Tags
I see that Pope Francis is in hot water again: first they didn’t like his encyclical on our common home, the earth; then they did not like his encyclical on us all being brothers (and sisters); and now, depending on which mistranslation (or not) you choose to believe, they don’t like his comments on civil unions, or is it civil coexistence? The “they” in question are the super-Catholics on social media who can, literally answer the rhetorical question: ‘Is the Pope a Catholic?’ with the answer ‘no’!
Now, I ought to admit I have what the English call ‘form’ on this. A few years back when I admitted that, after some thinking about it, I had decided to attend the wedding of a lesbian friend, there were some here who thought that was a bad thing to have done. For me it was an expression of friendship. It may be a generational thing. I don’t know how many people in their sixties and over have friends who are gay or lesbian, but for people my age (“thirty erm something …”) it’s not uncommon, and Abi happened to have been a friend since childhood. I think this was the sort of thing the Pope may have been talking about. It’s not necessarily about his approving gay marriage, I am sure he doesn’t because Roman Catholic doctrine forbids it, it’s probably more about how we react to our gay and lesbian friends in what the Pope calls ‘civil society.’
It’s a good question, and it’s good that he is raising it. Certainly where I used to work, and where my other half works, there are plenty of people who are gay, and it would be invidious, as the Catholic Church acknowledges, to subject them to any form of discrimination in everyday life. That’s separate from the fraught issue of gay marriage, and whilst gay people may feel offended by the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, they know what that teaching is, and just as with other sexual acts which are not ‘open to life’ they make a choice. I suspect if every man who had ever masturbated, fancied a woman not his wife and had sex without benefit of marriage, or without the intention of being “open to life” ceased going to Church, attendance would fall dramatically, and maybe it’s worth remembering that. The media goes on, as gay people tend to, about homosexuality as though the Church taught only about that, it’s teaching on the theology of the body goes much further and covers much more – but we hear little of that. But I lost sight of the last press report banging on about sex outside marriage or contraception. Motes and beams come to mind for some reason.
If the Pope was talking about how we treat each other in civil society, then his words are surely in line with Roman Catholic teaching? If they were what some hold them to have been, then that’s a matter for those in his Church. We Anglicans, after all, have our own problems on this one.
I totally “get” why some get het up on this theme, but gay people are not going to get back in the closet any time soon, nor are they going away, and nor are they all atheists or agnostic. In the long history of Christianity the length of time that gay and lesbian people have been able to be open about their sexuality without legal consequences is a short one, and the Church tends to have time scales rather more lengthy.
There have always been Christians who have been homosexual, the problem seems to be that some Christians were more comfortable when they were in the closet and are uncomfortable now they are out of it. But for Christians who are homosexual, there is a cross to be carried, and they want to be in the Church for who they are, not what their sexual preference is, and indeed, for many, their sexuality is very much a secondary issue, however much it seems to preoccupy some others.
After all, what are we really going to do in the modern world? Are we going to excluded all remarried and divorced people from the eucharist? Are we going to ostracise the money-lenders? Should we think again about stoning? Those lacking in sin, can, of course, be first to begin to lessen the pile of stones. For the rest of us, well we might just want to think about what Pope Francis is really saying, which seems to be that we are all human, all sinners, and that in terms of civil society, let’s not discriminate against people who want to have sex with people of their own gender. Naturally, since there would be zero clickbait headlines in any of that, the MSM prefer to big it up. I do wish they’d stop … but that, as they say, is another story. Enjoy your Saturday!
All Along the Watchtower 
Frankly, I haven’t read it nor do I intend to. I have plenty of problems with what he says, officially and unofficially but he is not my Pope so I can take the proper and ignore the improper. And while he may pontificate on civil matters, if he so chooses, it is actually pretty much beyond his remit.
If you want to join the club, well, the rules is the rules. But, and it’s a big one, I just can’t seem to think this is any worse, in fact, I think it a much lesser evil than infanticide, and really no worse than sexual harassment, and not as bad as forcing that further, which many prominent so-called Catholics seemingly support, or at least turn a blind eye to, seemingly including a fair number of hierarchs.
Should we have respect and sometimes liking for gay people? Of course, we should. That caring is one of the marks of an actual Christian. I’ve known quite few over the years, and almost all of them, male and female were fine people, mostly we have fallen out of touch, but I’ve moved several times, and so have they, and that is true of many of my former heterosexual friends as well.
So, well said, and a very valid viewpoint, in my opinion, dearest friend. xx
LikeLiked by 4 people
A well-measured comment, Neo, and I hope that sets the tone here. Jessica has, I think, trodden a difficult line with some care. I am with you in finding the infanticide issue much more worrying, but as I say in my own comment, two wrongs don’t make a right, or didn’t when I was taught these things. I daresay that is now a long-discredited mathematical formula!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Indeed, nor did it when I was brought up, Nor did the fictional fact that everyone was doing it. My point was not to insinuate it is necessarily proper, but that it draws entirely to much heat without light.
It may be somewhat discredited, but not amongst people who have actually lived life in the real world.
LikeLiked by 4 people
We’ve clearly both been around too long my old friend!
LikeLiked by 4 people
So it seems, old friend. But the lessons we seek to teach are the immutable lessons of our people.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Stop it, the pair of you – you are fine men in your prime xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you – and for your advice. I have tried to avoid polemics and stick to the middle ground. Xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well done xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you xxx 😊
LikeLiked by 2 people
Always, when its true. xxx 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
We must, here, avoid what I would call “whatabouttery”. That is the tendency to say in response to a justified criticism “well, what about x?” We get it all the time in our churches with child abuse. Everytime a clergyman criticises something wanting in the political sphere because of its moral effects, we hear “but what about child abuse?”
In practice both criticisms are valid. It is right to criticise, for example, the Government’s attitude to free school meals, and it is right to criticise us for the way the churches have dealt with child abuse (or failed to). The one does not invalidate the other.
You are correct, Jess, to point out that the Church’s teaching on the theology opf the body and sexuality covers far more than homosexuality, as you would be if you pointed out that Jesus said very little on the subject – but since that something was to say that the Law of Israel on such matters stood, that was all He needed to say. The answer to your rhetorical question is “yes” the Catholic Church does indeed not allow those who are divorced with no annulment to communicate. If you were to point out that it was hypocrisy to allow Senatopr Pelosi to communicate given her views on abortion and contraception, I should be incline to say “gotcha”, but then to use your Elizabeth I quotation about not making windows into men’s (and women’s) souls.
It is unfortunate that it seems sometimes that the Pope says things which somehow get misunderstood, and were I a cynical sort of fellow with experience of instiutional comms strategies, I’d be inclined to suspect that there was a pattern here; were I a very cynical sort of fellow, I’d be inclined to wonder whether the purpose was not to throw a stone into the pond and watch the ripples.
All of that said (and it is a good post which gets me commenting at this length) the general point you make is obviously correct. We are told by the Church not to discriminate against people because of their sexuality or, indeed, other attributes; we are even told to do something most of us find very hard, which is to love our enemies.
I do not, for what little it is worth, think that the Holy Father’s words are to be taken as giving the green light for something to which no Pope can approve, that is gay marriage in church. What civil society does it, of course, quite another matter. If what the Holy Father means is that we should recognised what civil society approves and makes legal, then my line would be back to rendering unto Caesar. In so far as Caesar defines “marriage” then of course, gay marriage is a fact and one recognises facts. Trying not to define people by any single one of their attributes is, as you suggest, a good idea, and for me, that means doing as the Holy Father says – you treat folk decently because that is what Christ would have us do.
Personally, I find the loving my enemies far harder than the other things, so I shall continue to work on that – in appropriate fear and trembling.
Thank you, Jess, for a thought-provoking post.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Indeed, an excellent comment, and the Pope’s point a few years ago that the Church is a psychic hospital (however he phrased it) also comes into play here. He is correct, and we don’t treat patients by driving them away in anger and scorn, but by welcoming and talking to them, and learning as we teach.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I am honoured – and as ever, impressed. You somehow manage to say what your church says and to get what the Pope may mean whilst making it clear that if he doesn’t mean it, he’s wrong. That’s quite the thing xx btw, sorry for my messing up earlier, hope it didn’t mean too much work on your part, but my admin thing still isn’t working.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The link here is an excellent summary of authentic Catholic teaching:
https://wdtprs.com/2020/10/fail-jamesmartinsj-claims-you-cant-dismiss-false-teaching-on-same-sex-unions-because-francis-developed-doctrine-wherein-fr-z-rants/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, I personally have no problem if two boys who like each other very much decide to live happily ever after together.
I’m reminded of `The Dreaded Batter Pudding Hurler of Bexhill on Sea
Listen from 27 minutes to the end – Spike Milligan has a nice resolution of the moral dilemma.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My, my, my … quite an article and the comments are insightful.
My two cents (probably greatly over-valued at that!): I respect the Pope; he is the Bishop to what, 1 billion people or thereabouts? That’s a huge flock; so big, in fact, that the combinations of what each person is has got to be beyond reckoning. We are all God’s children and as the Bishop of Rome, he has to address all the children.
I came to the conclusion a long, long time ago that issues with gay people was between them and God. I have no say-so. But as people, they are my brothers and sisters and I am to be their keeper. To the best of my ability, I keep them. My best friend, Scott, is gay; he helped me design the cover of my book and did a beautiful job. He’s helped me build furniture, he comes to my house to do my hair. He’s run to the store for me on short notice. I love him.
My nephew has been with his partner longer than Lon and I have been married. They are quite successful in their businesses and have an amazing group of friends – heterosexual and homosexual.
There is a huge gay community in this area of Florida. When I was still working, our ‘smoking table’ was full of hetero and homo females, laughing, talking, sharing. Relationships – I found that homosexual partners have the same loving gripes against their partners that hetero folks do, lol. We were equally comfortable with sexuality and Christianity (or the lack thereof).
But of all the gay folks I have known, not one – I mean not one – of them ever thought about getting ‘married’. They have their wills and powers of attorney and are covered financially through things they have created to protect each other should death or illness occur. I know of two men, deeply Christian and deeply involved in all levels of the Church, who I believe are celibate – in all the years I’ve known them, personally, they have never once spoken of or showed up with a ‘significant other’. We have a deaconess (non-ordained position in my Church) who is gay and partnered but not married.
I don’t believe in homosexual marriage.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Thanks Audre. For me, I think it’s equally pragmatic. It exists, like other civil marriages I accept that it’s how people choose to signal their love. As someone whose husband walked out on her for a younger blonde, I have my views on marriage of the more usual sort too, but heck, I gave him both barrels back then, so got it out of my system .
People are people, and as long as they are not harming others, I am with you, it’s between the individual and God. If you are a member of a Church which does not recognise gay marriages, either accept that or move on xx
LikeLiked by 3 people
The key point here is `as long as its not harming others’.
Take, for example, Scott Rennie, a gay minister in the Church of Scotland. He married a woman (Ruth) and they had a daughter together. After 5 years of marriage, they divorced.
I would like to think that if he had been `straight’, this would have excluded him from any further participation in the ministry. The excuse `I didn’t find her attractive any more’ would be considered utterly disgusting if he were straight, but somehow it is supposed to be OK and he gets lots of sympathy if he dumps his wife – when they have a daughter together! – for another man.
Anyone who has children understands how attached the child is to the parents and just how disruptive it is for a child when the parents get divorced. If you are a Christian man with a child, then you stick with the marriage, for the sake of the child, irrespective of what your orientation is, pure and simple.
Of course, nowadays, you call in the psychologist to help out children whose parents have divorced – and that makes everything all right.
It’s all about not hurting others, `love thy neighbour’ and we’re being asked to overlook a lot of behaviour where people show utter contempt for their neighbour.
In Scott Rennie’s case – his `neighbour’ whom he is supposed to love is his daughter (and it is horrible behaviour, no matter how much the daughter may be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome in this matter).
LikeLiked by 2 people