face their limits and require, in practice, some level of critical subversion, inversion and reappropriation. Heck, self-assurance itself requires it (pink and flowery shirts are womanly, but certain men feel precisely manly enough to embrace them, whereas men insecure with their maculinity wouldn't - so the reappropriation of a feminine attributes becomes a sign of masculinity). Manhood can imply patronizing gallantry, which is a form of delicate performance of caring, opposed to the manly caveman rapture stereotype. Different social identities demand dfferent performances of masculinity, so there can be no absolute homogeneity in these. Class antagonism can come with conflicts of manhood definitions, hence social prestige getting mixed in these variations. And yet, homosexuality can be an object of mockery and contempt (male more than female) even where manhood is displayed with some affected preciousness. Just like gender violence can be quite brutal under (or through) the gallantry varnish.

Point is, wherever there is sexism, wherever women are (politely or not, condescendingly or not) deemed inferior to men, male homosexuality is seen as a particularly perverted self-degradation. Things are evolving in that regard, as more and more the values and genderness of different traits get re-evaluated. But for people who were strongly socialized through gender expectations (whichever they were in their own circles), there is a notion of male homosexuals "letting down" the "higher standards" of manhood.

(Heck, I remember a Clive Cussler novel where the hero acted like a stereotypical homosexual, ie. effeminate and weak, in order to get underestimated by the baddie, only to reveal at the end that a-ha he was a real man all along punchy punch bim piff. What a cunning plan. Provided we live in the society with live in.)

 

[Buyetyen]

That is not exclusive to gay marriages, I have nothing good to say about a straight Catholic couple that decides to get married but deliberately not have kids. But it is all gay marriages. No gay relationship ought be treated the same as people trying to have children.

Welcome to the 21st century. You're going to hate it.