Monday, 29th December 2008
Is Pope Benedict anti-gay?
Aldo Gatt’s postings under my blog “Christmas: a subversive feast” shows how hurt he is by what Pope Benedict said during his annual state of the world address to high officials of the Vatican on December 22. Like many people who are hurt Mr Gatt is also very angry. I empathise with him. People who feel hurt deserve our attention and love.
What did the Pope say?
Several media reports said that by this speech the Pope was stoking homophobia and that he also was gay basher. Is he?
In an interview Cardinal Ratzinger gave to La Repubblica in 2004 he said: “Above all, we must have great respect for these people who also suffer and who want to find their own way of correct living.” Does he now believe that gays do not deserve respect? Not at all.
There is perfect continuity between Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope Benedict. Both make a very important distinction between the human person and the acts committed by a human person. Even when the acts committed deserve one’s condemnation the human person should always be respected and loved. But on the other hand this love and respect should not preclude anyone from clearly stating that someone’s actions are to be condemned.
This distinction is very important to understand the substance and the spirit of the December 22 speech by Pope Benedict.
The Pope in his speech said, in other words: if we respect the environment and protect it we should respect the human person who crowns the environments; this respect includes the defense of human sexuality as expressed in marriage which by its very nature is a union between man and women.
The Pope said that the Church “ought to safeguard not only the earth, water, and air as gifts of creation, belonging to everyone. It ought also to protect man against the destruction of himself. What is necessary is a kind of ecology of man, understood in the correct sense.”
The Pope than outlines what the Church believes is this ecology of man:
“When the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman and asks that this order of creation be respected, it is not the result of an outdated metaphysic. It is a question here of faith in the Creator and of listening to the language of creation, the devaluation of which leads to the self-destruction of man and therefore to the destruction of the same work of God. That which is often expressed and understood by the term ‘gender;, results finally in the self-emancipation of man from creation and from the Creator. Man wishes to act alone and to dispose ever and exclusively of that alone which concerns him. But in this way he is living contrary to the truth, he is living contrary to the Spirit Creator. The tropical forests are deserving, yes, of our protection, but man merits no less than the creature, in which there is written a message which does not mean a contradiction of our liberty, but its condition.”
No discrimination against gays
One can agree with what the Pope said and one can disagree. There is no problem there. But do the Pope’s words contain any hint of hate? Definitely not. The Pope’s words express the position of the church: gays should be respected but homosexual acts are to be condemned. When the church says this thing it is not discriminating against gays. The church’s teaching applies to gays and straights. Full sexual acts are to be left to the intimacy of marriage which can only exist between man and women. The church does not condemn only homosexual acts but it also condemns sexual acts of heterosexuals outside of marriage. There are heterosexuals who disagree with the teaching of the church on pre-marital and extramarital sex as there are homosexuals who disagree with the teaching of the church on homosexual acts. Should heterosexual feel offended when the church condemns heterosexual acts outside of marriage and says that these undermine marriage and the family and as a consequence undermine society? I can understand those who disagree but I cannot see how one can say that by teaching this thing the Church would be stoking hatred against heterosexuals. The teaching of the church is no discrimination.
The comparison the Pope made between the protection of the rain forest and the protection of marriage between man and women is a good and intelligent comparison. Alas it is also an example that can be caricatured and made to look grotesque. This speech, like the Pope’s speech in Regensburg, is logical and intellectually sound. But perhaps the comparison is not very media savvy and friendly.
Discrimination against heterosexuals
The 33-year-old German philosophy scholar Raphaela Schmid some years ago gave a speech explaining why denying marriage to homosexuals is not a form of injustice. Society has long given advantages to married couples for reasons of procreation and socialisation. A married man and woman typically produce, raise and educate children -- a vital process of social renewal that deserves preferential status. A homosexual union is just one of many types of stable relationships that do, and should, not enjoy the status or benefits of marriage. Schmid says that this is not unjust discrimination. On the contrary, she said, legalisation of gay marriage would represent a form of discrimination against all those who live in unmarried relationships of a nonsexual nature: sisters who share the same house, an unmarried woman who takes care of her mother, etc. To the objection that many marriages fail, with consequential damage to the couple and the children, Schmid said the proper response is not to give up on marriage but to take steps to strengthen it.
Schmid then turned the discrimination accusation around. She said those who believe homosexual acts are immoral deserve to have their views heard in the public debate on homosexual unions. To dismiss these views as "irrational" because they are based on religious faith would be discriminatory, she said. Finally, she said, the fight against gay marriage should not be seen as a Catholic battle. "The difference between homosexual relationships and marriage has not been invented by Christianity, nor is it upheld only by Catholics," she said.
Conclusion
I am sure that Aldo Gatt does not agree with this line of thinking. But I hope that he will not be offended by it as I will not be offended by his defence of homosexual marriage. I respect him though I do not agree with him and I am certain that he will return the favour.
Till next time I wish you all good bye and good luck.
RSS
Comments
Sexuality is an integral part of who one actually is, it forms an integral part of their self concept.
Please also note that homosexuality is no way associated with any other psychological condition nor is it a mental condition in itself. For further reference: Homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic Statistics Manual (DSM-IV) for psychological disorders since 1973.
Further: I am sure that being part of the church is not an issue for some homosexuals. The issue rather is; the church insitilling a non-tollerant/rejecting attitude on its members.
Being gay is one thing, do homosexual act is another...we must make distinction between the person and the act. The church always condems the act and not the person. What I find unfair is that many make mis-interpretation of what the Pope says to take advantage. On the other hand I understand when sometimes words hurt and I urge the church to try use the correct wording and explain herself
In my opinion everyone can like whom he / she wants, live with whom they want and make love with whom they want.
It is just a matter of liking, which I think your childhood and the society you live in have made a big contribute to. I don't think that it is anything near scientific, my opinion is that nature is heterosexual.
It is widely known that the church is not against homosexuality, it just condones those types of relationships and acts.
But don't give me that rant about gay couples raising other people's children. It's unnatural and inhuman, it's not okay for the kid to see two fathers or two mothers. It just shatters the whole image of a normal society.
You can live your life just the way you want it, just don't mess the lives of others.
Well said, but may I also add that it is an "intimate" act, as in a private act. How the pope can be so deluded as to suggest this is a problem for mankind is completely beyond me. How we then actually have to debate whether this claim is anti-gay or not is another mystery.
Also a bit disappointed in our dear host for completely leaving his opinion to his original piece instead of joining in the discussion, as his article has been duly answered to.
We shall agree to disagree!
Until the truth is revealed, may the good Lord bless you all.
Patrick O'Connor
Yes, IF, your and many other people's thoughts are right, but there isn't really much indication this is the case. You have made several assertions and I have from the get-go said that it's possible, but I do find it unlikely. More than anything I really disagree that it is a condition in need of healing. The apparent "problems" faced by homosexuals are in general due to other people's intolerance, in which cases I think it's the intolerance we should fight, not the condition, which appears to be highly natural.
So Pope Benedict is not opposed to homosexual acts, you're saying?
Anyway, the question itself is quite uninteresting. I suppose in the end only the Pope himself could really answer it. In my book, his comments indicate that he is definitely anti-gay, in yours not so much it seems.
If my thoughts, and many other people's thoughts, are right about homosexuality, it means the gay community is living in illusion and pain. Towards the understanding and healing of this condition psychologists and the gay community need to turn. There is always hope. And the rest of the world must offer love, compassion, and understanding to the gay community. There's hope in this also.
Pope Benedict is not anti-gay.
Queue the end theme from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly...
I am all agog to see what you have to say. You accused Fr Joe of " hiding behind such quotations. One wonders why."
I am wondering whether you are hiding behind this silence.
Silence is not always golden...it is an overrated virtue when words are needed (as the great Helen Thomas (White House journalist since the days of JFK) says....)
Ooops! I am quoting.
C'mon, Marco. You threw the gauntlet. Now we are waiting for the duel :)
I would thank you not to twist what I said.
OWES Fr Borg an explanation? The mind boggles......
And I do not fault, condemn, or fail to have loving compassion for these men, but I will not accept that their homosexuality is "just the way God made (them)" - at least until there has been serious examination of the psychological and emotional history of the person. It makes all the difference in the world why a person is homosexual. If a distressed boy goes into a counselors office and says he's afraid he's gay, do I then say, "that's okay. God made you that way?" When in actual fact there has been a serious issue of abuse, neglect, rejection, or abandonment in the boy's life? In this case, there would then be little room for actual healing.
We need to examine, with more objectivity, this matter, before we send young people down a path they may only go down in wounding. We, as a culture, owe it to ourselves to understand homosexuality, genetically, psychologically, and spiritually. Right now, it seems there's just a bunch of shouting and finger pointing - from all sides.
I have addressed the question to Marco Ellul unless you’re his spokesperson now. I think Marco Ellul owes the answer to Fr. Joe Borg who asked it in the first place more than 9 hrs. ago. I do not think that if that were the question, Marco would let it wait all these hours to answer. Or was he ignoring Fr. Joe? After all his insinuations(“I can quote different sources which would break every ‘argument’…..”) one would be excused to read more than what is so glaringly obvious to you.
For many of us in the hetero-traditional camp (so to speak!), we do not accept the premise that homosexuality is ordered. We believe it to be naturally disordered, even neurotic, I am sad to say. The last men's retreat I went on 3 gay men told their stories. One's father exposed him to pornography (perhaps thinking that that would make his son a man), the other's mother clung desperately to her son, in the absence of a loving husband, and the 3rd was molested by his uncle. None of these men chose to be gay. But, I can't help but wonder if their deep wounds lead them (yes, naturally) to grow with a propensity to homosexuality. Perhaps others would form different reactions to their wounds, but still, did these 3 men become gay because God made them that way? I doubt it very much. I am not for a minute saying that the wounds of these 3 men are not deeply tragic and the result of other's deep wounds (sin?).
Isn't it obvious what the main question is. It's the headline to the blog, for goodness sake.
@ Pat O'Connor
Why are people so obsessed with why gay people are gay? You wouldn't ask members of any other minority the same question. Would it matter, for example, if a person in a wheelchair was born with the condition or they had an accident? They still have the same rights to leading as happy and fulfilling a life as possible. It's the same with gays. Why should we be forced to spend our lives ruminating on why we are gay? We need to get on with it like everyone else. We have jobs, hobbies and families to take care of.
@Marco Ellul. OK! So Fr. Joe has toppled the tables and the ball is now in your court. I too am curious to know, “What is the main question?”
While I wait, I am thinking: “Funny, homosexuals want the right to get married, and with as much emphasis, heterosexuals are clamouring for the legalization of divorce, and/or in the absence of divorce are filing for annulment. I wonder if one day we will end up with perfectly sound gay marriages, and perfectly happy heterosexuals living together outside marriage. It could be funny if it weren’t so heartbreaking.
Why should gays be interested in dialogue with the church? The church was not interested in dialogue or listening to other people's opinions when it had absolute power over whole communities. That's nearly two thousand years of non-dialogue. Rules are rules for the church and dogma has always had precedence over humanity. It is still not interested in dialogue now. It says it does because it sees itself on the losing end of the argument. In fact, it looks like Fr Borg's statements haven't changed one millimetre since writing this blog. He just keeps on producing data. The whole purpose of dialogue is that so the two sides learn from each other and try to accommodate their opponent's viewpoint. There is no chance of the church taking in the gay community's pov, so why even go there?
The gay rights movement has no interest in reasonable dialogue on the rights issue. We heard it here from S. Grech, "In the end we don't really care why we're gay. We are, and we are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals are - and we'll get them too.'
Is it the begining of a show?We will see in the near future.
P.s. I am against and will never accept that gays shall be given the right to adopt children.Are we aware that allowing adaption to gays we are inconsiderate to the already damaged child and destroying his future?Do anyone including gays knows what is the extent of damage in a child which is raised withinn a gay couple would be?Enormous.Eg,The child grows and start to ask questions.Where do children come from?Who are my parents?Why i was abondoned?Why my parents are of the same sex?Why am i different to other children?I am treated different from others because of my parents status,And hundred more questions.Psychologicaly this child is dysfunctional.Do we want a bysfunctional generation to please our own egos?Think about it and be in that child's shoe.
I can quote different sources which would break every 'argument' he makes. But the answer to the main question is obvious!
Also, it was interesting to note that the vote against gay marriage in California was slipped in with the same ballot as electing Barack Obama, reducing the impact of the issue as most people were concerned with electing the president.
I suspect that Fr Borg does not have an opinion on the matter. He will just repeat the same excuses ad nauseam as all other professional Cahtolics. We have heard the argument many times before.
As for repealing gay marriage in California, everyone knows that it happened because the church mobilised a huge number of Catholics, mostly from traditional religious Hispanic countries to vote against it. It's the way American politics work but it's only a matter of time before that is reveresed again and gay marriage in California is permissible once more.
Also, how can you first allow gay marriages, as in Californina and then turn around and tell those people they aren't married anymore. It's state enforced divorce.
Besides, I'd much rather hear your opinion on the matter.
Banning Gay marraige (2). D. Michael McCarron, executive director of the Florida Catholic Conference, had a similar message after that state's voters approved the constitutional amendment.
"The bishops' support for Amendment 2 was not motivated by discrimination or animosity against gays and lesbians," he told the Florida Catholic newspaper. "The bishops see that both the common good and the future of our society are served through the traditional understanding of marriage, and they also understand that research and history support the traditional family as the best environment to nurture and raise healthy children."
(Information based on reports by CNS)
Banning Gay marraige (1). Last November the voters in California, Florida and Arizona passed state constitutional amendments to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Now 30 states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Same-sex marriages are permitted in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
In a postelection statement, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles spoke about one of the biggest misunderstandings -- that the church's opposition to same-sex marriage indicates a rejection of homosexuals and lesbians as people.
"Proposition 8 is not against any group in our society," the cardinal said. "Its sole focus is on preserving God's plan for people living upon this earth throughout time.
"The Catholic Church understands that there are people who choose to live together in relationships other than traditional marriage," he added. "All of their spiritual, pastoral and civil rights should be respected, together with their membership in the church."
As regards Schmid's opinion on a gay marriage being discriminatory to other forms of unmarried nonsexual relationships (siblings, mother & daughter etc), well it doesn't convince. The love inherent in these two kinds of relationship is of a different nature, I cannot see how discrimantion comes in.
The wood is dry now.
In reply to your question: 'Will the gay rights movement try to force the Catholic Church to accept and bless same-sex marriage also?'
the answer is *absolutely not*.
Nobody really cares if the church doesn't agree with marriage equality and considers marriages between people of the same sex as null. The important thing is that the *state* recognizes them as equal to opposite-sex unions. It is the state which confers rights and obligations to couples... not any religious denomination, and thus, not the church. And so far the states which do are Spain, Belgium, Holland, Norway, South Africa and Canada, with a number of others granting rights very similar to those enjoyed by opposite-sex couples.
When Barack Obama's parents married in 1961, their marriage (composed of a white woman and a black man) was illegal in 19 US states because interracial marriage was considered to be a threat to "the sanctity of marriage". Do you think they cared what other people thought?
http://www.rudypark.com/editorialcartoons/topics/discrimination/gay_000306marriage.gif
Sounds familiar?
I was not speaking to you as a a heterosexual but as a Christian. Respect is earned, my friend and what has the church done to respect gays? Christianity has a long, long history of abuse towards other of different convictions, including murder and torture, [just take a tour around the inquisitor's palace in Senglea] that is going to take a long time to erase, if ever. I personally think it's far too late for it to survive, as can be envisaged by the empty churches all over the world. A shame, I consider myself a Catholic, but I will not have anyone laying down rules for me, especially since they are based on theories that can never be proved one way or the other. I can go on trying to prove things to you - incidentally my partner and I raised two kids along with their mother and they are both in stable long-time hetero relationships of their own, so there goes your fear of what would happen if gays had kids - but you do not want to understand - I guess you never will.
Thank-you for your open minded response; re. developmental causation.
Personally, I do believe genetics plays a factor, but not in all cases, and that development is a major contributor (I still don't understand why gays are insulted by this). I have no proof, just like you. Perhaps there needs to be a major research funding project done to figure it out, cause it sure is causing a lot of grief for everyone. I would appreciate gays giving straights the respect they deserve to hold contrarian opinions (take note S. Grech).
Also, there are a couple of websites you may find of interest: www.mkp.org (gay friendly) and http://www.boystomen.org/ Both these organizations support the healthy development of boys and men, through initiation and mentoring.
Lastly, I have great concern that all men (gay and straight) suffer terribly, and cause their friends and family to suffer also, because we do not acknowledge the masculine journey in our society. We seem to forget that boys and girls need to be blessed by fathers or father substitutes I have sat in circles of men for over 10 years and conclude that many live lives of quiet desperation.
Happy New Year. I'm checking out.
As we used to chant on the marches in London in the 80s
We're queer
We're here
Get used to it
End of discussion!
The reason I ask for proof is that you have made an incredibly sweeping statement in regards to homosexual development in correlation with paternity. As S. Grech already pointed out, the opinion is quite insulting to many gay people. Now I'm of the opinion that if it's insulting and true, then it's a valid argument and well worth pushing. If it's insulting and without base, then I do think we should ask for further proof, or at least studies, before making assertions.
What I think or believe is not very relevant, but here is my two cents. I do believe that homosexuality can be both genetical and developmental. To what extent it's one of the others I'm clueless about and I can't back either up to a very high extent, which is why I rarely push either point of view.
I agree that if it turns out to be the case that it's purely developmental, then we have to accept that and work on it, but until there are some reason to believe that I'm not going to bet on that horse, as without base it's denegrating and insulting.
Good to see you. I hope you had a good start to the New Year. I really cannot comment on what you said because I don't want to trivialise your experience but suffice to say that I find your comments to be very strong and real. Thank you for sharing with us.
@ Patrik Larsson
I am glad that I have been already useful...and I haven't yet put my resolution in action (erm...actually I haven't yet compiled the list!)
I have looked at the scientific studies you listed, and while they are certainly interesting, they are not conclusive in the least. Much more study, including peer-reviews, will have to be done before a causal link can be made.
I wonder what would happen if scientific studies prove that there are significant and relevant developmental factors causing homosexuality? We likely won't see them, because the gay rights movement is terrified of that kind of knowledge and would accuse the scientists of being anti-gay.
We don't know what causes homosexuality yet. But, in the meantime, our civilization goes through massive re-structuring regarding the family.
The Catholic Church is promoting marriage as the union between a man and a woman, as the ideal environment for raising children. Sounds reasonable to me.
I find it ironic and hypocritical that you continue to ask for proof on these matters when the scientific proof of causal factors (especially for genetic factors) is so thin and inconclusive. You don't think a boy's relationship with his father is a developmental factor in homosexuality? Then how about the mother? Is that irrelevant also?
@S. Grech:
You will get them, will you? Your attitude smells of totalitarianism. In Canada, you already have them all (marriage, adoption rights, same-sex benefits included). But it seems it's not enough. Will the gay rights movement try to force the Catholic Church to accept and bless same-sex marriage also? It matters very much why you are gay, because your rights very much impact society, especially in the adoption of children and family law.
Don't we know that a child needs a healthy mother and a healthy father? Don't we know this anymore?
I'm sorry, baptism, first communion, and confirmation are not quite the rites of passage I'm thinking of.
I think what I was trying to say was that my own father treated all his children the same - we all had the same rite-of-passage when we were kids, the same ceremonies of baptism, first holy communion and confirmation. He gave us all the same attention, etc. Yet I am gay and my brother is not. And, in answer to your questions, yes I love my father, I have a very strong bond with him and I respect him more and more as I get older. Your theory is an insult to gays quite frankly. In the end it doesn't matter why we are gay - we are and we need to be respected for that not examined as if were some abnormality.
In the end we don't really care why we're gay. We are, and we are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals are - and we'll get them too.
A quick review of the books seems to suggest a pretty strong Christian bias, apart from the Bly book. I'm not going to comment much more on the books as I have not read them and reading reviews and excerpts of them doesn't really tempt me to do so.
What I can comment on is your questions that you claim takes great courage to respond to. I can't see one of them I would have a hard time answering to, but they are completely irrelevant. To make your argument even remotely feasible you would have to show a strong link between absence of a father figure and homosexuality. Until you can show such a correlation your argument falls flat.
Her books are out of print? So what? They weren't selling anymore. Doesn't mean she's wrong.
Fathering is the same for each child? Really? Do you treat all your children the same, or, if you don't have kids, do you treat all your family and friends the same? We're not raising cabbages here. Each person, parent and child, is an individual and one reacts and relates to another in different ways, based on personality, birth order, socio-economic conditions, etc.
The matter of initiation does not preclude homosexuality. (But being a Christian seems to preclude any acceptable view on homosexuality. Christian bashing is now the last acceptable prejudice) My argument rests on the fact that, over all, we no longer acknowledge the masculine journey in our society. We tend to think that getting our driver's licence, getting drunk, or getting l--d, is the first sign of being a man. Why do you think young people join gangs, take extreme risks with their lives? They are looking for acceptance and affirmation.
Do you think it's important for a man to make peace with his father? Do you think a boy needs to leave his mother?
I wouldn't put too much store by what Ruth Tiffany Barthouse wrote. Like the 'German philosophical scholar' Raphaela Schmid that Fr Borg quotes in his blog, she was [Schmid is still alive] a devout Christian pushing a Christian agenda rather than trying to find out the truth. A quick check on amazon.com shows her books to be out of print.
How do you answer the fact that father treats all his sons the same during their childhood but only one turns out to be gay. What stops the rest from adopting the same sexuality?
And what about the Ancient Greeks who had very strong rite-of-passage ceremonies for their children. They not only had homosexuals, they actively encouraged such liasons, seeing them as part of becoming a man. They even had an army - called the army of lovers - that admitted only homosexual men and their partners.
I have been reluctant to write so far. In my case, it is not a case of reconciling my sexuality with a faith. Being an atheist frees me from the contradictions of the God that, on the one hand teaches kindness and mercy, on the other preaches cruelty and vengeance.
What hurt me in the first place is the dependency that people close to me have on this inconsistent philosophy of life. The way they hang unto every word of a man who preaches poverty whilst surrounded by riches. And yes, it pains me to know that an authority that is as sensitive as a rhino has them wrapped around its finger, the same way a drug imprisons those hooked on it.
The Pope should know better than to condemn as futile (or even as destructive towards life) the love of men for men and women for women because it is fruitless as far as procreation is concerned (also debatable) for his institution is run by "fruitless" men and women.
As to the Schmid theory, I do not think I need to add anything more to what M. Xuereb has written about the holes in that line of reasoning.
Fr Joe Borg, you write you know homosexuals who are good Catholics. I also know Catholics who are good people. It is what they believe in that I find harmful to society and its growth and development.
I know a little bit how some young people feel about being gay because i work with young people. It's hard for them because they do not want to be different. Fortunately some come to terms with it and look forward to being happy adults, others do not and keep living an internal battle long after they become adults. One question i was asked by a student was: one of my cousins got pregnant, her baby was baptized, she later got married in church to the father of her baby - her sin was forgiven, but if i have a relationship, why will my lifestyle be considered condemnable by the Church?
Maybe because it is as A. Vella just said, the church is homophobic?
God does not love someone any less simply because he or she is homosexual. God's love is always and everywhere offered to those who are open to receiving it. St. Paul's words offer great hope:"
But the best way to understand the masculine journey is to ask one's self how one feels about his father: what messages did you receive from him about who you are? What did you believe about yourself based on his example to you? Do you love him? Do you hate him? If you could say anything at all to him, what would it be and why? How did all these heartfelt matters shape the man you are today? Do you trust men? Are you yourself with men?
This is the work of the masculine journey, and it cannot be done alone. It takes great courage to answer these questions, for no father is perfect.
These are real questions of manhood, yet most men refuse to answer them.
In answer to your question if gay people feel different from other boys [and girls, this is a lesbian issue too], in my experience, yes you feel your are slightly at odds with your peers. In my case I was never sure why and the penny didn't drop for many years. Nothing, but nothing can prepare a kid for the moment when they first hear the derogatory term 'p----', usually in the school playground and find out what it means [in my case from my confessor]. Let no be under any illusion that, despite are hard-earned freedoms, life is much harder for many gays than it is for straights. To find out that you are going to hell at the end of it all is the icing on the cake.
I'm not sure what your point was in your last post. The discussion was about homosexuality and catholicism (well, the Pope's opinion in such matters to be more precise). Of course the arguments are going to be reduced and limited to sexuality and the arguments surrounding it. What do you expect us to discuss, the World Series?
The fact remains, the sexual drive is an incredibly central aspect of humanity (well, in biology in general actually) and the Pope, in this speech and others, does denegrate these individuals for this simple aspect.
I ask again, what advice do you give to someone who has to reconcile their own sexuality with their faith? Which should they deny in this regard, their faith, or their very own nature?
Hasn't anyone heard of the Kinsey scale where a person's sexual orientation can be graded between 0 and 6 and that everyone has a propensity to be gay?
Also, there are many troubled young people who cannot except their gay-ness - they are conflicted, guilt-ridden and even suicidal. The church is not helping them much to accept they way God made them.
It pains me to see how unaccepting the church can be towards gays who want to live a life of love and belonging in a "marriage" when love is what Jesus preached. It pains me too that just because God created Adam and Eve who were probably heterosexual then this means that homosexuality is unnatural. God did not put disabled people in the garden of Eden either .... and anyhow, what Adam and Eve?
Jesus accepted and loved everyone - the Samaritans, the Romans, short people, dead people, sinners, lepers, the poor and even Judas. I'm sure that if Jesus had met a homosexual he would have embraced him too. Jesus had contempt for those who thought they knew everything and felt above others.
It is through suffering that human nature can seek within itself and find ways how to help ease the pain and anger which at times we direct against God.
Some people might have the stuff that saints are made from and can take a lot of pain with a forbearance, which will undoubtedly pave their way to heaven but there are also others who through no fault of their own cannot accept a life which to them is a curse they feel they do not deserve.
God, being the loving father, always ready to lift us up when we fall, is a fantastic image to constantly keep in mind. And as a parent I can even imagine Him as having a soft spot for the weak child who goes through life stumbling from one block to another.
FALSE - check better, this has never been scientifically proven!
I know homosexuals who are good Catholics. They came to terms with their orientation and their faith because men and women do not live by sex alone.
It would not matter much for the first few years of the child’s life but I can envisage situations when the child concerned can go through a difficult time, at a later time in its upbringing. At school peers with “normal” parents could start asking embarrassing questions which the child would not be able to answer, and consequently problems could arise.
Another problem is that it is generally understood that children need a mother and a father figure to have a balanced upbringing.
However, as I have already mentioned in an earlier comment, times are changing so rapidly and much of what used to apply during our parent’s days are obsolete now. Life has a way of adapting and these underlying fears could come to nought after all.
I still challenge Fr. Borg to reach out and tell people in Mr. Gatt's position how to reconcile his faith with who he is. My advice to him and to many others would be to leave such a faith behind, but I'm realistic enough to know that this would be a very hard step to take for many.
"Bonhomie" was a new word for me, so you have already helped me learning something new in this year of 2009. Much obliged for that.
A happy new year to everyone and especially to our dear host.
While in a way being an interesting theory, do you have any kind of data backing it up? You make a fairly bold assertion stating that "it has been a universal truth that boys need a rite of passage into manhood". I have never heard that as some universal truth. The closest you can say is that many societies in the past had such a rite, which doesn't really make it an universal truth. The romans had several rites to lead the young men into manhood. Now I'm under the impression that homosexuality was fairly abundant in ancient Rome.
Also, Jews still have Bar Mitzvahs, has that stopped Jews from turning gay?
I could almost buy the argument that failure to separate the boys from the mother could have an impact, but as I've never seen a correlation between, for example, boys growing up without a father and higher rates of homosexuality, I can't see anything indicate it.
If you are going to lay out a theory, try to back it up so we can at least discuss its merits.
Excuse me for the late reply but for some reason I read your post about the site and the clip I posted just now..
you said: "Then you have to at least give me credit for taking on the largest one ;)"
Credit you say? Don't you know there's a credit crunch? :) But I am full of bonhomie so I'll give it to you.
The West Wing is full of such references...if you have the patience to watch this (it is 6mins long), this is about religious bigotry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V82I7vgzfgE
I was wondering the same thing about Aldo Gatt. If he is reading:
Happy New Year Mr Gatt.
On another note, we haven't had anything out of Aldo Gatt yet :(
Thank you for your explanation. Of course, I am not implying that you are a gay-basher and in fact I asked for anyone's forgiveness if I might offended anyone who is pursuing this line of argument. it is just that all this talk about genes does not sit well with me. It is my opinion not a dogma.
Also, have you heard of anyone being discriminated against because of their blue eyes?
Happy New Year to you
So there has not been found a ”gay gene”. Ok. If you say. So I cannot argue about that since it is not in my style to research the subject before rushing in to give my view if something moves me to comment.
I just look at the world around me and notice what is going on and I make my own deductions.
As to your phrase “that boys need to be initiated – blessed actually into their masculinity” I would like you to explain how this process can be put into practice. It could save a lot of heartbreak.
As an art teacher I have taught for years, boys as well as girls at secondary and post secondary level, and I could very often pin point students who had leanings towards homosexuality. It was their ‘natural’ inclination and not a choice and they deserve all the respect we can give them.
The great renaissance sculptor, Michelangelo Buonorroti was a homosexual and his greatness lies in the fact that through his work he is projecting the sensibility of the feminine and the power of the male.
http://www.physorg.com/news84720662.html
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/1/12/6598
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/261/5119/321
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2292426&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2427196&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2427196&tool=pmcentrez
http://www.springerlink.com/content/3xcxqtb6x36aaap1/fulltext.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0J-4G1GFCY-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5cba77bc7ee4885ae600f2e34343cbdb
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/27/9403
2. The gay person is also part of the human ecology that we are in duty bound to protect. The emotional and sexual needs of the gay person are as important as those of all other persons, and our society’s – as well as the Church’s – failure to acknowledge the needs of these people and to provide them with legitimate and stable social structures (such as marriage) in which to develop their relationships and build their families, is as grave a shortfall towards humankind as would be the lack of social and political support for stronger marriages between heterosexual couples.
3. The assumption that a homosexual couple cannot found a family is as ludicrous as would be the assumption that an infertile couple cannot found a family. Many of these couples found families through adoption of orphaned children and in doing so contribute significantly towards the sustainment of the human ecology.
Conclusion: Pope Benedict - like his predecessors - is missing the wood for the trees. So much for the rainforest!
Cont...
Yes, the use of that word is a bit harsh even more so since you are considered by many to be one of the more moderate voices in the Church.
I also think that the discussion about genes lacks respect and dignity for the human person. In my opinion this line of discussion has subtleties of 'abnormality' and in my book, it is a polite form of gay-bashing. Forgive me if I have offended anyone for saying this. Homosexuals are people and not species to be put under the microscope for our inspection to see in what way they differ from the rest of us. They are how they are and if one does not like how they are because they do not match up to what we consider 'normal', then we shouldn't try to find reasons in their make-up to justify it. The true worth of a man or woman is not what they are but who they are and what they mean to people who are close to them, their family, friends and colleagues. God only knows how valiant they are to try to live in such a prejudiced world.
Happy New Year
You cannot respect gay people if you denigrate their relationships. What kind of respect could you possibly have for someone who you believe chooses to act immorrally and in a manner which is harmful to themselves and society?
My understanding of respect from the church would entail the church listening to gay people's accounts of how their loving relationships are actually a source of growth, self-realisation and fulfillment.
Pat O’Connor: what ridiculous arguments. And how exactly do you measure masculinity? Are you thinking on the same lines as the ancient Greeks, with masculinity being equated to speed on the track and strength on the field? In my books, what makes a man a man are not physical endowments, but moral and attitudinal ones. If one speaks a way and acts another, he is not what I’d call a man. Moreover, it’d be nice to know what “blessing” and “initiation” rites my brother got which I didn’t, thus securing his heterosexuality and shoving me in the opposite direction!
There are many genes unfound, although I doubt that the key to homosexuality lies in a single one.
What exactly do you mean with initiated? Are you telling me that only boys brought up a certain way turns gay? I really find your statements very unfounded. You seem to imply that homosexuality is something new and happening only in modern humans, a position that I doubt you have researched very well. Homosexuality seems to have existed since the infancy of our written history. Homosexuality occurs regularly in nature, in a vast range of species.
The Catholic Church is still fighting against the expression of homosexuality, how is that not anti-gay?
and this http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/5389684.stm
and this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1234268.stm
The Catholic Church is not anti-gay. It is fighting for the healthy realization of what it means to be a man or a woman. It is practically the last voice of reason on earth.
It seems that you do have the right to marry and express your love in an intimate way. Because if not, you would have been one of many people, hurt & discriminated. And about the statement 'PS- Only 1/3 are born gay the remaing 2/3 are not born gay', where did you actually get that statistic from?. Also, Gays do not want the churches approval to get married, they just want the church to mind its own business and let them live in peace, sharing love and affection without anyone judging them! Love just IS and no one can take that away. Whether its between a man and a woman or between two people of the same sex. Its a union between two people, full stop.
Don't start justifying by saying other faiths would be more intolerant. That's fatwa envy of the highest degree. If you say they are more tolerant than many Islamic regimes then fine, have it your way. This still does not make them tolerant, especially by western civilisation's standards.
I have no need to prove anything to you. You claimed that only one third is born gay and I claimed this to be a factless assertion. I have never claimed all gays are born that way, so the burden of proof is not on me.
I didn't claim Jesus Christ to be anti-gay, I simply said if people said the Pope is only following his values, then he would be anti-gay. I simply don't think this is the case. I think the Pope is a terrible example to lead for christians, while Jesus is a pretty good one.
How about helping fellow human beings carry their cross too while on earth? This is what Jesus Christ expects from us and it would also help you fill the time while waiting for the next life.
JC wouldn't be impressed with your sanctimonious tone. And you speak of homosexuals as having a conspiracy to topple the RCC. Jesus is not anti-gay, no. But are you?
Then you have to at least give me credit for taking on the largest one ;)
Loved The West Wing scene you posted. The text is definitely taken from a text that has circulated Internet quite a few times, but Martin Sheen does the most convincing version of it.
On a sidenote, let me take this quick opportunity to wish you all a belated Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
You doubt that those gays that want to have a wedding with bells are a majority, I agree with you on this case. However even if they are just 20% they appear to have a hidden agenda and through their actions they make it appear that all gays want this and secondly how can they want to impose on the church to accept something which goes against its teaching. I would like to see them challenging the islamic faith with similar methods they use on the Catholic church. They simply don't do it because the repercussion would be a bloody one while the catholic church is a tolerant one.
Further you challenged me to proof that only 1/3 are born I challenge you to proof me that all gays are born so. Please don't come out with the gay gene story, although it played the gay movement to achieve some advances nowadays its considered a hoax.
Jesus Christ is no antigay but he expects from us to follow his church and he expects from catholics to carry the cross just as he did for us, this world is just a preparation for the next.
I'll try explain myself. If my opinion as a Catholic is that something is wrong, I cannot say that it is right for others to do (even those who don't hold to my beliefs). If I am a Catholic then in my opinion Catholic dogma is an objective truth. To those outside the Church, it is a subjective opinion rather then an objective truth. Therefore, the Pope, or any other Catholic sticking to church teachings, cannot say 'Homosexuality is bad for a Catholic society but fine for everyone else', since for a Catholic the objective truth is that homosexuality, as an action, is not correct (as is a heterosexual sexual relationship outside of marriage and many other things besides).
I feel saddened to read such comments as: “you abide by the rules of the Roman Catholic Church or else get out”. Most forget the Church is not only made up of the hierarchy that pronounces itself like the present Pope does and countless predecessors before him. The Church is also made up of common folk who should always make his fellow brother and sister feel welcome and loved for there should be a place for everyone in the Church. C. Busuttil, yes, the RCC follows the teachings of one Jesus Christ who also said “Love your neighbour as yourself”. Do you feel cosy in the Church because you are not gay? Being a Christian should never feel comfortable. One should never feel smug.
Who are we to issue edicts such as what you wrote in your post? I am not one to assume things, but do you feel self-righteous enough to make such a statement? Do you follow ALL THE CHURCH TEACHINGS to do letter, unfailingly day after day? How lucky you are.
I, for one, struggle daily to do so and there have been many a slip-up in the course of my life, and there will be more I am sure since I am no angel. Should I get out of the RCC voluntarily, by your reckoning, or should I wait for an Inquisition?
Fr Joe, much as I enjoy your writings, and this is no exception, I do not like the use of the word ‘condemn’ in your piece. I know that you have made a distinction between the person and his or her actions, but it is condemnation nonetheless. And when ‘condemn’ is used for relationships, and homosexuals have the same capacity for love as heterosexuals, it must be very upsetting for them to read.
@ Patrik Larsson: The RCC is not the only religion to hold a strong position on gay marriage. Perhaps she is the most vocal.
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=291
As most of you know by now, I am a pop culture freak. This is a very effective clip from The West Wing about the subject
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc
If the Pope claims that homosexuality is a threat to society, then they have not constrained themselves to the individuals who follows it's teachings and is open to scrutiny from anyone.
I agree, if you want to label yourself catholic, then stick to the principles, which is why I hope more people will elevate themselves from these bad teachings. The problem in this case is he did aim his speech at everyone, despite religion and that was stepping over the line. If I hear someone speaking ill of a jew, Arab, Hindu, or even a Catholic, I still do what I can to be in defense of their rights, even though I don't adhere to the same teachings.
In my book, and in most sensible people who don't just jump to his defense due to his title, this is discrimination. You have to really twist and turn it to make it look otherwise.
If that was the case, then Jesus Christ would be anti-gay. Have it your way, it makes no difference for me.
And how can you say that homosexuals want to impose their way of life on the church. That is ridiculous. Most of them just want legal recognition of their relationship. Of course some would like all the bells and whistles a church wedding would give, but I doubt those are in majority.
One third born gay only? Stop making assumptions and put some facts behind your assertions.
A homosexual person is homosexual because they have sex with people of their own sex. If they stop doing that they stop being homosexual and become asexual. Therefore you cannot respect the person but condemn the act because it is the act that defines them. In other words, your assertion is just playing with words because the church can't get away with burning homos to death like it used in the past. You must think we have very short memories, Father. Only twenty years ago, my church-going boss at work in Malta was openly telling people that if he found out for sure I was gay he would have me sacked.
There is something which God gave us called Free Will. Stop meddling in our lives!
I have several friends who are homosexual but also Catholic, and while it is hard to follow the Church's teachings, they still try to do so. It's the same as heterosexual urges outside marriage, or any other form of impulse which may be deemed as harmful to the person. I am heterosexual and as yet unmarried, but it doesn't mean I go sleeping around even though as a human I have urges to do so.
Therefore I disagree with your statement that it is discrimination - rather it is a call to self-control, meaning that while what is physical is not wrong, excesses or actions which go against the natural order of things should be resisted, because it is only through a lack of attachment to things that one can follow God.
I consider myself to be a good Christian, a Roman Catholic, even. But do you think that by quoting the Catechism gay people are going to feel any better about the Church's position? There are many Catholic gays who feel misunderstood by the Church and the latest pronouncement doesn't help.
So while I basically agree with what you say, I think that a less businesslike tone would help more.
John Paul II had a similar attitude towards homosexuals and so future Popes will because the the teaching of the Church always remain the same.
The Pope is not antigay he's just following the teachings of JESUS CHRIST, like it or not he and his successors will not bend just to be trendy. Homosexuals should not have sexual acts that's what the church is saying therefore if they do REALLY believe they should accept this and carry the cross like Our Lord. If you are a christian you must make your sacrifice.
However all this fuss about the church being antigay by homosexuals is nothing less than homosexuals wanting to impose their way of life on the church. They expect to get married in a church and even adopt children and all with the blessing of the church.
PS- Only 1/3 are born gay the remaing 2/3 are not born gay.
You completely missed the point. The discrimination lies in the fact that they don't allow homosexual sex outside marriage and then don't allow people to get married to whom they are attracted to. Hence, they don't allow homosexuals to have sex. That is discrimination. No semantic tangos can take you away from that fact.
"No matter how much you twist and turn it, by that statement, the Church denies homosexuals to ever receive pleasure from sex. They are denying their very nature. How that is not discrimination is beyond me".
The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church para 2337 states: "Sexuality, in which man's belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman".
Furthermore, in Catholic belief, "marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman, joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership of life and love".
"What are called 'homosexual unions', because they do not express full human complementarity and because they are inherently nonprocreative, cannot be given the status of marriage".
Therefore it follows that the Church is not discriminating in the way you are suggesting, because it speaks out against any form of sexual union outside marriage - both heterosexual and homosexual.
Modern marriages are short lived, some might say. Why can’t couples abide by the promise of eternal fidelity? Simple. Because they are no hypocrites. To be sure, broken marriages are a scar on society. But society is a vague term to the person who is experiencing the reality of a loveless marriage. There are couples who opt to stay together, notwithstanding the emptiness they have to live with, day in day out. What a farce to society! What a waste of a life! And these last are generally grandparents nowadays. But they persist in dragging on with their lives because of a promise uttered in their youth, and an ingrained tenacity to hold on no matter what. ‘One has to accept one’s reality’. A promise made in their youth when immature to the point of being infantile, when the mere thought of sex had to be confessed, the word taboo, and heaven forbid if experimented. And one gets married because nature has to have an outlet. Then one takes the consequences afterwards.
Noone said his word contains hate, but there is no doubt in any serious persons mind that his comments are anti-gay. So to answer your title question; Yes, Pope Benedict IS anti-gay (especially if you consider "gay" as a condition, not a person).
It is one thing to argue against homosexual marriages and another to argue against homosexuality. The Pope chose the latter which, in my book, shows only bigotry and delusion. If his creator wanted people a certain way, why did he create them differently? Or are we going back to the now long overcome argument whether homosexuality is a choice. In fact, perhaps we could ask our dear host if he could enlighten us on his position on that.
I feel compelled to point out that I find your writing, Fr Borg, very compelling, interesting and always thoughtful, until you write something about the Church, or faith. Perhaps it's because our views are worlds apart, but sometimes I wonder...
Nevertheless, I still like you writings.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
I have been following the comments to this latest blog and I tend to share the views of many who see homosexual practice as something that is inevitable seeing as to how man in general is driven by urges which are next to impossible to control. Celibacy is cruel, and goes against the nature of man. After all it is God who created us with this powerful need for physical contact.
So I presume that a man having sex with another man is a devaluation of this 'work of God' and will lead to the self destruction of man.
The problem I have is that if I listen to this 'language of creation' I suddenly see that beyond its beauty lies a threatening baggage of pathologies ready to eradicate us all.
On one hand God forbids us to devaluate his creation (by committing a victimless crime) and on the other hand this same creation would manifest itself in some type of morbid cancer killing us off.
No matter how much you twist and turn it, by that statement, the Church denies homosexuals to ever receive pleasure from sex. They are denying their very nature. How that is not discrimination is beyond me.
You can either take a stance saying it's ok for homosexuals to have sex and live together, but not marry. This I could see as partly not dscrimination.
Or you can take a stance saying they can marry and have sex, but can't have sex without marriage. This, also, is not discrimination.
But when you say they cannot marry and cannot have sex unless they marry, you are creating a Catch 22, leading to nothing but discrimination.
What is your advice, Fr Borg, to someone who discovers themselves to be homosexuals and have to face this; To marry a woman and live in denial? To never have sex? Either way you are comdemning them to a torturous way of life that you have no right to impose.
Besides, is there anybody who really believes that when gay couples gain the ability to reproduce, the church will change its views? The ability for a same-sex couple to produce offspring is only a womb transplant away. They can already make use of IVF and other treatments today. Gay couples CAN have children.
So long as the state distinguishes between married and unmarried couples, it is an unjust discrimination to deny marriage to one minority, even if 99% of world religions are against it.
Perhaps gay people are angry, among other things, that the church says one thing then does another.
I've heard this said so many times but it does not always make sense. Can you extend this line of reasoning to Hitler?
Gays are born gay - it's not their fault they are different to the majority and yet society punishes them for it. Gays are not mentally deficient so it is unjust to expect them to live a celibate life.