Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Vatican: we are not losing the marriage battle

Timothy Kincaid

November 9th, 2012

Forget all those election results you saw on Tuesday. Ignore what the legislature is doing in France. And as for Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Canada, and South Africa, they are inconsequential. And the Catholic countries of Portugal, Spain, Argentina and Mexico… oh, please, that’s just silly posturing.

Because none of that matters. The Vatican has declared that it is not losing the marriage battle. (WaPo)

On the contrary, according to an article in L’Osservatore Romano by historian Lucetta Scaraffia, the church has emerged in recent years as the only institution on the global stage that’s capable of resisting the forces that threaten to “break up … human society.”

According to the historian, the church’s fight on moral issues such as gay marriage and abortion has drawn support and “admiration” from many non-Catholics.

Well there you have it. The Vatican is winning. And if you try to argue, we’ll just stick our fingers in our ears and say, “la la la la la, I can’t hear you”!!

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Lindoro Almaviva
November 9th, 2012 | LINK

Can we please change the picture from John Paul to Rattsinger?

In JP II defense, he did declare that BEING gay was not inherently evil, something that Rattsinger has worked very hard to erase from memory. I understand that JP II did many things that deserved criticism, all of it valid, but at least he started a move forward in the church to give gay people the dignity of being and existing, something that Rattsinger has refused to acknowledge.

Timothy Kincaid
November 9th, 2012 | LINK

Oops. Got my popes transposed. I’ll put up a Papa Ratzi pic later – too difficult from the phone.

Neil
November 10th, 2012 | LINK

Lindoro, are you sure that’s right about JP II?

When he was Pope he stood by Ratzinger’s words when in 1986 he wrote on behalf of the Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith an update to its “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of December 29, 1975.

“In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” (Bolding mine).

JP II was himself expressive of extreme intolerance towards LGBT people. In 2000, when World Pride was held in Rome, the Pope declared:

“I feel obliged, now, to mention the well-known demonstrations held in Rome in the past few days. In the name of the Church of Rome I can only express my bitterness at the affront to the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000 and the offence to the Christian values of a city that is so dear to the hearts of Catholics throughout the world.
The Church cannot be silent about the truth, because she would fail in her fidelity to God the Creator and would not help to distinguish good from evil.”

Maybe you can glean the usual false distinction between action and being in those words but I’m not much comforted by the suggestion JP II made progress in recognising the validity of LGBTs.

JohnAGJ
November 10th, 2012 | LINK

Reminds me of this memorable scene from the 1983 movie “Trading Places”:

http://www.hark.com/clips/gvkmhgbgcf-turn-those-machines-back-on

(wish I could have found the video clip, but alas…)

William Lindsey
November 10th, 2012 | LINK

Sounds just like Republican math they’re doing to make themselves feel better.

While the real world just goes right on being real.

Chris in Canada
November 10th, 2012 | LINK

They confuse “love” with “breeding”.

Steve
November 10th, 2012 | LINK

Brazil also has de facto same-sex marriage in a way. Though people need to manually convert their Civil Unions in court

Lindoro Almaviva
November 10th, 2012 | LINK

Sounds just like Republican math they’re doing to make themselves feel better.

While the real world just goes right on being real.

Well, let's see. Surely you did google the catholic catechism to make sure you knew what it says before coming here to make statements likle this. So lets take a look, shall we?

The catholic Catechism's homosexuality chapter seems to be rather short, considering how much they obsess over us, Here is is, with some commentary dispersed:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Now, we can completely see the BS here, it smells like itm it looks like it and I bet it tastes like it. We are able to discenn that, with all the money the Catholic Church has, surely they could have done their own study on human psycology; or at least taken the ones that have been done by secular sources seriously. Since they have not, I think it is safe to say that this is BS that a lot of catholics do not buy here in the USA and it seems to be happening increasingly in other parts of the word. So, like Harvey milk would say "Come out, come out wherever you are." This is the only way to make this parragraph 100% obsolete, irrelevant and more importantly, deleted.

Now, while we are going to discount 99.99% of what is says here, I think that there is one section in here that can be used and is very helpful: It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Why do I say that? Because we live in a world where we hear more and more that Homosexuals do not exist.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Now, this is the main meal of this discussion, because here is the section I was refering to. Let's go ahead and take out and highlight it: They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. Now, I think that we can all agree that the rest, like the parragraph before is mostly BS. Until the Catholic Church either conducts their own scientifically relevalt study and present it for review, the weight of the many other studies about homosexuality is greater and must be (and is by many thinking Catholics) taken seriously.

But the fact still remains that in the middle of all the BS, there it is, the one part of the Catechism that calls for the treatment of gay people with dignity and respect. I would dare say that most thinking Catholics (and of those there seems to be a LOT here in the USA) have been able to recognize that this is a part of the catechism that should be followed. Is the upper tear of the church doing it? I think the answer we all know it. I think pointing out the many ways the church and many of its representatives in all spheres of the organization are ignoring this in favor of the other parts that point out the "boogie man" aspects of gay people is unnecessary.

When did the change happen? To be honest I do not remember it. Fact still remains that it is there, and it is already being put into practice and there are plenty of Catholics who are pushing back and demanding that the church practice what they teach.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

And this is laughable bejond belief. The moment your priests can live up to this, call us. I think we can all agree with it.

My point was never that the Catholic church is 100% behind us. My point was that steps were taken and they are there. Is the Catholic church living up to their own standards? Most certainly not. But there was a time when this little phrase was not there. This change happened under JP II and he obviously failed to live up to it himself, but we can hardly say he was the only one who said one thing and did something completely different, right?

Steve
November 10th, 2012 | LINK

The CC wouldn’t know dignity and respect if it came and bit them in the ass. It’s either more feel good BS to make themselves feel better or part of their bizarro alternate universe where “Hate them so much that they’ll turn straight” is considered loving behavior. Seriously. Lots of crazy Christians think they have to force people to become Christians and/or straight because otherwise those people would go to hell. So they think tormenting others is an act of love.

Neil
November 10th, 2012 | LINK

Thanks, Lindoro, for your considered response. I accept there’s evidence of incremental improvement in the Vatican’s attitude. I’m somewhat chilled by official positions like this, also from Ratzinger’s 1986 document:

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.” (Bolding mine)

But I’m pleased to note the Church these days seems to emphasise the former paragraph’s sentiment rather than Ratzinger’s unforgivable qualifier in the following paragraph. Yet Ratzinger’s words remain as an official document on the Church’s position, an apologia for violence against the LGBT community.

Lindoro Almaviva
November 10th, 2012 | LINK

The way I see Rattsinger is probably the same way I see a lot of the Christianists. They all know in their hears that they are fighting a loosing battle. They know they are loosing influence and refuse to admitt that they are seeing the end of their days at the top.

In other words: their actions resemble the tantrum a 3 year old throws when (s)he is told it is time to go to be but is having too much fun. He knows he will end up in bed, but throws the tantrum as a last ditch effort to either milk more fun out of you, or at least ruin your evening.

Hunter
November 11th, 2012 | LINK

Lindoro — Thanks for the quotes from the Catechism. It’s helpful to know for sure that the Catholic hierarchy is arrogant, ignorant, and self-absorbed.

Priya Lynn
November 11th, 2012 | LINK

Right Hunter. I’m really impressed by the profound disconnect from reality Ratzinger showed when he said “or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right. It’s obvious Ratzy, people have a right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t hurt others – what is inconceivable is any justification for denying people that right.

Eric in Oakland
November 11th, 2012 | LINK

What is truly chilling to me is the fact that the Vatican can hold these positions while acknowledging that some people are inherently gay in orientation. That degree of callous disregard is genuinely evil.

Robert
November 12th, 2012 | LINK

It is a crazee world where an ex-nazi youth is now the leader of the Catholic Church.

Mark F.
November 12th, 2012 | LINK

Robert:

Membership in the “Hitler Youth” was not optional for German boys, so it is really unfair to criticize the pope for that. Just like it would be unfair to criticize a German drafted into the Nazi Army for serving in the war.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.