Christians should apologize for helping to marginalize gays, pope says

[bilop]

I don’t know if he has such power, but I don’t think remarks on a plane are the same as an official directive to all clergy and laity to “apologize for sins they didn’t commit”. Indeed, since he used the word “Christian” I’m not even sure he was referring only to Catholics and I don’t think he has authority over non-Catholic Christians. Just because the Pope thinks Christians should apologize, is not the same as a command that they must apologize.

I really don’t think the Pope meant to say that “all Christians should apologize as a collective group for marginalizing gays and other sinners” but that we should consider if we had, and apologize if we had.

But, considering the numbers of people who have interpreted his remarks as a “Christians have collective guilt they must apologize for”, perhaps his remarks could have been a bit more specific.

I agree with you. But, as you say, some people are representing otherwise.

God Bless

 

[meltzerboy]

You’re kidding right?

Jews were the outcasts of Europe for far too many years. Who do you think cast them out? Nazism was just the logical (and horrible) conclusion of turning Jews into second-class citizens. Even our local country club had, in its statutes, a clause prohibiting Jews from being members, as late as the 1960s. I don’t think in those days it was Muslims doing the excluding.

Yes, the Holocaust was merely the culmination of centuries of European anti-Semitism.

Speaking of country clubs, I recall my cousin, who lives in Houston, told me when I visited in the late 1960’s that Jews were barred from the local country club. I’m not sure when, or if, that policy has changed.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

You’re kidding right?

Jews were the outcasts of Europe for far too many years. Who do you think cast them out? Nazism was just the logical (and horrible) conclusion of turning Jews into second-class citizens. Even our local country club had, in its statutes, a clause prohibiting Jews from being members, as late as the 1960s. I don’t think in those days it was Muslims doing the excluding.

This starts a long digression on what exactly was going in Mediaeval Europe with the Jews, how bad their lot actually was, and the nature of a pre-secular society, which then leads to the necessity of the Inquisition and the Jewish attitude towards Catholics, still enshrined in the Jewish religious books today and never apologised for.

Certainly Jews were mistreated and a St Bernard had to intervene to protect them, but I hardly think the terms ‘horrific’ and ‘unspeakable’ accurately describe it. There was a Jewish ghetto in Rome for centuries, created by the papacy. How bad, really, was it? Is the line of Popes of that time guilty of a horrific and unspeakable crime in perpetuating it?

The Nazis were not, by any stretch of the imagination, a logical conclusion of the Mediaeval setup. They were something completely new, a godless exaltation of race and state that was as inimical to the essence of Catholicism as it was possible to be. Slaughtering an entire people was something hitherto unheard-of on the European scene.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

This is the problem. His remarks are being taken by a great many liberals to mean exactly that. In the little I’ve read on this, and from what I’ve seen in the past, I believe it’s going to be added as another brick in a wall of liberals saying, “See, even the Pope is saying homosexuality is fine and you Christians are bad people who must apologize for not approving.”

Well, unfortunately it seems some conservatives, who I guess already suspect that this Pope doesn’t actually find homosexual acts to be sinful, or is too lax on sexual sin in general, also think “the Pope is saying homosexuality is fine” considering they many who have stated as fact that the Pope is saying Christians “must apologize for not approving” even though the Pope specifically referred to behavior, not belief.

When it comes to the “gay rights” debate, I sadly see that many on both sides of these debates, often make a polarizing assumption, that I think the Pope would disagree with, That assumption, is that people must choose between either (1) treating homosexuals with love and charity by accepting as truth that homosexual acts aren’t sinful and (2) denying homosexuals love and charity by proclaiming the truth that homosexual acts are sinful.

I accept that most who oppose homosexual acts don’t actually hate homosexuals, but I find it hard to believe that the most vociferous ones on this topic, could actually love homosexuals despite the “hate the sin, love the sinner” rhetoric. I can, however, believe that Pope Francis does indeed love homosexuals and other sinners, without necessarily finding their sins to not be sins.

An earlier post said if we’re doing anything to drive someone from the Church, we must look at ourselves and our behavior. The problem with such a statement is that being cruel and un-Christian will drive some from the Church and Christian faith–but so will speaking the truth, regardless of how much love it is spoken with.

Yes, but it seems some have given up on speaking the truth with love. I really get a feeling that many assume homosexuals are obviously lost and damned, and there is no point in trying to convert them, but that they should be shunned and, indeed, marginalized to protect general society. But last I checked the Church did NOT teach that kind of utilitarianism.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Well, unfortunately it seems some conservatives, who I guess already suspect that this Pope doesn’t actually find homosexual acts to be sinful, or is too lax on sexual sin in general, also think “the Pope is saying homosexuality is fine” considering they many who have stated as fact that the Pope is saying Christians “must apologize for not approving” even though the Pope specifically referred to behavior, not belief.

When it comes to the “gay rights” debate, I sadly see that many on both sides of these debates, often make a polarizing assumption, that I think the Pope would disagree with, That assumption, is that people must choose between either (1) treating homosexuals with love and charity by accepting as truth that homosexual acts aren’t sinful and (2) denying homosexuals love and charity by proclaiming the truth that homosexual acts are sinful.

I accept that most who oppose homosexual acts don’t actually hate homosexuals, but I find it hard to believe that the most vociferous ones on this topic, could actually love homosexuals despite the “hate the sin, love the sinner” rhetoric. I can, however, believe that Pope Francis does indeed love homosexuals and other sinners, without necessarily finding their sins to not be sins.

Yes, but it seems some have given up on speaking the truth with love. I really get a feeling that many assume homosexuals are obviously lost and damned, and there is no point in trying to convert them, but that they should be shunned and, indeed, marginalized to protect general society. But last I checked the Church did NOT teach that kind of utilitarianism.

Remember the one precision the Pope made; homosexuals “of good faith who are seeking God.” Those are the ones we need to have compassion for. They want to live in God’s will, they are sincere, they are not proud of their disordered nature. But how many of them ***are ***there? The great majority of homosexuals and lesbians we Catholics encounter have made their orientation public which means they defend and justify it and demand that we do so too. I feel no such warmth for them. At the very least they expect me to treat them in the public forum as if their lifestyle is quite acceptable and ‘normal’ and I’m not prepared to do that. I’ll be civil to them - I don’t have to be rude -but I’m not playing games.

The trouble with telling Catholics to apologise in general terms is that it conveys the idea that we need to apologies to ***wilful ***homosexuals, which inevitably carries with it the implication that we approve of their lifestyle. It is this that is impossible.

 

[JimG]

John-Henry Westen, in his opinion piece “The Pope is Right for the Wrong Reasons,” quotes atheist Penn Jillette:

“If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell, and that people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward …—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible, and not tell them that?”

 

[Cheiron]

Well first of all thank you! And I have to say that you write very well. I certainly wouldn’t have known English isn’t your first language if you hadn’t told me!

So I suppose I would respond with some comments and a question.

Thank you very much. I shall try to answer them as good as I can. I shall make two posts as well.

If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying that for homosexuals, both one’s sexual orientation and the romantic relationships which flow from that orientation, constitute a large part of that person’s identity. Consequently, anything other than an outright affirmation is an attack on the person and thus contradict’s the Catholic Church’s assertion that homosexual people are to be treated with love, respect, and sensitivity.

I note that your profile you identifies you as a secular humanist. Consequently, I assume that means you think that Catholicism, along with any other religious system, is false. Perhaps you’re like many New Atheists and believe that religion is morally bad, or perhaps you may think it is intellectually bad (i.e., not true). However, religious belief is a huge part of the identity of billions of people. In fact, using the language of the Church I would argue that you see us as disordered since you believe the energy we put into our religion isn’t oriented towards an appropriate end. Do you think it’s possible to to a secular humanist while treating religious people with sensitivity, love, and respect? Is the only way to love your Christian neighbor to affirm that his belief system is correct?

On your last two questions the first answer is yes and the second one is no. I try to treat humans, regardless of their religious identity, with respect, if they are willing to reciprocate that respect ofcourse. I can’t say for certain I always succeed though. I don’t think ideas deserve the same respect that humans deserve.

I don’t share the definition of disordered. Disordered sounds to me more like “confused” or “deranged”. Religious people are not disordered. I do think all religions are equally false and believers could spend their time in a better way. There are fellow humanists who waste their time watching too much television. It doesn’t mean they’re disordered (or the TV for that matter).

I think this also brings up another issue. We disagree about the morality of homosexual sexual relationships. However there are likely some areas where we do agree. Statistically speaking, you are likely not in favor of polyamorous marriages. Is it possible for you to affirm that marriage is between two people while simultaneously loving and respecting those in polyamorous marriages or desiring to be in polyamorous marriages? To take a very extreme example, what about pedophilia? Can we love a pedophile without affirming his tendency towards pedophilia. One area where Christianity may differ from contemporary western culture is the idea that we need to love absolutely everyone. How do you propose we do this without affirming what absolutely everyone does?

First, I do not share the idea that we need to love absolutely everyone. People who care about everyone often care for no one in particular. Secondly, pedophilia is a feeling of love towards children, while homosexuality is love towards the same sex. These two can overlap - as in the case of pedophile priests or some BBC presenters from the 70’s - but so can pedophilia and heterosexuality. All the gay people I know fall in love with people from their own age bracket - a few years older, a few years younger than themselves. No different from non-pedophilic heterosexuals.

With regards to polyamorous marriage: I’m against it because in practice it will often result in a violation of women’s rights. If we assume for the sake of argument that the polygamous marriage is a happy one for all involved, then perhaps the government should allow people in polyamorous relationships to marry as well. I’m only talking about civil marriage here. What believers do in their own church, mosque, synagogue or temple is up to them ofcourse.

I removed a bit of what you said due to the word count. I hope you won’t mind.

I think there are plenty of circumstances where we might condemn a sexual relationship. A husband may love his mistress, and vice versa, but I suspect you might have no problem condemning that husband’s affair.

I would condemn the husband’s conduct and the way he treats the women involved, because his actions are harmful. I wouldn’t condemn his feelings.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Remember the one precision the Pope made; homosexuals “of good faith who are seeking God.” Those are the ones we need to have compassion for. They want to live in God’s will, they are sincere, they are not proud of their disordered nature. But how many of there ***are ***there? The great majority of homosexuals and lesbians we Catholics encounter have made their orientation public which means they defend and justify it and demand that we do so too. I feel no such warmth for them. At the very least they expect me to treat them in the public forum as if their lifestyle is quite acceptable and ‘normal’ and I’m not prepared to do that. I’ll be civil to them - I don’t have to be rude -but I’m not playing games.

So. would it be true that you find no obligation to love “public” homosexuals? And by “love” I mean Christian charity.

Also note, even the homosexuals of “good faith who are seeking God”, some of who post on CAF actually, have expressed feeling lonely in the Church, and sensing no place for them, and that makes them more vulnerable to recruitment by the “homosexual lobby”.

To be clear, I do not believe any homosexual could “recruit” someone with no "SSA " at all. But I do think it’s possible for a non-practicing homosexual to be subject from pressure from others to “be yourself” and “refuse to live a loveless existence”. I find it quite possible for Church people to drive away such “homosexuals of good faith” into the waiting arms of those who are not.

Although perhaps you think that there are so few “homosexuals of good faith” in the first place, that’s no great loss, and such homosexuals are expendable in the fight to save general society from “the gay agenda” . I doubt the Pope would agree, though.

 

[estesbob]

So. would it be true that you find no obligation to love “public” homosexuals? And by “love” I mean Christian charity.

Also note, even the homosexuals of “good faith who are seeking God”, some of who post on CAF actually, have expressed feeling lonely in the Church, and sensing no place for them, and that makes them more vulnerable to recruitment by the “homosexual lobby”.

To be clear, I do not believe any homosexual could “recruit” someone with no "SSA " at all. But I do think it’s possible for a non-practicing homosexual to be subject from pressure from others to “be yourself” and “refuse to live a loveless existence”. I find it quite possible for Church people to drive away such “homosexuals of good faith” into the waiting arms of those who are not.

Although perhaps you think that there are so few “homosexuals of good faith” in the first place, that’s no great loss, and such homosexuals are expendable in the fight to save general society from “the gay agenda” . I doubt the Pope would agree, though.

We are called upon to love everyone Again we need to make the distinction between accepting and affirming.

 

[OraLabora]

Remember the one precision the Pope made; homosexuals “of good faith who are seeking God.” Those are the ones we need to have compassion for.

No, we need to have compassion for all gays. How else are we going to attract them to the Church and Truth? They need to have demonstrated to them that we’re not all ogres, that we will welcome them with open arms, and help heal their hurts; I have no doubt that many gays that are rebellious got that way because they’ve been hurt: ostracized by family, friends, their co-religionists regardless of what their faith background is. They’ve probably lost close friends or partners to AIDS. They may have suffered employment or housing discrimination.

Let’s help them carry their crosses, not weigh them down even further. If anything we should have more compassion for those on the outside and rebelling against the Church because they are cut off from sacramental grace. At least those seeking God, for all their foibles and sins, have faith and grace to help them along. Those who don’t are deserving of our compassion and we can play a role through charity towards welcoming them and giving them access to healing and converting grace. They too carry the mark of Christ on their souls. If they don’t see it themselves, it becomes doubly important for us to see it in them.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

So. would it be true that you find no obligation to love “public” homosexuals? And by “love” I mean Christian charity.

Also note, even the homosexuals of “good faith who are seeking God”, some of who post on CAF actually, have expressed feeling lonely in the Church, and sensing no place for them, and that makes them more vulnerable to recruitment by the “homosexual lobby”.

To be clear, I do not believe any homosexual could “recruit” someone with no "SSA " at all. But I do think it’s possible for a non-practicing homosexual to be subject from pressure from others to “be yourself” and “refuse to live a loveless existence”. I find it quite possible for Church people to drive away such “homosexuals of good faith” into the waiting arms of those who are not.

Although perhaps you think that there are so few “homosexuals of good faith” in the first place, that’s no great loss, and such homosexuals are expendable in the fight to save general society from “the gay agenda” . I doubt the Pope would agree, though.

No I don’t. Not at all. ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind and love your neighbor as yourself’ is the whole point of being Christian. I understand it and, believe me, do my best to practise it.

What I cannot go along with however is an attempt to hijack my conscience. I personally knew a homosexual for a number of years. We were friendly. He came to our church. He eventually told me of his orientation. I didn’t become frosty towards him and we remained on good terms, but he never tried to introduce me to his partner(s) or get me in any way to approve of his way of life. It was a kind of live and let live. So long as he was coming to church I hoped he had the goodwill to eventually find peace in conformity with God’s will.

But is would be another story if a homosexual tried to get me to show an exterior acceptance of his lifestyle as such. That’s a form of moral bullying and I don’t sadden or trouble anyone by not going along with it.

 

[Cheiron]

Continued from previous post…

The Catholic Church would say that it is sinful to be in a sexual relationship with a member of the same sex. It would not say that individual is morally evil. Similarly, while it may say viewing pornography is sinful it does not say that people who watch porn are morally evil. The Church teaches that aside from the Virgin Mary and Jesus, all human beings are sinners. It also teaches that we are all children of God. Our value and worth as human beings is not a function of what we do, or what we believe, but who we are.

The letter “On The Pastoral Care For Homosexual Persons” says this:

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.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says that same sex attraction is morally evil and an objective disorder. I do wonder why the Church doesn’t call it a sin though, there must be some theological nuance there that I don’t get. But calling it a moral evil is bad enough.

Secondly, one of moral problems I have with Christianity is that all sins appear to be punished equally. All unrepentent sinners will burn in hell, regardless of the seriousness of their crime. I think punishment should be proportional to the crime that has been committed. So when someone says that “we’re all sinners” or some equivalent thereof, I flinch, because not all sins are equally bad. For example, someone nicking a tube of toothpaste is not as bad as Jimmy Savile, and calling them both sinners implies a moral equivalent that isn’t there.

We the Church believes that everyone has the right to life, from conception until natural death. In some cases an individual may be justified in taking a life for self-defense. In some cases the state may be justified in taking life through war (in limited circumstances) and through capital punishment. These circumstances are purposefully very limited.

I have no quarrel with this, so I won’t comment on it. Hope you don’t mind.

The Church supports the same idea of liberty for homosexual people as it does heterosexual people: the idea that people should be free to be good. In the Western World I am unaware of any contemporary, mainstream Catholic leaders who believe that individuals should be compelled to become Catholic or follow Catholicism. So in the US the Church would say the homosexuals are free to engage in same-sex romantic relationships, but those relationships are at odds with their understanding of Scripture, nature, the human person, and God. I find it hard to believe that this is an attack on liberty.

The Church opposes equal rights for gay couples when it has the opportunity to do so. Also of importance in the letter “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons” from -again- Ratzinger, from 2003. Here’s an interesting bit from that letter:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

Emphasis is mine. Ratzinger calls laws giving gay couples equal rights “gravely unjust.” And we all know that the Church opposes these laws. The Church wants to prevent and take away rights for gay couples - catholic or not. That is not liberty. That’s totalitarian.

As for happiness, I would say that the Church wants exactly the opposite. The Church opposes same-sex romantic relationships because they believe that such a relationship leads people further away from God. And in God we find our greatest happiness. Consequently, the Church would suggest that although a same-sex romantic relationship lead to some good, it comes at the expense of a greater good.

I think it’s up to gay couples themselves to decide how they want to pursue their happiness without the Church trying (and sometimes succeeding) to take away their rights.

Well I think it’s important to be specific here. The Church isn’t opposed to equal rights for LGBT people. In fact, the Church feels that homosexual person’s should be treated no different than heterosexual person’s.

Not true.

It simply applies the sexual ethics of heterosexual relationships to everyone else. Catholic-Christians oppose homosexual romantic relationships for the exact same reason that it opposes birth control in a heterosexual marriage: we believe that sexual activity should be open to the generation of new life.

I know Catholics believe that, though in practice there are many Catholics who use birth control. All I can say is that I don’t agree with that position.

I think our discussion so far has been most agreeable. I’ve learned something from your pushback. You made me think, which is always a good thing.

 

[TMC]

Does this refer to the Holocaust? That, as a reminder, was carried out by the Nazis. If this does not refer to the Holocaust, then what exactly are the “horrific and unspeakable consequences for countless Jewish persons” which has been inflicted on them by Catholics?

Surely this is not a serious question. How can any Catholic of reasonable education not know the history of the Church’s relationship to the Jewish people?

 

[Robert_Bay]

Related thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1015970

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Yes, the Holocaust was merely the culmination of centuries of European anti-Semitism.

:sad_yes:

Speaking of country clubs, I recall my cousin, who lives in Houston, told me when I visited in the late 1960’s that Jews were barred from the local country club. I’m not sure when, or if, that policy has changed.

How incredibly sad.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The Popes answer to a question in a press conference is a “directive”?

The Pope at the press conference was being asked to clarify a position concerning the actions of one of the Cardinals who is in his inner circle – a member of the council of nine.

The Pope’s directives on this issue go beyond what he said on the airplane and actually are informing statements other bishops are, in fact, making.

 

[JosieN]

Surely this is not a serious question. How can any Catholic of reasonable education not know the history of the Church’s relationship to the Jewish people?

Maybe you could explain it as I am still learning as I go to these forums.

I googled it and got various sites explaining it but I would like to hear your view.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Excuse me Father, but could you please point out where in Catholic teaching it says the Pope has the power to compel the clergy and laity to apologize for sins they didn’t commit? Where does this fall within the Pope’s teaching authority on faith and morals?

This seems well within the realm of a prudential judgement. The Pope can certainly apologize for official acts of the Church, but, I see no grounds for a compelled apology by some Catholics for the (hypothetical) sins of others. I don’t recall a Pope ever apologizing for the sins of Hitler, even though he was a baptized Catholic.

My understanding of theology s that guilt for our sins lies solely on ourselves, and anyone who directly abets us.

God Bless

I do not know how much clearer Pope Saint John Paul II could make it, when he spoke of the faithful of the new millennium recognising not only our own personal sins but the reality of sin for which each one of us bears the burden because of a basic and fundamental ontological reality, which he quite fully explained:

*…the authentic request for pardon, based on the objective responsibility which Christians share as members of the Mystical Body, and which spurs today’s faithful to recognize, along with their own sins, the sins of yesterday’s Christians, in the light of careful historical and theological discernment.

Indeed, "because of the bond which unites us to one another in the Mystical Body, all of us, though not personally responsible and without encroaching on the judgement of God who alone knows every heart, bear the burden of the errors and faults of those who have gone before us" (Incarnationis mysterium, n. 11). The recognition of past wrongs serves to reawaken our consciences to the compromises of the present…
*
Since you say that you do not understand the theological basis, you have only to consult the document which Pope Saint John Paul II caused to be created according to his specifications. It has only existed for almost 20 years:

This appeal has prompted a thorough and fruitful reflection, which led to the publication several days ago of a document of the International Theological Commission, entitled: “Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past”. I thank everyone who helped to prepare this text.

Memory and Reconciliation is such a fundamental text of the theology of this precise area…how can it be that you are not acquainted with it? Every Catholic should know Memory and Reconciliation if they are commenting on this aspect of theology.

So, indeed…you yourself do bear the burden of the errors and faults of those who have gone before us.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/homilies/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20000312_pardon.html

 

[zamyrabyrd]

:
Originally Posted by meltzerboy View Post
Yes, the Holocaust was merely the culmination of centuries of European anti-Semitism.

Quote:
Speaking of country clubs, I recall my cousin, who lives in Houston, told me when I visited in the late 1960’s that Jews were barred from the local country club. I’m not sure when, or if, that policy has changed.

How incredibly sad.

To use the United States as an example, any minority had to prove themselves first before they were accepted into the mainstream. This may be fair or unfair but it is just a fact. The Irish were not given a red carpet mid-19th century, my forebears from Italy who came in the beginning of the 20th together with Jews also were at the lower rungs of society. This is not to count the minorities of Native Americans who like indigenous peoples in say, Australia, who were also marginalized. Black people had to fight for their rights. Fortunately, some white people helped them along.

The gay community can also take a lesson from this if they want total acceptance. They should prove themselves first that they are a benign influence on society and not otherwise.

 

[JosieN]

This came up on my my opening page as one of the headlines. Here is what it said.

The LGBT community and other marginalized groups deserve an apology from Catholics, said Pope Francis on Sunday.

Speaking to reporters on a plane en route from Armenia to Rome, Francis said that the church “must not only apologize…to a gay person it offended, but we must apologize to the poor, to women who have been exploited, to children forced into labor, apologize for having blessed so many weapons.”

The statement was prompted by a reporter asking whether Francis agreed with German Cardinal Reinhard Marx, one of his top advisors, who said at a conference in Dublin last week that as a society “we’ve also to say ‘sorry, sorry’” to LGBT people.

The rest is here ca.news.yahoo.com/pope-francis-says-church-seek-forgiveness-lgbt-people-123714848.html

Many saints have spoken on homosexuality in the past. The greatest of the Fathers of the West and one of the great Doctors of the Church, Saint Augustine laid the foundations of Catholic theology. In his celebrated Confessions, he thus condemned homosexuality:

“Those offences which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and punished; such were those of the Sodomites, which should all nations commit, they should all be held guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which hath not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another. For even that fellowship which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature of which He is author is polluted by the perversity of lust.”

It is offensive. Where do we draw the line on what offends someone? We cannot erase history or the writings of the great saints.