Yes, i meant the past as in he 80s. Back then liberation theology was quite divisive.
Nowadays ? Not so much.
Nowadays ? Not so much.
On the off chance you have read the source of those words, you wildly misunderstood them.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 your own source, you wildly misunderstood it.On the off chance you have read the source of those words, you wildly misunderstood them.
"that people had 'no conceivable right' to be gay"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).
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).
"that its practice can be 'legitimately limited'"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.
(Emphasis in all quotes is mine, of course)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.
I see absolutely nothing in that despicable, hateful tract that contradicts my characterisation. Everything I stated is there... is there.On the off chance you have read the source of those words, you wildly misunderstood them.
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."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)
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 see absolutely nothing in that despicable, hateful tract that contradicts my characterisation. Everything I stated is there... is there.
Indulge me. What context can those quotes be put in that makes them sound as good as you would have us believe?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'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 don't think there is such a thing.
No context is going to make them sound good to you, because you disagree with them.Indulge me. What context can those quotes be put in that makes them sound as good as you would have us believe?
Sure, but you must understand the concept of anti-discrimination laws, which exist because people are discriminated against.the previous Pope saying "we ought to condemn crimes committed against homosexuals without elevating homosexuality to a specifically protected class."
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.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..
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.Is it suggesting that homosexuality is a choice?
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.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.
What absolute horseshit.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 the Catholic Church is still a backward, regressive net drag on humanity. Glad we cleared that up.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 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.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.
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.So gay people are fine as long as they don't form romantic relationships or act on their sexuality.
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.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.
You replaced half of his sentences with explicitly the wrong things.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.