Pope Francis: Gay, Transgender People Deserve Pastoral Care

[Peter_J]

So the bullying, harassment and murder of LGBT people are just figments of their imaginations?

They are things that we take very seriously.

Earlier this year Bishop Robert Lynch blogged (to the dismay of some) that “sadly it is religion, including our own, which targets, mostly verbally, and also often breeds contempt for gays, lesbians and transgender people.” I’m not sure why he worded it that way (surely we all agree that there are times when it is *not *religion that does that) but hopefully you can see my point: he did not exempt us Catholics.

 

[abucs]

So the bullying, harassment and murder of LGBT people are just figments of their imaginations? I can see how you would take great satisfaction in feeling as though the pope is simply scolding social liberals if your faith is so shallow that it takes pleasure such things, but from what I’ve seen on these forums there are many here who need to listen and confess their own sins against the LGBT community much like the old priest he spoke of.

It is wrong to attribute taking pleasure in correcting social liberals. It is for their own good. They suffer from their own unhealthy beliefs more than anyone else.

The harassment and murder of LGBT people is not supported by anyone i know. It is such a small reality and yet large numbers of people are denigrated unfairly for this crime.

It is a matter of sanity. I welcome the pope’s message if he is trying to help social liberals recover from their self-created delusions which harm society and themselves.

I applaud his more effective approach. Hopefully the social liberals will get on board and end their unhealthy imaginings directed at large numbers of people in the name of the religion of polical correctness.

That way only madness lies. Bless the pope for helping the social liberals with their self induced insanity.

 

[pnewton]

So the bullying, harassment and murder of LGBT people are just figments of their imaginations?

These things do happen. The Holy Father and the Church as a whole has always upheld the innate dignity of all. This very article is about the pastoral care of people. However, theories are not people and can be criticized. It is for the sake of these very people that the Holy Father does not want society to continue with the the promotion of what is an unproven gender theory, especially toward children.

The solution to violence is found in recognizing the worth of all, a true tolerance. Re-labeling and conducting a generational social experiment will leave us with, as you note, “bullying, harassment and murder.”

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

They are things that we take very seriously.

Earlier this year Bishop Robert Lynch blogged (to the dismay of some) that “sadly it is religion, including our own, which targets, mostly verbally, and also often breeds contempt for gays, lesbians and transgender people.” I’m not sure why he worded it that way (surely we all agree that there are times when it is *not *religion that does that) but hopefully you can see my point: he did not exempt us Catholics.

God bless this Bishop for seeing the truth that your friends here clearly do not, in fact, one of them seems to feel the whole point here is to exempt Catholics from any blame and condemn “social liberals” for even considering the possibility Catholics could bear any guilt for transgressions against the LGBT community.

 

[Peter_J]

God bless this Bishop for seeing the truth that your friends here clearly do not, in fact, one of them seems to feel the whole point here is to exempt Catholics from any blame and condemn “social liberals” for even considering the possibility Catholics could bear any guilt for transgressions against the LGBT community.

I agree, God bless Bishop Lynch; but I think you’re being a bit unfair to Catholics in general.

For example, the sentence preceding your post, “Re-labeling and conducting a generational social experiment will leave us with, as you note, “bullying, harassment and murder.”” does not say that that is the *only *way that we could end up with “bullying, harassment and murder.”

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

I agree, God bless Bishop Lynch; but I think you’re being a bit unfair to Catholics in general.

For example, the sentence preceding your post, “Re-labeling and conducting a generational social experiment will leave us with, as you note, “bullying, harassment and murder.”” does not say that that is the *only *way that we could end up with “bullying, harassment and murder.”

What generational social experiment? Treating people with equal dignity and respect? Homosexuality and transgenderism are not the creation of some mad scientist. They have always existed. It’s just until recently, they have always been pushed to the side, forced to hide in the shadows, pretending for the sake of the rest of us that they didn’t exist. I grew up Catholic. I went to Catholic schools all my life and never once did I hear a nun or a priest even acknowledge that LGBT existed, much less teach us that they should be treated with kindness and respect. In fact, their silence taught us quite the opposite.

 

[Peter_J]

What generational social experiment? Treating people with equal dignity and respect?

Nobody’s said that (I don’t think). My guess would be what DaddyGirl said …

*The only definition I can find is “gendery schema theory”:
Gender schema theory was formally introduced by Sandra Bem in 1981 as a cognitive theory to explain how individuals become gendered in society, and how sex-linked characteristics are maintained and transmitted to other members of a culture.
*

Homosexuality and transgenderism are not the creation of some mad scientist. They have always existed. It’s just until recently, they have always been pushed to the side, forced to hide in the shadows, pretending for the sake of the rest of us that they didn’t exist. I grew up Catholic. I went to Catholic schools all my life and never once did I hear a nun or a priest even acknowledge that LGBT existed, much less teach us that they should be treated with kindness and respect. In fact, their silence taught us quite the opposite.

No question, every bunch of apples has some bad ones. But the Pope and the bishops, supported by good priests and laity, are trying to correct them.

 

[abucs]

God bless this Bishop for seeing the truth that your friends here clearly do not, in fact, one of them seems to feel the whole point here is to exempt Catholics from any blame and condemn “social liberals” for even considering the possibility Catholics could bear any guilt for transgressions against the LGBT community.

It is very difficult to engage with false imaginings designed to denigrate people.

It is such an unhealthy position. Please think about it.

I went to Catholic schools all my life and never once did I hear a nun or a priest even acknowledge that LGBT existed, much less teach us that they should be treated with kindness and respect. In fact, their silence taught us quite the opposite.

Again perhaps this is more a functioning of your imaginings. A school is not the place to dictate sexual theories. Being silent on LGBT is not the same as teaching you to treat LGBT in a disrespectful and unkind manner. Your imaginings are filling in the blanks in a very unhealthy way.

I am a teacher who has had children with homosexual tendencies in my classes. They tend to be over sensitive which can sometimes lead to being picked on by immature children. Such children need and seek reassurance, especially from teachers which is what i provide.

I have even had one young boy amusingly ask me to marry him.

I prefer to live in the real world with real people, helping those i can, not in a politically correct made up world of bigoted victimhood hierarchies. That madness really needs to be challenged and ended.

I hope the pope clearly explaining the Catholic position helps to do this.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Sarah_B_Good
God bless this Bishop for seeing the truth that your friends here clearly do not, in fact, one of them seems to feel the whole point here is to exempt Catholics from any blame and condemn “social liberals” for even considering the possibility Catholics could bear any guilt for transgressions against the LGBT community.

I don’t want to butt-in, but I don’t understand what you’re saying here (and I’m Catholic).

 

[abucs]

I don’t want to butt-in, but I don’t understand what you’re saying here (and I’m Catholic).

Hello Peter, sorry for the late reply but windows 10 wanted to do its updates and then the VP debates aired.

My criticism of Sarah’s imaginings has really nothing to do with Catholicism so i am not sure why being a Catholic would give you a better understanding.

I have criticised what is the political correct religion that unfortunately many ex Christians follow. It is not healthy and it sanctions the unfair vilification of a group of people often with imagined crimes (not teaching about LGBT is apparently to preach unkindness and disrespect) or the distorted appropriation of crimes (like "bullying, harassment and murder of LGBT people) when specifically discussing the Catholic approach to the issues.

When this is challenged then the imaginings become the charge of thinking the whole process is about exempting Catholics (unspecified) from ANY (unspecified) blame or wanting to prevent others from considering the possibility of transgressions.

This is clearly wrong, not supported by evidence and imagined.

one of them seems to feel the whole point here is to exempt Catholics from any blame and condemn “social liberals” for even considering the possibility Catholics could bear any guilt for transgressions against the LGBT community.

It is very hard to engage with such vague, incorrect imaginings.

If the charge is to say one group harass and murder people and this is then challenged as largely imaginings it makes absolutely no sense to then flip the argument and say what the person is actually doing is exempting the first group from any crime and condemning people from even considering the possibility of guilt.

That is simply derogatory imaginings which is hard to engage with.

 

[Havard]

This is pretty basic stuff, pretty much the same as what’s in the Catechism. 99.99% of Catholics are on the same page here. But people can act less compassionately than they intend, especially when the pastoral ministry involves an issue where there is a fundamental disagreement of a sensitive and deeply personal nature. So it is worth reemphasizing the needs of gay or transgender people for accompaniment.

 

[Peter_J]

This is pretty basic stuff, pretty much the same as what’s in the Catechism. 99.99% of Catholics are on the same page here. But people can act less compassionately than they intend, especially when the pastoral ministry involves an issue where there is a fundamental disagreement of a sensitive and deeply personal nature. So it is worth reemphasizing the needs of gay or transgender people for accompaniment.

Well, I don’t know what the number should be, but I’d say you’re right that most but not all Catholics (not to mention the “Always Our Children” document) agree that “Gay, Transgender People Deserve Pastoral Care”.

I think this is a case where those who *don’t *agree are the loudest … but also their message is amplified because liberals focus a lot of attention on it to make the Catholic Church look bad.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, I don’t know what the number should be, but I’d say you’re right that most but not all Catholics (not to mention the “Always Our Children” document) agree that “Gay, Transgender People Deserve Pastoral Care”.

I think this is a case where those who *don’t *agree are the loudest … but also their message is amplified because liberals focus a lot of attention on it to make the Catholic Church look bad.

Edit: I probably didn’t say that quite right. I don’t mean to suggest that they come right out and say “Gay, Transgender People *don’t *Deserve Pastoral Care”.

 

[Peter_J]

Sarah_B_Good and others …

Just a thought: you might feel more sympathetic toward the Bishops if you consider comments they get from “faithful Catholics” like this:

Why is there no version of AOC for parents of fornicators or addicts?

Anyway I have a little problem with this passage:

[from http://nccbuscc.org/laity/always.shtml]

So if my adult gay son is in fact sexually active with his adult gay boyfriend and I have an issue with it, AOC condescendingly labels my issue as merely something I “find objectionable”.

Well I find AOC’s attitude “objectionable”.

Don’t get me wrong, on the whole it’s a very “nice” document, but in general I don’t think parents like being told how to be a parent. I’m sure suggestions are welcome to most, but on the whole AOC seems to be just another one of those magazine articles you see at the supermarket checkout, on the order of “The Home Front: When You’re Married To The Military” or “Be A True Friend During The Grieving Process: Experts Share 8 Tips”.

 

[pnewton]

In fact, their silence taught us quite the opposite.

Silence taught? I don’t think so. Silence, when silence should be expected, is a Rorschach test. One will here according to their perceptions. This is why school children do not all emerge believing in UFO’s and Atlantis, other topics on which education is silent.

 

[pnewton]

Sarah_B_Good and others …

Just a thought: you might feel more sympathetic toward the Bishops if you consider comments they get from “faithful Catholics” like this:

You kind of lost me on the whole “do” or “don’t”, so I’ll just bypass and say almost everyone I knows has sympathy for those with various sexual issues. All believe in pastoral care. Rather I think we all have a few pet sins we have difficulty in letting go of our emotional involvement. Some really hate homosexuality, or drugs, or maybe drinking and driving. The temptation is to see these people as a category (heard this argument recently in Amoris Laetitita) and not as a person with a sin, maybe a bad sin, but one that needs redemption. The pervasiveness of and area of intolerance is amplified by the angry volume of those who are most vocal, as in the case of MADD who have managed to make sure (here at least) that DUI convictions are punished worse than assaults and sex crimes.

I don’t know how priests do it. They have to have their own pet peeves for sure.

 

[Peter_J]

Silence taught? I don’t think so. Silence, when silence should be expected, is a Rorschach test.

Agreed. But since Catholic leaders are not silent on the manner, and do in fact “teach us that they [homosexuals] should be treated with kindness and respect” (which is what SarahBeGood said she wanted), I think it is safe to say that this is *not *a case where silence should be expected.

 

[Peter_J]

You kind of lost me on the whole “do” or “don’t”, so I’ll just bypass and say almost everyone I knows has sympathy for those with various sexual issues.

I agree.

And I have to confess, I didn’t compose my eariler post very well – I made it sound like the minority who aren’t sympathetic say “Homosexuals do not deserve pastoral care” or comparable statements.

Perhaps, rather than to try to describe generally, it would be better to offer concrete examples of how people find fault with the bishops’ sympathetic statements. Here’s one that comes to mind: as I mentioned earlier a Catholic bishop, Bishop Robert Lynch blogged that “sadly it is religion, including our own, which targets, mostly verbally, and also often breeds contempt for gays, lesbians and transgender people.” But I have also learned that author Steve Ray wrote a piece titled “Are Catholics to Blame for the Orlando Jihad Slaughter?”, which opens with “Some say ‘Yes!’ including Bishop Robert Lynch”.

I’m not making this up.

 

[pnewton]

Agreed. But since Catholic leaders are not silent on the manner, and do in fact “teach us that they [homosexuals] should be treated with kindness and respect” (which is what SarahBeGood said she wanted), I think it is safe to say that this is *not *a case where silence should be expected.

I
Perhaps, rather than to try to describe generally, it would be better to offer concrete examples of how people find fault with the bishops’ sympathetic statements. Here’s one that comes to mind: as I mentioned earlier a Catholic bishop, Bishop Robert Lynch blogged that “sadly it is religion, including our own, which targets, mostly verbally, and also often breeds contempt for gays, lesbians and transgender people.” But I have also learned that author Steve Ray wrote a piece titled “Are Catholics to Blame for the Orlando Jihad Slaughter?”, which opens with “Some say ‘Yes!’ including Bishop Robert Lynch”.

Sarah did not say when or at what grade, both important considerations, that she was referring to. The sexual revolution is only fifty years old, with sexual orientation becoming an issue in the news in half that time, and transgender theory not even being half a generation old. The Church does not address issues before they are an issue. So yes, a person here, especially young people, may miss the historical perspective; that their own experience occurred in transition. Everyone here remembers 9-11 terrorist attacks. The very first state to allow legalized gay marriage did so two years later, in 2003. In fact, in 1996 (the year twenty year old’s were born, President Clinton (name ring a bell?) signed into law the defense of marriage act federal recognition of same sex unions.

So I think the Catholic Church should be cut a little slack on this, in that the response of the Church on this issue has been remarkably quick and sympathetic.

As to Bishop Lynch’s statement, I am in no position to understand what he meant, what he really said, the context or how it could be true, or not true. I am positive Bishop Lynch understands that we (him, you are I) are not capable of imputing personal moral fault. “Blame” can be a wide term. I do not know what he meant by “including our own,” simply because that is a way of addressing a general fault while being willing to examine oneself. I do this all the time. Everyone, including myself, will use figures of speech and rhetoric that poorly conveys a message (see what I just did there!)

 

[Peter_J]

Sarah did not say when or at what grade, both important considerations, that she was referring to. The sexual revolution is only fifty years old, with sexual orientation becoming an issue in the news in half that time, and transgender theory not even being half a generation old. The Church does not address issues before they are an issue. So yes, a person here, especially young people, may miss the historical perspective; that their own experience occurred in transition. Everyone here remembers 9-11 terrorist attacks. The very first state to allow legalized gay marriage did so two years later, in 2003. In fact, in 1996 (the year twenty year old’s were born, President Clinton (name ring a bell?) signed into law the defense of marriage act federal recognition of same sex unions.

So I think the Catholic Church should be cut a little slack on this, in that the response of the Church on this issue has been remarkably quick and sympathetic.

As to Bishop Lynch’s statement, I am in no position to understand what he meant, what he really said, the context or how it could be true, or not true. I am positive Bishop Lynch understands that we (him, you are I) are not capable of imputing personal moral fault. “Blame” can be a wide term. I do not know what he meant by “including our own,” simply because that is a way of addressing a general fault while being willing to examine oneself. I do this all the time. Everyone, including myself, will use figures of speech and rhetoric that poorly conveys a message (see what I just did there!)

I quite agree with “the Catholic Church should be cut a little slack on this” (assuming you mean the Church as people); that is essentially what I was saying here:

Sarah_B_Good and others …

Just a thought: you might feel more sympathetic toward the Bishops if you consider comments they get from “faithful Catholics” like this:

However, with regard to your last paragraph, it doesn’t exactly sound you’re trying to cut His Grace “a little slack”. It sounds more like you want people to countenance the accusation made against him (I mean the accusation that he blamed Catholics for the Orlando Jihad).