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

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,228
7,007
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
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.
What do you expect, Tstorm to admit the church could be wrong?

That's madness, I say. The church is infallible!

Sorry, I mean the Pope is infallible! /s
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,592
1,233
118
Country
United States
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...
Only once they hit the age of majority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,025
5,794
118
Country
United Kingdom
You replaced half of his sentences with explicitly the wrong things.
I absolutely did not. You've even been presented now with the full quotes in context. And the substance doesn't change.

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.
So. Homosexuality is a "tendency towards an intrinsic moral evil". Right there, black and white, unaffected by context. And "living out this orientation" is "not morally acceptable". Black and white, in context.

Stop vaguely handwaving it away with empty appeals to a justifying "context" which is not present in the tract.
 
Last edited:

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,671
643
118
The history of the Catholic Church (far from uniquely amongst religious organisations) in campaigning for certain laws in various countries strongly suggests that it does not think people's sins are between them and God.
That is certainly true.

And one could easily call that hypocritical or behavior against the doctrine. It is a quite common criticism inside the Catholic church as well. Things like the parable of the adultress stoning are kinda pretty hard to ignore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
I absolutely did not. You've even been presented now with the full quotes in context. And the substance doesn't change.
You took a piece with the overall message "we should condemn violence and persecution, but we also shouldn't be putting people on a pedestal for their sins" and rearranged the words to imply advocacy for laws banning homosexuality.

I presented the full quotes in context. I'm the one who did that.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,113
3,283
118
You took a piece with the overall message "we should condemn violence and persecution, but we also shouldn't be putting people on a pedestal for their sins" and rearranged the words to imply advocacy for laws banning homosexuality.

I presented the full quotes in context. I'm the one who did that.
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.
You sure showed us, genius.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirty Hipsters

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,069
1,206
118
Country
United States
I presented the full quotes in context. I'm the one who did that.
No, you threw up a link to an entire document and hoped that none of us would bother going through and actually reading it because (shocker here) it actually proved you wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirty Hipsters

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,025
5,794
118
Country
United Kingdom
You took a piece with the overall message "we should condemn violence and persecution, but we also shouldn't be putting people on a pedestal for their sins" and rearranged the words to imply advocacy for laws banning homosexuality.

I presented the full quotes in context. I'm the one who did that.
This is unambiguously wrong. The message isn't merely "don't put people on a pedestal for sins". It's reiterating over and over that homosexuality is a "moral evil", that it cannot be acceptable. And when it comes to rights, the tract very clearly says they can "legitimately be limited" on the basis of "objective disorder"-- under which description it includes homosexuality.

The condemnation is right there, unarguably. The idea that it can be a justification to limit rights is right there, unarguably. You're refusing to acknowledge the objective, unambiguous content of the letter.

If you don't agree with the letter, say so. Or if you do agree, say that. But do not stand there and insist that black is white, up is down, and that "may be legitimately limited" somehow doesn't mean "may be legitimately limited".
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,592
1,233
118
Country
United States
And one could easily call that hypocritical or behavior against the doctrine. It is a quite common criticism inside the Catholic church as well. Things like the parable of the adultress stoning are kinda pretty hard to ignore.
Yeah you don't even have to think that hard, there's an explicit condonation of homosexuality straight up in the New Testament. At least, as long as you have an interlinear Bible, an understanding of period-appropriate Greco-Roman culture, and a scrap of self-honesty.

You're probably familiar with the story of the Centurion's servant. If you get into a Koine Greek (i.e. the New Testament's original language) version, there are three words used in it of note: doulos, pais, and entimos. The first two translate to "servant", the third translates to "valued"...at least, they do if you're a religious conservative or otherwise completely ignorant of the subject matter.

Really, the third word clenches it. If you think "entimos" looks familiar, it's because it is. The English word "intimate" is derived from it. But apparently, that's not enough for some people, because that has nonsexual connotations as well...even though you have to get around all the sexual connotations and period usage, and perform the requisite mental gymnastics to discount them first. So, we'll need to look at the other two.

"Doulos" is slave, but the period connotation of the word was bondsman. That's why that specific word shows up everywhere in the New Testament, the notion that salvation indentures one to Christ and that all Christians are by definition bond-servants. Not much room for sexual connotation there at all, no matter how much Greeks, Romans, and yes even Romanized Hebrews, loved banging slaves irrespective of biological sex.

But what about "pais"? Well, now that is a word with definite connotation. The connotation being one of a familial bond, not necessarily by blood relation. Specifically, that of an older or higher-status man's familial bond with a younger or lower-status man's or boy's. Kind of like a father-son, or big bro-little bro, relationship.

More like daddy-twink, really. Which is exactly where every other discovered non-biblical use of the word went, if you know what I mean. We're talking about Greco-Roman culture here.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,885
2,233
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
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.
Religion just exists to create an in-group and an out-group so that the in-group doesn't have to feel bad about taking from the out-group because they're the others, the heathens. The fact that this happens even with what are generally considered peaceful religions, like Buddhism, tells me that all organized religion is bad regardless of its overall teachings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
What do you expect, Tstorm to admit the church could be wrong?

That's madness, I say. The church is infallible!

Sorry, I mean the Pope is infallible! /s
I mean, we're talking about Ratzinger vs Francis, so not even Pope's are infallible
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,671
643
118
technically the "infallible clause" is only for ex cathedra teachings. So what a pope says is generally just his personal opinion, even for Catholics. It wouldn't work well otherwise considering the very different opinions of the very different popes and how much some of them hated each other.


And yes, i am not exactly a fan of Benedict as pope.
 

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 29, 2014
1,414
696
118
Country
Sweden
a piece with the overall message "we should condemn violence and persecution, but we also shouldn't be putting people on a pedestal treating them with neutrality for their sins"
Fixed that for you.

My own take is that homosexuality is not a sin, no matter if it is in coveting or in actions, so they are coming at it from broken premises.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
You sure showed us, genius.
You can't read.
No, you threw up a link to an entire document and hoped that none of us would bother going through and actually reading it because (shocker here) it actually proved you wrong.
I made the faulty assumption that all of you can read.
My own take is that homosexuality is not a sin, no matter if it is in coveting or in actions, so they are coming at it from broken premises.
It is reasonable for you to disagree, my complaint here is people maliciously misinterpreting the words.
This is unambiguously wrong. The message isn't merely "don't put people on a pedestal for sins". It's reiterating over and over that homosexuality is a "moral evil", that it cannot be acceptable. And when it comes to rights, the tract very clearly says they can "legitimately be limited" on the basis of "objective disorder"-- under which description it includes homosexuality.

The condemnation is right there, unarguably. The idea that it can be a justification to limit rights is right there, unarguably. You're refusing to acknowledge the objective, unambiguous content of the letter.

If you don't agree with the letter, say so. Or if you do agree, say that. But do not stand there and insist that black is white, up is down, and that "may be legitimately limited" somehow doesn't mean "may be legitimately limited".
Maybe you actually don't understand what he was talking about. Let's read the forward:

Recently, legislation has been proposed in various places which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. In some cities, municipal authorities have made public housing, otherwise reserved for families, available to homosexual (and unmarried heterosexual) couples. Such initiatives, even where they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society. Such things as the adoption of children, the employment of teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords' legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example, are often implicated.

While it would be impossible to anticipate every eventuality in respect to legislative proposals in this area, these observations will try to identify some principles and distinctions of a general nature which should be taken into consideration by the conscientious legislator, voter, or Church authority who is confronted with such issues.
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."
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,581
2,290
118
Country
Ireland
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."
Oh so it's just advocating jim crow for queer people? Why didn't you say so. Just say youbhate queer people and be done with it
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
Oh so it's just advocating jim crow for queer people? Why didn't you say so. Just say youbhate queer people and be done with it
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".
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,433
2,102
118
Recently, legislation has been proposed in various places which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. In some cities, municipal authorities have made public housing, otherwise reserved for families, available to homosexual (and unmarried heterosexual) couples. Such initiatives, even where they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society. Such things as the adoption of children, the employment of teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords' legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example, are often implicated.

While it would be impossible to anticipate every eventuality in respect to legislative proposals in this area, these observations will try to identify some principles and distinctions of a general nature which should be taken into consideration by the conscientious legislator, voter, or Church authority who is confronted with such issues.
So, according to the RCs, it's not a "real" family unless it's a heterosexual couple or single parent. Okay.

Then, what about what it's implying. Gay people should not be allowed to adopt? Gay teachers may "corrupt" their pupils? What exactly are "landlords' legitimate concerns" about homosexuals - surely a landlord's legitmate concerns are that their tenants pay the rent and don't trash the property. I notice the weasel words: "are often implicated", both avoiding saying anything precise, and passive voice to distance it all, as if this just happens to be something other people say and the RC Church doesn't have a bone in the matter.

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. What I suspect the RC Church is thinking of as a minimum, given it is an organisation that runs adoption services, schools, and rents out property, is that society should leave the RC church and any other private organisation (such as those of Catholic congregants) total freedom to disciminate against homosexuals.

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.