Speaking to reporters on his plane returning from Armenia, the Pope said: "I will repeat what the catechism of the Church says, that they [homosexuals] should not be discriminated against, that they should be respected, accompanied pastorally."
Pope Francis said the Church should seek forgiveness from those whom it had marginalised.
"I think that the Church not only should apologise... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by [being forced to] work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons."
Area Man Acknowledges He Should Apologize, but is Kind of Busy Right Now, You Know?
I should really just look you in the eye and say "I'm so sorry, I really fucked up this time and that's on me". And I will, I mean, that's definitely on my list of things to do, but I have to go do this thing. I could try drop you a line later and tell you that I regret what I did, or that I'll try to make it up to you, but my schedule is pretty crazy. Call my assistant, maybe we can set something up.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
I really hate Paul. He was an inquisitor turned prophet and basically the biggest spouter of bigotry in the new testament.
I really hate Paul. He was an inquisitor turned prophet and basically the biggest spouter of bigotry in the new testament.
This is a common perception/interpretation, but I'm not really sure it's accurate. Postmodernism lol, you can read the Pauline letters however you want, but there's a few things to keep in mind.
1) As mentioned earlier in this thread, many of "Paul's" more problematic statements (from a modern standpoint) come from the Pastoral letters (1st Timothy, 2nd Timothy, Titus). That's where you get into statements about women not holding any roles of real authority in the church, really restrictive rules for the church offices that were open to women (such as "widows"), etc. But, again, Paul himself likely didn't write those letters; they were most likely written by proto-orthodox bishops and church officials in the 2nd century as a means of reinforcing their own authority using Paul's name for apostolic weight. During Paul's own time, it seems as though women were actually quite prominent in the church, including/especially churches that Paul himself was involved with. He refers to women in positions of authority (as deacons and apostles) without comment, as though that were simply something normal in the churches associated with him. We don't know exactly what early Pauline churches looked like, but it appears that women were quite involved in those church "services", some of them possibly in an ecstatic/prophetic capacity as well as being missionaries. It also seems very likely that (wealthy) women were sponsors of early house churches, including Paul's. This was a very common setup for new religious movements in the Greco-Roman world, such as the mystery cults. Men held all the power in the public sphere, but women could actually wield considerable power in the domestic sphere, which included the sponsoring of local philosophers, scholars, educators, artists, and - yes - strange wandering religious teachers. The NT makes reference to a few women who seem to be likely candidates for such a position, including Lydia and Chloe.
2) Paul is often thought of as a bigot, at least recently, for his distaste for homosexuality. There are a couple of things to keep in mind here, though:
2a) First of all, on the only issue in which bigotry would seem to have been contemporarily relevant - antipathy between Jews/Iudaioi and Gentiles - Paul passes with flying colors. There's just no way around it. The guy was a Pharisee, a highly educated religious scholar (and that he was in fact highly educated and highly religious is backed up by his rhetorical skills and knowledge of the tanakh - your average joe did not have access to that kind of education in the early 1st century). The Pharisees were particularly obsessed with ritual purity and adherence to the mitzvah, neither of which Gentiles had/did. But, for whatever reason, the guy made it his life's mission to live among people without this background and bring them into the fold of a new religious movement that was, prior to him (although certainly not solely because of him), almost exclusively Jewish, to the point it was extremely controversial (among no lesser members of the church than Peter himself) whether or not Gentiles could even be part of the church at all. Prior to Paul, the typical answer was that they had to convert to Judaism (get circumcised, the whole lot).
We don't really know why Paul was so obsessed with missionizing Gentiles specifically. It seems strange, given that he probably spent most of his working life prior to his conversion as an interpreter of Jewish law. But it seems unlikely he just did it as a "fleece-the-rubes" strategy, given the amount of flack he took from it within the church itself, as well as the fact that, everywhere he went, people were coming in behind him telling his congregations they had to keep the Jewish law and - crucially - it seems his flock was actually very receptive to this message. Paul spent most of his career putting out that particular fire when it seems like it would have been a lot easier just to roll with it. Judging by his writings, it doesn't seem like he did too much "fleecing" anyway; despite being educated and presumably from a well-off background, he spent much of his time doing manual labor and seems to have taken a great deal of pride in not living off the wages of his congregations.
Also keep in mind that Paul's career coincided with the lead-up to the first Great Jewish Revolt (when the Temple gets destroyed, and all that). Relations between Jews and Gentiles in the Mediterranean were at an all-time low. It wasn't as bad in Greece and Asia, where Paul typically worked, as it was in Judaea/Palestine, but it was still pretty bad. But Paul spent his life crossing that particular boundary.
2b) W/r/t homosexuality: One thing to keep in mind when considering Paul's views on homosexuality is exactly what "homosexuality" consisted of at the time. The category of a "homosexual", as a permanent identity, did not exist at the time in Jewish, Greek, or Roman conceptions, and homosexual behavior had a very different manifestation in antiquity than it does today. We are emphatically not talking about two consenting adults in a dating/marriage relationship, or even pre-1980s bathhouse decadence. It's a common trope that the Greeks and Romans were basically enlightened post-Sexual-Revolution western liberals before the Christians showed up and made everyone feel guilty about their naughty bits, but that really was not the case.
Most forms of Greco-Roman homosexuality contemporary with Paul involved relationships that, by today's standards, would be considered morally abhorrent for a variety of reasons. Same-sex relationships between Greek and Roman males were marked by extreme differences in age, power, or both. Usually what we are dealing with here is relationships between older men ("older", here, being above the age of ephebe, ie no less than mid-20s-ish but possibly much older) and young teenagers/"youths" (starting at 14ish, not quite old enough for military service, and going up to ~20). These power and age differentials were, in the minds of Greeks and Romans, a feature, not a bug.
Ancient Mediterranean sex was explicitly, and invariably, penetrative, based around the idea of a more powerful partner who penetrates and a less powerful partner who is penetrated. The sex act was, thus, an enactment and reinforcement of social status. This "penetration" was not always literal. Anal sex, especially when the subordinate partner was free instead of a slave, was actually less common in these relationships than other forms of sex; although it certainly went on, most references to it I've seen in Greek texts are in scatological or comedic contexts, referencing it as a laughable habit of the slovenly or hopelessly debauched, although the Romans may have been different (I haven't read enough Latin to give you an educated opinion there). The idea of a free, adult male being placed - much less placing himself - in a position (literal or otherwise) to be penetrated was considered perverse, unmasculine, and morally/socially abhorrent. Greeks and Romans had lots of nasty words to refer to men like this. Slaves, of course, were considered free game for penetration (especially by their owners) well into adulthood. "Consent" is not a word that is in anyone's vocabulary, obviously.
So our models for ancient homosexuality involve no consent, vast power differences, or slavery. Now, to be fair, a lot of "heterosexual" sex in the era had these exact same problems, but there, marriage, the only sexual option Paul sees as valid, made the situation a bit muddier (although consent as such was not a consideration of ancient marriage, either).
In light of all this I have a hard time holding Paul's position on ancient Greco-Roman homosexuality against him overmuch. It's also worth noting that homosexuality itself is not something he dwells on extensively (as mentioned above, he was MUCH more concerned with people telling Gentiles they have to follow Jewish religious laws), and the only person I can remember him specifically calling out in his letters over sexual behavior was some dude in Corinth who was apparently having sex with his stepmom*, something the whole neighborhood was said to be gossiping about.
EDIT: For further reference on ancient Mediterranean sexuality I would recommend Dover's seminal (sorry) text. It focuses more specifically on classical Athenian-ish aristocratic behaviors but that general model held up broadly over time and, to a lesser degree, in Roman society as well. This setup is considered more or less reflexively accurate among almost every classicist and historian I've met.
3) None of this is to say that Paul was a "nice guy" or whatever. He got a lot of flack even in his own day and many of his relationships with his congregations were contentious and fraught with struggle**, and many of his fellow Christians didn't know what to make of him and his obsessions. But I think a lot of modern views on Paul are fairly un-nuanced and based on a strawman image of him that is not well-supported in the Biblical texts or grounded in an understanding of the historical setting and cultural context in which he operated.
*This may have been a lot less creepy than it sounds. Male widowers were expected to remarry well into senescence, and it's not like they were going to marry somebody their own age. So what we could be dealing with here is someone who was having an affair with his late father's much younger bride. Probably. Hopefully.
**This is one reason I've never bought the whole "Paul was a charismatic cult leader who brainwashed his followers and was one step away from doling out Kool-Aid" angle. No new religious movement treats their charismatic demagogue founders as badly or as lightly as some of Paul's congregations (especially Corinth) apparently treated him at times.
EDIT:
Postscript: If you're wondering, since I referred exclusively to male homosexuality, what the situation was re: "lesbians", the short answer is we don't really know. There's very little about it in the historical record. In traditional Jewish thought two women literally could not have sex no matter what, since "sex", by definition, involved a penis. There's almost nothing in the Greek and Latin corpus, other than some debatable readings of Sappho. If I know Romans, the answer by Roman men probably would have been "as long as I can watch (and you keep having babies)".
Speaking to reporters on his plane returning from Armenia, the Pope said: "I will repeat what the catechism of the Church says, that they [homosexuals] should not be discriminated against, that they should be respected, accompanied pastorally."
Pope Francis said the Church should seek forgiveness from those whom it had marginalised.
"I think that the Church not only should apologise... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by [being forced to] work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons."
How is this any different from the typical "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach?
If he comes out and says "we were wrong, homosexuality isn't a sin after all" then I'll be surprised.
Speaking to reporters on his plane returning from Armenia, the Pope said: "I will repeat what the catechism of the Church says, that they [homosexuals] should not be discriminated against, that they should be respected, accompanied pastorally."
Pope Francis said the Church should seek forgiveness from those whom it had marginalised.
"I think that the Church not only should apologise... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by [being forced to] work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons."
How is this any different from the typical "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach?
If he comes out and says "we were wrong, homosexuality isn't a sin after all" then I'll be surprised.
Yeah, they still have a religion that teaches that all sexy times are for child creation. A straight guy who climaxes from just a BJ is still committing a sin, even if it's his wife that makes it happen.
Getting them to focus on the act they object to them dehumanizing the people doing the act is a positive step.
Speaking to reporters on his plane returning from Armenia, the Pope said: "I will repeat what the catechism of the Church says, that they [homosexuals] should not be discriminated against, that they should be respected, accompanied pastorally."
Pope Francis said the Church should seek forgiveness from those whom it had marginalised.
"I think that the Church not only should apologise... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by [being forced to] work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons."
How is this any different from the typical "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach?
If he comes out and says "we were wrong, homosexuality isn't a sin after all" then I'll be surprised.
It isn't. It's him saying "Despite the fact that we should be hating the sin, we've been hating the sinner alot. We should stop that and apologise for doing so."
Speaking to reporters on his plane returning from Armenia, the Pope said: "I will repeat what the catechism of the Church says, that they [homosexuals] should not be discriminated against, that they should be respected, accompanied pastorally."
Pope Francis said the Church should seek forgiveness from those whom it had marginalised.
"I think that the Church not only should apologise... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by [being forced to] work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons."
How is this any different from the typical "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach?
If he comes out and says "we were wrong, homosexuality isn't a sin after all" then I'll be surprised.
It isn't. It's him saying "Despite the fact that we should be hating the sin, we've been hating the sinner alot. We should stop that and apologise for doing so."
so does this mean they'll get back to praying the gay away?
Speaking to reporters on his plane returning from Armenia, the Pope said: "I will repeat what the catechism of the Church says, that they [homosexuals] should not be discriminated against, that they should be respected, accompanied pastorally."
Pope Francis said the Church should seek forgiveness from those whom it had marginalised.
"I think that the Church not only should apologise... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by [being forced to] work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons."
How is this any different from the typical "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach?
If he comes out and says "we were wrong, homosexuality isn't a sin after all" then I'll be surprised.
It isn't. It's him saying "Despite the fact that we should be hating the sin, we've been hating the sinner alot. We should stop that and apologise for doing so."
so does this mean they'll get back to praying the gay away?
that doesn't sound much better
No? That's not even a Catholic thing afaik. But it's irrelevant to the point anyway so I'm not sure why you bring it up other then to snark.
+7
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
If Catholics and other religions got to the point where they just disapprove of your sexuality and pray that you change, that would be vastly preferable to the current state of affairs where gay people routinely get beaten, tortured and killed.
I really hate Paul. He was an inquisitor turned prophet and basically the biggest spouter of bigotry in the new testament.
This is a common perception/interpretation, but I'm not really sure it's accurate. Postmodernism lol, you can read the Pauline letters however you want, but there's a few things to keep in mind.
1) As mentioned earlier in this thread, many of "Paul's" more problematic statements (from a modern standpoint) come from the Pastoral letters (1st Timothy, 2nd Timothy, Titus). That's where you get into statements about women not holding any roles of real authority in the church, really restrictive rules for the church offices that were open to women (such as "widows"), etc. But, again, Paul himself likely didn't write those letters; they were most likely written by proto-orthodox bishops and church officials in the 2nd century as a means of reinforcing their own authority using Paul's name for apostolic weight. During Paul's own time, it seems as though women were actually quite prominent in the church, including/especially churches that Paul himself was involved with. He refers to women in positions of authority (as deacons and apostles) without comment, as though that were simply something normal in the churches associated with him. We don't know exactly what early Pauline churches looked like, but it appears that women were quite involved in those church "services", some of them possibly in an ecstatic/prophetic capacity as well as being missionaries. It also seems very likely that (wealthy) women were sponsors of early house churches, including Paul's. This was a very common setup for new religious movements in the Greco-Roman world, such as the mystery cults. Men held all the power in the public sphere, but women could actually wield considerable power in the domestic sphere, which included the sponsoring of local philosophers, scholars, educators, artists, and - yes - strange wandering religious teachers. The NT makes reference to a few women who seem to be likely candidates for such a position, including Lydia and Chloe.
2) Paul is often thought of as a bigot, at least recently, for his distaste for homosexuality. There are a couple of things to keep in mind here, though:
2a) First of all, on the only issue in which bigotry would seem to have been contemporarily relevant - antipathy between Jews/Iudaioi and Gentiles - Paul passes with flying colors. There's just no way around it. The guy was a Pharisee, a highly educated religious scholar (and that he was in fact highly educated and highly religious is backed up by his rhetorical skills and knowledge of the tanakh - your average joe did not have access to that kind of education in the early 1st century). The Pharisees were particularly obsessed with ritual purity and adherence to the mitzvah, neither of which Gentiles had/did. But, for whatever reason, the guy made it his life's mission to live among people without this background and bring them into the fold of a new religious movement that was, prior to him (although certainly not solely because of him), almost exclusively Jewish, to the point it was extremely controversial (among no lesser members of the church than Peter himself) whether or not Gentiles could even be part of the church at all. Prior to Paul, the typical answer was that they had to convert to Judaism (get circumcised, the whole lot).
We don't really know why Paul was so obsessed with missionizing Gentiles specifically. It seems strange, given that he probably spent most of his working life prior to his conversion as an interpreter of Jewish law. But it seems unlikely he just did it as a "fleece-the-rubes" strategy, given the amount of flack he took from it within the church itself, as well as the fact that, everywhere he went, people were coming in behind him telling his congregations they had to keep the Jewish law and - crucially - it seems his flock was actually very receptive to this message. Paul spent most of his career putting out that particular fire when it seems like it would have been a lot easier just to roll with it. Judging by his writings, it doesn't seem like he did too much "fleecing" anyway; despite being educated and presumably from a well-off background, he spent much of his time doing manual labor and seems to have taken a great deal of pride in not living off the wages of his congregations.
Also keep in mind that Paul's career coincided with the lead-up to the first Great Jewish Revolt (when the Temple gets destroyed, and all that). Relations between Jews and Gentiles in the Mediterranean were at an all-time low. It wasn't as bad in Greece and Asia, where Paul typically worked, as it was in Judaea/Palestine, but it was still pretty bad. But Paul spent his life crossing that particular boundary.
2b) W/r/t homosexuality: One thing to keep in mind when considering Paul's views on homosexuality is exactly what "homosexuality" consisted of at the time. The category of a "homosexual", as a permanent identity, did not exist at the time in Jewish, Greek, or Roman conceptions, and homosexual behavior had a very different manifestation in antiquity than it does today. We are emphatically not talking about two consenting adults in a dating/marriage relationship, or even pre-1980s bathhouse decadence. It's a common trope that the Greeks and Romans were basically enlightened post-Sexual-Revolution western liberals before the Christians showed up and made everyone feel guilty about their naughty bits, but that really was not the case.
Most forms of Greco-Roman homosexuality contemporary with Paul involved relationships that, by today's standards, would be considered morally abhorrent for a variety of reasons. Same-sex relationships between Greek and Roman males were marked by extreme differences in age, power, or both. Usually what we are dealing with here is relationships between older men ("older", here, being above the age of ephebe, ie no less than mid-20s-ish but possibly much older) and young teenagers/"youths" (starting at 14ish, not quite old enough for military service, and going up to ~20). These power and age differentials were, in the minds of Greeks and Romans, a feature, not a bug.
Ancient Mediterranean sex was explicitly, and invariably, penetrative, based around the idea of a more powerful partner who penetrates and a less powerful partner who is penetrated. The sex act was, thus, an enactment and reinforcement of social status. This "penetration" was not always literal. Anal sex, especially when the subordinate partner was free instead of a slave, was actually less common in these relationships than other forms of sex; although it certainly went on, most references to it I've seen in Greek texts are in scatological or comedic contexts, referencing it as a laughable habit of the slovenly or hopelessly debauched, although the Romans may have been different (I haven't read enough Latin to give you an educated opinion there). The idea of a free, adult male being placed - much less placing himself - in a position (literal or otherwise) to be penetrated was considered perverse, unmasculine, and morally/socially abhorrent. Greeks and Romans had lots of nasty words to refer to men like this. Slaves, of course, were considered free game for penetration (especially by their owners) well into adulthood. "Consent" is not a word that is in anyone's vocabulary, obviously.
So our models for ancient homosexuality involve no consent, vast power differences, or slavery. Now, to be fair, a lot of "heterosexual" sex in the era had these exact same problems, but there, marriage, the only sexual option Paul sees as valid, made the situation a bit muddier (although consent as such was not a consideration of ancient marriage, either).
In light of all this I have a hard time holding Paul's position on ancient Greco-Roman homosexuality against him overmuch. It's also worth noting that homosexuality itself is not something he dwells on extensively (as mentioned above, he was MUCH more concerned with people telling Gentiles they have to follow Jewish religious laws), and the only person I can remember him specifically calling out in his letters over sexual behavior was some dude in Corinth who was apparently having sex with his stepmom*, something the whole neighborhood was said to be gossiping about.
EDIT: For further reference on ancient Mediterranean sexuality I would recommend Dover's seminal (sorry) text. It focuses more specifically on classical Athenian-ish aristocratic behaviors but that general model held up broadly over time and, to a lesser degree, in Roman society as well. This setup is considered more or less reflexively accurate among almost every classicist and historian I've met.
3) None of this is to say that Paul was a "nice guy" or whatever. He got a lot of flack even in his own day and many of his relationships with his congregations were contentious and fraught with struggle**, and many of his fellow Christians didn't know what to make of him and his obsessions. But I think a lot of modern views on Paul are fairly un-nuanced and based on a strawman image of him that is not well-supported in the Biblical texts or grounded in an understanding of the historical setting and cultural context in which he operated.
*This may have been a lot less creepy than it sounds. Male widowers were expected to remarry well into senescence, and it's not like they were going to marry somebody their own age. So what we could be dealing with here is someone who was having an affair with his late father's much younger bride. Probably. Hopefully.
**This is one reason I've never bought the whole "Paul was a charismatic cult leader who brainwashed his followers and was one step away from doling out Kool-Aid" angle. No new religious movement treats their charismatic demagogue founders as badly or as lightly as some of Paul's congregations (especially Corinth) apparently treated him at times.
EDIT:
Postscript: If you're wondering, since I referred exclusively to male homosexuality, what the situation was re: "lesbians", the short answer is we don't really know. There's very little about it in the historical record. In traditional Jewish thought two women literally could not have sex no matter what, since "sex", by definition, involved a penis. There's almost nothing in the Greek and Latin corpus, other than some debatable readings of Sappho. If I know Romans, the answer by Roman men probably would have been "as long as I can watch (and you keep having babies)".
Seminal work, tee hee.
Seriously, fantastic post. Thank you.
As regards female relationships, mostly society couldn't care less unless (as in Sapphos case) s⎌he took the active (usually exclusively the older, more powerful male) role which was shocking in a women. This manifested most obviously in her poems about men, and later biographical works, as she is often depicted as chasing the younger male (the 'masculine' role) and that was a big no-no for a women in the eyes of both Greek and Roman writers and thinkers, far more so than her love for women.
Speaking to reporters on his plane returning from Armenia, the Pope said: "I will repeat what the catechism of the Church says, that they [homosexuals] should not be discriminated against, that they should be respected, accompanied pastorally."
Pope Francis said the Church should seek forgiveness from those whom it had marginalised.
"I think that the Church not only should apologise... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by [being forced to] work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons."
Speaking to reporters on his plane returning from Armenia, the Pope said: "I will repeat what the catechism of the Church says, that they [homosexuals] should not be discriminated against, that they should be respected, accompanied pastorally."
Pope Francis said the Church should seek forgiveness from those whom it had marginalised.
"I think that the Church not only should apologise... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by [being forced to] work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons."
How is this any different from the typical "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach?
If he comes out and says "we were wrong, homosexuality isn't a sin after all" then I'll be surprised.
Yeah, they still have a religion that teaches that all sexy times are for child creation. A straight guy who climaxes from just a BJ is still committing a sin, even if it's his wife that makes it happen.
A commonly held view, that isn't actually true. Sex inside of marriage is for both procreation and strengthening the marital relationship. That said, relations within marriage should still leave the possibility of reproduction open. (AIUI, I am not Catholic anymore.)
Speaking to reporters on his plane returning from Armenia, the Pope said: "I will repeat what the catechism of the Church says, that they [homosexuals] should not be discriminated against, that they should be respected, accompanied pastorally."
Pope Francis said the Church should seek forgiveness from those whom it had marginalised.
"I think that the Church not only should apologise... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by [being forced to] work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons."
How is this any different from the typical "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach?
If he comes out and says "we were wrong, homosexuality isn't a sin after all" then I'll be surprised.
Yeah, they still have a religion that teaches that all sexy times are for child creation. A straight guy who climaxes from just a BJ is still committing a sin, even if it's his wife that makes it happen.
A commonly held view, that isn't actually true. Sex inside of marriage is for both procreation and strengthening the marital relationship. That said, relations within marriage should still leave the possibility of reproduction open. (AIUI, I am not Catholic anymore.)
I had looked around a bit before my initial post and the most liberal statement of the Catholic attitude said that non-procreative acts were acceptable as foreplay or directed at the woman as a kind of wrap up thing provided the main event was a P in V affair. I couldn't find anywhere that stated non-procreative sex was permissible to the Church.
Remember, this is the same organization that still views all forms of birth control, including condoms, as sinful.
I'd be interested in any information you can provide to the contrary.
If Catholics and other religions got to the point where they just disapprove of your sexuality and pray that you change, that would be vastly preferable to the current state of affairs where gay people routinely get beaten, tortured and killed.
I think its a little unfair to use the term "Routinely" to both Catholics, and for instance Islamic countries where it is actively an illegal act that can get you stoned to death. I'm not saying Catholics are innocent of the occasional death where this is concerned but the gap between one and the other in terms of how often such attacks happen is pretty wide.
Speaking to reporters on his plane returning from Armenia, the Pope said: "I will repeat what the catechism of the Church says, that they [homosexuals] should not be discriminated against, that they should be respected, accompanied pastorally."
Pope Francis said the Church should seek forgiveness from those whom it had marginalised.
"I think that the Church not only should apologise... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by [being forced to] work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons."
How is this any different from the typical "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach?
If he comes out and says "we were wrong, homosexuality isn't a sin after all" then I'll be surprised.
It isn't. It's him saying "Despite the fact that we should be hating the sin, we've been hating the sinner alot. We should stop that and apologise for doing so."
so does this mean they'll get back to praying the gay away?
that doesn't sound much better
No? That's not even a Catholic thing afaik. But it's irrelevant to the point anyway so I'm not sure why you bring it up other then to snark.
If Catholics and other religions got to the point where they just disapprove of your sexuality and pray that you change, that would be vastly preferable to the current state of affairs where gay people routinely get beaten, tortured and killed.
I think its a little unfair to use the term "Routinely" to both Catholics, and for instance Islamic countries where it is actively an illegal act that can get you stoned to death. I'm not saying Catholics are innocent of the occasional death where this is concerned but the gap between one and the other in terms of how often such attacks happen is pretty wide.
Catholics are strongly represented in Africa and South America, right?
Which include places where homosexually is illegal and LGBT folk are in fact routinely victims of violence.
Also, Russia with the Eastern Orthodox Church? They are... Catholic-ish or something, though... less popey?
You seem to be assuming Catholics only exist in North America and Eastern European where violence against gays has been less commonplace for a good 15 years. I don't think this is the whole picture.
Speaking to reporters on his plane returning from Armenia, the Pope said: "I will repeat what the catechism of the Church says, that they [homosexuals] should not be discriminated against, that they should be respected, accompanied pastorally."
Pope Francis said the Church should seek forgiveness from those whom it had marginalised.
"I think that the Church not only should apologise... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by [being forced to] work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons."
How is this any different from the typical "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach?
If he comes out and says "we were wrong, homosexuality isn't a sin after all" then I'll be surprised.
Yeah, they still have a religion that teaches that all sexy times are for child creation. A straight guy who climaxes from just a BJ is still committing a sin, even if it's his wife that makes it happen.
A commonly held view, that isn't actually true. Sex inside of marriage is for both procreation and strengthening the marital relationship. That said, relations within marriage should still leave the possibility of reproduction open. (AIUI, I am not Catholic anymore.)
I had looked around a bit before my initial post and the most liberal statement of the Catholic attitude said that non-procreative acts were acceptable as foreplay or directed at the woman as a kind of wrap up thing provided the main event was a P in V affair. I couldn't find anywhere that stated non-procreative sex was permissible to the Church.
Remember, this is the same organization that still views all forms of birth control, including condoms, as sinful.
I'd be interested in any information you can provide to the contrary.
I mean I was confirmed and I can say there was definitely explicit approval of non procreation sex within marriage.
E: also most of the birth control arguments were basically "it causes the death of a fertilized egg" or something. I can't recall what they said about condoms.
Speaking to reporters on his plane returning from Armenia, the Pope said: "I will repeat what the catechism of the Church says, that they [homosexuals] should not be discriminated against, that they should be respected, accompanied pastorally."
Pope Francis said the Church should seek forgiveness from those whom it had marginalised.
"I think that the Church not only should apologise... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by [being forced to] work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons."
How is this any different from the typical "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach?
If he comes out and says "we were wrong, homosexuality isn't a sin after all" then I'll be surprised.
Yeah, they still have a religion that teaches that all sexy times are for child creation. A straight guy who climaxes from just a BJ is still committing a sin, even if it's his wife that makes it happen.
A commonly held view, that isn't actually true. Sex inside of marriage is for both procreation and strengthening the marital relationship. That said, relations within marriage should still leave the possibility of reproduction open. (AIUI, I am not Catholic anymore.)
I had looked around a bit before my initial post and the most liberal statement of the Catholic attitude said that non-procreative acts were acceptable as foreplay or directed at the woman as a kind of wrap up thing provided the main event was a P in V affair. I couldn't find anywhere that stated non-procreative sex was permissible to the Church.
Remember, this is the same organization that still views all forms of birth control, including condoms, as sinful.
I'd be interested in any information you can provide to the contrary.
I mean I was confirmed and I can say there was definitely explicit approval of non procreation sex within marriage.
E: also most of the birth control arguments were basically "it causes the death of a fertilized egg" or something. I can't recall what they said about condoms.
I have the vague notion some of this changed in like the 80's or 90's but the condom thing is still dogma. Like it was a big deal awhile ago when Francis seemed to indicate maybe they should rethink that for Africa with it's AIDS epidemic. You may be experiencing that thing where what American Catholics actually do and what Church dogma says they should do are different. Or all my web searches may be finding crazy old folks who are ignoring a big shift in church dogma.
Speaking to reporters on his plane returning from Armenia, the Pope said: "I will repeat what the catechism of the Church says, that they [homosexuals] should not be discriminated against, that they should be respected, accompanied pastorally."
Pope Francis said the Church should seek forgiveness from those whom it had marginalised.
"I think that the Church not only should apologise... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by [being forced to] work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons."
How is this any different from the typical "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach?
If he comes out and says "we were wrong, homosexuality isn't a sin after all" then I'll be surprised.
It isn't. It's him saying "Despite the fact that we should be hating the sin, we've been hating the sinner alot. We should stop that and apologise for doing so."
so does this mean they'll get back to praying the gay away?
that doesn't sound much better
No? That's not even a Catholic thing afaik. But it's irrelevant to the point anyway so I'm not sure why you bring it up other then to snark.
because I was curious.
You write the question in a "have you stopped beating your wife?" fashion, so it's hard to read it with anything but negative intent.
If Catholics and other religions got to the point where they just disapprove of your sexuality and pray that you change, that would be vastly preferable to the current state of affairs where gay people routinely get beaten, tortured and killed.
I think its a little unfair to use the term "Routinely" to both Catholics, and for instance Islamic countries where it is actively an illegal act that can get you stoned to death. I'm not saying Catholics are innocent of the occasional death where this is concerned but the gap between one and the other in terms of how often such attacks happen is pretty wide.
Catholics are strongly represented in Africa and South America, right?
Which include places where homosexually is illegal and LGBT folk are in fact routinely victims of violence.
Also, Russia with the Eastern Orthodox Church? They are... Catholic-ish or something, though... less popey?
You seem to be assuming Catholics only exist in North America and Eastern European where violence against gays has been less commonplace for a good 15 years. I don't think this is the whole picture.
The various Orthodox churches have been officially split off from any kind of Roman authority since 1054. Whereas the Western/Roman Catholic church has a very hierarchical structure with centralized power in Rome and a single Pope, Orthodox churches (of which there are many many many, although they are technically all part of the "Orthodox Church") are autonomous and organized along national and ethnic lines. Those churches have their hierarchical systems of organization, often headed up by a patriarch, but those delineations of authority do not transfer across divides between the various Orthodox churches, even if beliefs between the two groups are quite similar. So, the Ethiopian orthodox patriarch has no say over what Egyptian Coptic Orthodox religious matters, or what goes on in the Russian orthodox church, or Armenian, etc. etc. etc.
It helps to remember that "Catholic" means "universal", whereas "Orthodox" means "having correct belief". Historically, Catholic theologians have thought the Pope had universal jurisdiction over Christianity, which Orthodox Christians thought was an incorrect belief.
The Orthodox system of organization is actually fairly similar to how things were set up in the first millennium of Christian history, when bishops in various cities and regions were more or less autonomous from each other, and could often have very different views on how the church was to be run, or even exactly what it was that "Christians" in the area were expected to believe. The Bishop of Rome began to be a powerful figure in Christian thought relatively early on, but that was simply because he was in Rome, and thus connected to the wealthiest, most powerful, and most influential Christians in the Empire (as well as having the considerable logistical, intellectual, and - eventually - political advantages of working in the Empire's capital). Interestingly, prior to at least Constantine, the most influential bishops were associated with the eastern Mediterranean, instead of Rome, since that was where a lot of the apostles and their immediate followers ended up. The earliest "capital" of Christianity actually wasn't Rome, it was Antioch, in what is today Syria.
The Roman Catholic Pope has zilch to do with anything outside the Catholic church, though. His word is about as binding for Orthodox Christians as Rick Warren's or Joel Osteen's, and Orthodox Christians are no more interested in the workings of the papacy or Catholic hierarchy than Baptists are.
If Catholics and other religions got to the point where they just disapprove of your sexuality and pray that you change, that would be vastly preferable to the current state of affairs where gay people routinely get beaten, tortured and killed.
I think its a little unfair to use the term "Routinely" to both Catholics, and for instance Islamic countries where it is actively an illegal act that can get you stoned to death. I'm not saying Catholics are innocent of the occasional death where this is concerned but the gap between one and the other in terms of how often such attacks happen is pretty wide.
Catholics are strongly represented in Africa and South America, right?
Which include places where homosexually is illegal and LGBT folk are in fact routinely victims of violence.
The most famous cases of this kind of thing in Africa (like Uganda) are mostly protestant run afaik. But yeah, there's plenty of catholics down there and I'm sure plenty of less famous examples of the same kind of discrimination.
Speaking to reporters on his plane returning from Armenia, the Pope said: "I will repeat what the catechism of the Church says, that they [homosexuals] should not be discriminated against, that they should be respected, accompanied pastorally."
Pope Francis said the Church should seek forgiveness from those whom it had marginalised.
"I think that the Church not only should apologise... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by [being forced to] work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons."
How is this any different from the typical "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach?
If he comes out and says "we were wrong, homosexuality isn't a sin after all" then I'll be surprised.
Yeah, they still have a religion that teaches that all sexy times are for child creation. A straight guy who climaxes from just a BJ is still committing a sin, even if it's his wife that makes it happen.
A commonly held view, that isn't actually true. Sex inside of marriage is for both procreation and strengthening the marital relationship. That said, relations within marriage should still leave the possibility of reproduction open. (AIUI, I am not Catholic anymore.)
I had looked around a bit before my initial post and the most liberal statement of the Catholic attitude said that non-procreative acts were acceptable as foreplay or directed at the woman as a kind of wrap up thing provided the main event was a P in V affair. I couldn't find anywhere that stated non-procreative sex was permissible to the Church.
Remember, this is the same organization that still views all forms of birth control, including condoms, as sinful.
I'd be interested in any information you can provide to the contrary.
I mean I was confirmed and I can say there was definitely explicit approval of non procreation sex within marriage.
E: also most of the birth control arguments were basically "it causes the death of a fertilized egg" or something. I can't recall what they said about condoms.
I have the vague notion some of this changed in like the 80's or 90's but the condom thing is still dogma. Like it was a big deal awhile ago when Francis seemed to indicate maybe they should rethink that for Africa with it's AIDS epidemic. You may be experiencing that thing where what American Catholics actually do and what Church dogma says they should do are different. Or all my web searches may be finding crazy old folks who are ignoring a big shift in church dogma.
You may just be confusing the chruch's views on how sex is performed morally with the idea that sex is only for procreation.
Catholic teaching is, essentially, that sex is like an awesome gift God has given us to be had between a husband and a wife. But also that sex, to be moral, should be performed in a way that links it back to that idea that sex is inherently procreative, among a few other things. But that doesn't mean sex is only for procreation, just that it should always involve the idea that procreation is a part of what the act is about.
Basically as long as you married, fuck all you want so long as you fuck like you could be getting pregnant. Even if that's not even possible anymore.
Modern dogma is symbolism reined, but not influenced, by practicality
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Minor nitpick to that post about Christian History: Antioch is now in Turkey, not Syria. Historically it was part of Syria, but enough Turks moved there during Ottoman times that Turkey had a case for claiming it in 1939.
Minor nitpick to that post about Christian History: Antioch is now in Turkey, not Syria. Historically it was part of Syria, but enough Turks moved there during Ottoman times that Turkey had a case for claiming it in 1939.
Oops. Mea culpa. I was conflating with the Roman province of Syria. I suppose the borders have changed a bit in the intervening 1900 years.
+2
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Speaking to reporters on his plane returning from Armenia, the Pope said: "I will repeat what the catechism of the Church says, that they [homosexuals] should not be discriminated against, that they should be respected, accompanied pastorally."
Pope Francis said the Church should seek forgiveness from those whom it had marginalised.
"I think that the Church not only should apologise... to a gay person whom it offended but it must also apologise to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by [being forced to] work. It must apologise for having blessed so many weapons."
How is this any different from the typical "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach?
If he comes out and says "we were wrong, homosexuality isn't a sin after all" then I'll be surprised.
Yeah, they still have a religion that teaches that all sexy times are for child creation. A straight guy who climaxes from just a BJ is still committing a sin, even if it's his wife that makes it happen.
A commonly held view, that isn't actually true. Sex inside of marriage is for both procreation and strengthening the marital relationship. That said, relations within marriage should still leave the possibility of reproduction open. (AIUI, I am not Catholic anymore.)
I had looked around a bit before my initial post and the most liberal statement of the Catholic attitude said that non-procreative acts were acceptable as foreplay or directed at the woman as a kind of wrap up thing provided the main event was a P in V affair. I couldn't find anywhere that stated non-procreative sex was permissible to the Church.
Remember, this is the same organization that still views all forms of birth control, including condoms, as sinful.
I'd be interested in any information you can provide to the contrary.
I mean I was confirmed and I can say there was definitely explicit approval of non procreation sex within marriage.
E: also most of the birth control arguments were basically "it causes the death of a fertilized egg" or something. I can't recall what they said about condoms.
I have the vague notion some of this changed in like the 80's or 90's but the condom thing is still dogma. Like it was a big deal awhile ago when Francis seemed to indicate maybe they should rethink that for Africa with it's AIDS epidemic. You may be experiencing that thing where what American Catholics actually do and what Church dogma says they should do are different. Or all my web searches may be finding crazy old folks who are ignoring a big shift in church dogma.
You may just be confusing the chruch's views on how sex is performed morally with the idea that sex is only for procreation.
Catholic teaching is, essentially, that sex is like an awesome gift God has given us to be had between a husband and a wife. But also that sex, to be moral, should be performed in a way that links it back to that idea that sex is inherently procreative, among a few other things. But that doesn't mean sex is only for procreation, just that it should always involve the idea that procreation is a part of what the act is about.
Basically as long as you married, fuck all you want so long as you fuck like you could be getting pregnant. Even if that's not even possible anymore.
As someone who went through a catholic education many decades ago, this even then was more or less the message.
Contraception bad, wait until marriage, don't deny the possibility of new life to come in this world... but if you want to do other fun sexy stuff outside of P2V with your spouse go for it, you are married.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
If Catholics and other religions got to the point where they just disapprove of your sexuality and pray that you change, that would be vastly preferable to the current state of affairs where gay people routinely get beaten, tortured and killed.
I think its a little unfair to use the term "Routinely" to both Catholics, and for instance Islamic countries where it is actively an illegal act that can get you stoned to death. I'm not saying Catholics are innocent of the occasional death where this is concerned but the gap between one and the other in terms of how often such attacks happen is pretty wide.
Catholics are strongly represented in Africa and South America, right?
Which include places where homosexually is illegal and LGBT folk are in fact routinely victims of violence.
The most famous cases of this kind of thing in Africa (like Uganda) are mostly protestant run afaik. But yeah, there's plenty of catholics down there and I'm sure plenty of less famous examples of the same kind of discrimination.
Yeah on the legal end of it anyway, the laws are written and pushed by American Evangelicals.
The general on-the-ground homophobia comes from all fronts, though I'm fairly sure that would not go away even if religion didn't exist.
Posts
just how old school is that guy?
Pope Francis says Church should apologise to gays
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This is a common perception/interpretation, but I'm not really sure it's accurate. Postmodernism lol, you can read the Pauline letters however you want, but there's a few things to keep in mind.
1) As mentioned earlier in this thread, many of "Paul's" more problematic statements (from a modern standpoint) come from the Pastoral letters (1st Timothy, 2nd Timothy, Titus). That's where you get into statements about women not holding any roles of real authority in the church, really restrictive rules for the church offices that were open to women (such as "widows"), etc. But, again, Paul himself likely didn't write those letters; they were most likely written by proto-orthodox bishops and church officials in the 2nd century as a means of reinforcing their own authority using Paul's name for apostolic weight. During Paul's own time, it seems as though women were actually quite prominent in the church, including/especially churches that Paul himself was involved with. He refers to women in positions of authority (as deacons and apostles) without comment, as though that were simply something normal in the churches associated with him. We don't know exactly what early Pauline churches looked like, but it appears that women were quite involved in those church "services", some of them possibly in an ecstatic/prophetic capacity as well as being missionaries. It also seems very likely that (wealthy) women were sponsors of early house churches, including Paul's. This was a very common setup for new religious movements in the Greco-Roman world, such as the mystery cults. Men held all the power in the public sphere, but women could actually wield considerable power in the domestic sphere, which included the sponsoring of local philosophers, scholars, educators, artists, and - yes - strange wandering religious teachers. The NT makes reference to a few women who seem to be likely candidates for such a position, including Lydia and Chloe.
2) Paul is often thought of as a bigot, at least recently, for his distaste for homosexuality. There are a couple of things to keep in mind here, though:
2a) First of all, on the only issue in which bigotry would seem to have been contemporarily relevant - antipathy between Jews/Iudaioi and Gentiles - Paul passes with flying colors. There's just no way around it. The guy was a Pharisee, a highly educated religious scholar (and that he was in fact highly educated and highly religious is backed up by his rhetorical skills and knowledge of the tanakh - your average joe did not have access to that kind of education in the early 1st century). The Pharisees were particularly obsessed with ritual purity and adherence to the mitzvah, neither of which Gentiles had/did. But, for whatever reason, the guy made it his life's mission to live among people without this background and bring them into the fold of a new religious movement that was, prior to him (although certainly not solely because of him), almost exclusively Jewish, to the point it was extremely controversial (among no lesser members of the church than Peter himself) whether or not Gentiles could even be part of the church at all. Prior to Paul, the typical answer was that they had to convert to Judaism (get circumcised, the whole lot).
We don't really know why Paul was so obsessed with missionizing Gentiles specifically. It seems strange, given that he probably spent most of his working life prior to his conversion as an interpreter of Jewish law. But it seems unlikely he just did it as a "fleece-the-rubes" strategy, given the amount of flack he took from it within the church itself, as well as the fact that, everywhere he went, people were coming in behind him telling his congregations they had to keep the Jewish law and - crucially - it seems his flock was actually very receptive to this message. Paul spent most of his career putting out that particular fire when it seems like it would have been a lot easier just to roll with it. Judging by his writings, it doesn't seem like he did too much "fleecing" anyway; despite being educated and presumably from a well-off background, he spent much of his time doing manual labor and seems to have taken a great deal of pride in not living off the wages of his congregations.
Also keep in mind that Paul's career coincided with the lead-up to the first Great Jewish Revolt (when the Temple gets destroyed, and all that). Relations between Jews and Gentiles in the Mediterranean were at an all-time low. It wasn't as bad in Greece and Asia, where Paul typically worked, as it was in Judaea/Palestine, but it was still pretty bad. But Paul spent his life crossing that particular boundary.
2b) W/r/t homosexuality: One thing to keep in mind when considering Paul's views on homosexuality is exactly what "homosexuality" consisted of at the time. The category of a "homosexual", as a permanent identity, did not exist at the time in Jewish, Greek, or Roman conceptions, and homosexual behavior had a very different manifestation in antiquity than it does today. We are emphatically not talking about two consenting adults in a dating/marriage relationship, or even pre-1980s bathhouse decadence. It's a common trope that the Greeks and Romans were basically enlightened post-Sexual-Revolution western liberals before the Christians showed up and made everyone feel guilty about their naughty bits, but that really was not the case.
Most forms of Greco-Roman homosexuality contemporary with Paul involved relationships that, by today's standards, would be considered morally abhorrent for a variety of reasons. Same-sex relationships between Greek and Roman males were marked by extreme differences in age, power, or both. Usually what we are dealing with here is relationships between older men ("older", here, being above the age of ephebe, ie no less than mid-20s-ish but possibly much older) and young teenagers/"youths" (starting at 14ish, not quite old enough for military service, and going up to ~20). These power and age differentials were, in the minds of Greeks and Romans, a feature, not a bug.
Ancient Mediterranean sex was explicitly, and invariably, penetrative, based around the idea of a more powerful partner who penetrates and a less powerful partner who is penetrated. The sex act was, thus, an enactment and reinforcement of social status. This "penetration" was not always literal. Anal sex, especially when the subordinate partner was free instead of a slave, was actually less common in these relationships than other forms of sex; although it certainly went on, most references to it I've seen in Greek texts are in scatological or comedic contexts, referencing it as a laughable habit of the slovenly or hopelessly debauched, although the Romans may have been different (I haven't read enough Latin to give you an educated opinion there). The idea of a free, adult male being placed - much less placing himself - in a position (literal or otherwise) to be penetrated was considered perverse, unmasculine, and morally/socially abhorrent. Greeks and Romans had lots of nasty words to refer to men like this. Slaves, of course, were considered free game for penetration (especially by their owners) well into adulthood. "Consent" is not a word that is in anyone's vocabulary, obviously.
So our models for ancient homosexuality involve no consent, vast power differences, or slavery. Now, to be fair, a lot of "heterosexual" sex in the era had these exact same problems, but there, marriage, the only sexual option Paul sees as valid, made the situation a bit muddier (although consent as such was not a consideration of ancient marriage, either).
In light of all this I have a hard time holding Paul's position on ancient Greco-Roman homosexuality against him overmuch. It's also worth noting that homosexuality itself is not something he dwells on extensively (as mentioned above, he was MUCH more concerned with people telling Gentiles they have to follow Jewish religious laws), and the only person I can remember him specifically calling out in his letters over sexual behavior was some dude in Corinth who was apparently having sex with his stepmom*, something the whole neighborhood was said to be gossiping about.
EDIT: For further reference on ancient Mediterranean sexuality I would recommend Dover's seminal (sorry) text. It focuses more specifically on classical Athenian-ish aristocratic behaviors but that general model held up broadly over time and, to a lesser degree, in Roman society as well. This setup is considered more or less reflexively accurate among almost every classicist and historian I've met.
3) None of this is to say that Paul was a "nice guy" or whatever. He got a lot of flack even in his own day and many of his relationships with his congregations were contentious and fraught with struggle**, and many of his fellow Christians didn't know what to make of him and his obsessions. But I think a lot of modern views on Paul are fairly un-nuanced and based on a strawman image of him that is not well-supported in the Biblical texts or grounded in an understanding of the historical setting and cultural context in which he operated.
*This may have been a lot less creepy than it sounds. Male widowers were expected to remarry well into senescence, and it's not like they were going to marry somebody their own age. So what we could be dealing with here is someone who was having an affair with his late father's much younger bride. Probably. Hopefully.
**This is one reason I've never bought the whole "Paul was a charismatic cult leader who brainwashed his followers and was one step away from doling out Kool-Aid" angle. No new religious movement treats their charismatic demagogue founders as badly or as lightly as some of Paul's congregations (especially Corinth) apparently treated him at times.
EDIT:
Postscript: If you're wondering, since I referred exclusively to male homosexuality, what the situation was re: "lesbians", the short answer is we don't really know. There's very little about it in the historical record. In traditional Jewish thought two women literally could not have sex no matter what, since "sex", by definition, involved a penis. There's almost nothing in the Greek and Latin corpus, other than some debatable readings of Sappho. If I know Romans, the answer by Roman men probably would have been "as long as I can watch (and you keep having babies)".
How is this any different from the typical "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach?
If he comes out and says "we were wrong, homosexuality isn't a sin after all" then I'll be surprised.
Yeah, they still have a religion that teaches that all sexy times are for child creation. A straight guy who climaxes from just a BJ is still committing a sin, even if it's his wife that makes it happen.
Getting them to focus on the act they object to them dehumanizing the people doing the act is a positive step.
It isn't. It's him saying "Despite the fact that we should be hating the sin, we've been hating the sinner alot. We should stop that and apologise for doing so."
so does this mean they'll get back to praying the gay away?
that doesn't sound much better
No? That's not even a Catholic thing afaik. But it's irrelevant to the point anyway so I'm not sure why you bring it up other then to snark.
Seminal work, tee hee.
Seriously, fantastic post. Thank you.
As regards female relationships, mostly society couldn't care less unless (as in Sapphos case) s⎌he took the active (usually exclusively the older, more powerful male) role which was shocking in a women. This manifested most obviously in her poems about men, and later biographical works, as she is often depicted as chasing the younger male (the 'masculine' role) and that was a big no-no for a women in the eyes of both Greek and Roman writers and thinkers, far more so than her love for women.
A commonly held view, that isn't actually true. Sex inside of marriage is for both procreation and strengthening the marital relationship. That said, relations within marriage should still leave the possibility of reproduction open. (AIUI, I am not Catholic anymore.)
I had looked around a bit before my initial post and the most liberal statement of the Catholic attitude said that non-procreative acts were acceptable as foreplay or directed at the woman as a kind of wrap up thing provided the main event was a P in V affair. I couldn't find anywhere that stated non-procreative sex was permissible to the Church.
Remember, this is the same organization that still views all forms of birth control, including condoms, as sinful.
I'd be interested in any information you can provide to the contrary.
I think its a little unfair to use the term "Routinely" to both Catholics, and for instance Islamic countries where it is actively an illegal act that can get you stoned to death. I'm not saying Catholics are innocent of the occasional death where this is concerned but the gap between one and the other in terms of how often such attacks happen is pretty wide.
because I was curious.
Catholics are strongly represented in Africa and South America, right?
Which include places where homosexually is illegal and LGBT folk are in fact routinely victims of violence.
Also, Russia with the Eastern Orthodox Church? They are... Catholic-ish or something, though... less popey?
You seem to be assuming Catholics only exist in North America and Eastern European where violence against gays has been less commonplace for a good 15 years. I don't think this is the whole picture.
The Africa/South American thing is pretty spot on. Africa has a fair amount of Protestants as well but yeah.
I mean I was confirmed and I can say there was definitely explicit approval of non procreation sex within marriage.
E: also most of the birth control arguments were basically "it causes the death of a fertilized egg" or something. I can't recall what they said about condoms.
I have the vague notion some of this changed in like the 80's or 90's but the condom thing is still dogma. Like it was a big deal awhile ago when Francis seemed to indicate maybe they should rethink that for Africa with it's AIDS epidemic. You may be experiencing that thing where what American Catholics actually do and what Church dogma says they should do are different. Or all my web searches may be finding crazy old folks who are ignoring a big shift in church dogma.
You write the question in a "have you stopped beating your wife?" fashion, so it's hard to read it with anything but negative intent.
The various Orthodox churches have been officially split off from any kind of Roman authority since 1054. Whereas the Western/Roman Catholic church has a very hierarchical structure with centralized power in Rome and a single Pope, Orthodox churches (of which there are many many many, although they are technically all part of the "Orthodox Church") are autonomous and organized along national and ethnic lines. Those churches have their hierarchical systems of organization, often headed up by a patriarch, but those delineations of authority do not transfer across divides between the various Orthodox churches, even if beliefs between the two groups are quite similar. So, the Ethiopian orthodox patriarch has no say over what Egyptian Coptic Orthodox religious matters, or what goes on in the Russian orthodox church, or Armenian, etc. etc. etc.
It helps to remember that "Catholic" means "universal", whereas "Orthodox" means "having correct belief". Historically, Catholic theologians have thought the Pope had universal jurisdiction over Christianity, which Orthodox Christians thought was an incorrect belief.
The Orthodox system of organization is actually fairly similar to how things were set up in the first millennium of Christian history, when bishops in various cities and regions were more or less autonomous from each other, and could often have very different views on how the church was to be run, or even exactly what it was that "Christians" in the area were expected to believe. The Bishop of Rome began to be a powerful figure in Christian thought relatively early on, but that was simply because he was in Rome, and thus connected to the wealthiest, most powerful, and most influential Christians in the Empire (as well as having the considerable logistical, intellectual, and - eventually - political advantages of working in the Empire's capital). Interestingly, prior to at least Constantine, the most influential bishops were associated with the eastern Mediterranean, instead of Rome, since that was where a lot of the apostles and their immediate followers ended up. The earliest "capital" of Christianity actually wasn't Rome, it was Antioch, in what is today Syria.
The Roman Catholic Pope has zilch to do with anything outside the Catholic church, though. His word is about as binding for Orthodox Christians as Rick Warren's or Joel Osteen's, and Orthodox Christians are no more interested in the workings of the papacy or Catholic hierarchy than Baptists are.
The most famous cases of this kind of thing in Africa (like Uganda) are mostly protestant run afaik. But yeah, there's plenty of catholics down there and I'm sure plenty of less famous examples of the same kind of discrimination.
You may just be confusing the chruch's views on how sex is performed morally with the idea that sex is only for procreation.
Catholic teaching is, essentially, that sex is like an awesome gift God has given us to be had between a husband and a wife. But also that sex, to be moral, should be performed in a way that links it back to that idea that sex is inherently procreative, among a few other things. But that doesn't mean sex is only for procreation, just that it should always involve the idea that procreation is a part of what the act is about.
Basically as long as you married, fuck all you want so long as you fuck like you could be getting pregnant. Even if that's not even possible anymore.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Oops. Mea culpa. I was conflating with the Roman province of Syria. I suppose the borders have changed a bit in the intervening 1900 years.
As someone who went through a catholic education many decades ago, this even then was more or less the message.
Contraception bad, wait until marriage, don't deny the possibility of new life to come in this world... but if you want to do other fun sexy stuff outside of P2V with your spouse go for it, you are married.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Yeah on the legal end of it anyway, the laws are written and pushed by American Evangelicals.
The general on-the-ground homophobia comes from all fronts, though I'm fairly sure that would not go away even if religion didn't exist.