I for one do not see why the Pope’s words should be such a shock to anyone: He’s totally right to say that he shouldn’t judge people with SSA, and let’s face it, most people in the world outside of our Catholic bubble do refer to anyone with SSA–whether they act on it or whether they’re as celibate and orthodox as a saintly priest–as gay, because the definition of “gay” (or at least bisexual) in the greater culture is being
attracted to the same gender,
regardless of what one
does about it. For most people, “gay” is interchangeable and synonymous with “has same sex atttractions.” By using the phrase “gays” or “gay people” the Pope is only speaking in a language that the world will understand, regardless of the “mainstream” media’s attempts to twist his meaning, which is probably deliberate and he cannot be blamed for that. Anyone who even really cares what the Catholic Church teaches knows that when the Pope says “IF they’re seeking the Lord and have goodwill” that this would mean they’re trying to seek and live according to Christian teaching, which a genuine seeker would know does not approve of homosexual acts.
Those in the secular world who are automatically assuming the Pope means it’s okay to act on homosexual inclinations are not interested in Truth anyway, and it’s not the Pope’s job to make sure that all the sophists out there have no grounds to twist his words. Those same sophists twisted Pope Benedict XVI’s words to make it seem that he thought people with homosexual sins or temptations were inferior, and that too was wrong, but Pope Benedict XVI was not responsible for that. Neither is this Pope responsible for the opposite assumption. One way or the other, the Pope is going to be misinterpreted as either hating gay people or thinking the gay lifestyle is okay. And a Pope is no more responsible for one misinterpretation than the other, because the people doing the misinterpreting
know what they’re doing.
I myself have four younger brothers, two who are upstanding Christian guys but two who are irreligious. One of them has relationships with men, and the other, I am fairly certain, has unwed sex with the opposite gender. And if not for the fact that the brother with SSA was also very anti-Christian and disrespectful compared to the brother who is committing sins in a heterosexual way, I would NOT judge the one brother anymore harshly than the other. Both are committing grave sexual sin. I do not believe that the brother who sleeps with men, for that sin alone, would receive greater time in Purgatory or a greater punishment in Hell–if he should go there, that is, which I pray not–than the brother who sleeps with women would for that sin alone. With the Pope, I do not judge my gay brother anymore than I would judge the straight one. And with the Pope, I would not judge my gay brother as being in
any way (personally) out of line if he was being
chaste, just as I wouldn’t with my straight brother.
I know, I know that many are concerned that the Pope’s words fail to highlight the evidently oh-so-important fact of “But the Catechism says homosexual acts are intrinsically DISORDERED and that homosexual inclinations are objectively DISORDERD!!!
” I have great problems with the implications of this complaint. Since when does “disordered” equal
morally worse?! It could be said that Anorexia is more disordered than Gluttony, as gluttony is just an exaggeration of a God-given survival instinct, and yet Anorexia is nowhere on the list of Deadly Sins, while Gluttony is explicitly there, so I doubt we’re to conclude anorexia is “morally worse” than Gluttony.
So too it is with homosexual inclinations and acts. They are disordered in the sense that they are more incompatible the Natural Order of things, not in the sense that someone tempted by them is tempted by a greater sin, or that someone who commits them is committing a more grave sin. Not to mention that
all sin is disordered to some degree, and
all temptation to sin is disordered when compared with the non-concupiscent state for which we were originally intended. And conversely,
all sin, yes even homosexual sin, usually has some root in a desire for the good–be it the good of intimacy, the good of pleasure, etc.–that is simply aimed in the wrong direction.
And if some here who struggle with SSA are offended when people say SSA and homosexual acts are “disordered” I’d say it’s because that word is thrown around in the
moral sense so that “disordered=
morally worse than or inferior to other temptations that are more compatible with the Natural Order.” That’s reading far more into the Catechism than it says, and I agree that the people who would use “disordered” in this sense are using it in an offensive way. I myself have Depression, clinically. That’s a disorder. I’m not offended if someone says so. It can even tempt me to the sin of Sloth. However if someone was using that tag, “disorder”, to imply that I was morally inferior (or inferior in any
other way) to someone who did not have this disorder, then I would be quite offended.
In short, I see in the Pope’s words–although those with an agenda will see what they want to see and His Holiness ought not be blamed for that–a proclamation that he does not see himself as “holier than thou” when it comes to his regard for people struggling with homosexuality. I think, far too often, we like to look at people who struggle with sins we don’t and we take great comfort in thinking they’re “worse off” than we are, “less holy,” “more disordered,” or what have you. The Pope is simply rejecting that. With Jesus, He is saying “You without SIN, cast the first stone,” instead of “You without that KIND of sin, cast at will!”
I think we need to give His Holiness the benefit of the doubt.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
