Annoyed and pissed off, so ranty. Don't expect 'fair.'

[demiurgent]

One of the things I hear from Christian friends -- meant entirely seriously, and I do not deride them for this -- is "hey, [x] doesn't speak for me. That kind of prejudiced garbage has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ." This is particularly something I hear from folks about the organized and intentional persecution of homosexuals.

(And yes, when the Mormon church, as an example, rallies to get something like Prop 8 passed, overwhelmingly from a different state, that there's organized persecution, and one day it will be written about in the same sympathetic tones we write about Jim Crow laws and whipping slaves. But this is not about Mormans at the moment.)

I'm generally willing to accept that. I really am. I know Fred Phelps doesn't speak for anyone but his own deranged cult made up of family members. I know that fewer and fewer evangelical Christians are willing to accept what their 'leaders' declaim in their name.

Yeah, that won't fly this time. Not for Roman Catholics. Because the Pope does speak for them. The Pope by definition speaks for them. So when the Pope uses his End of the Year Christmas Message, celebrating the birth of savior of Mankind (in their view), a time that we have been told unceasingly is a time of love, of peace, of joy, of brotherhood, of hope and of compassion, to directly attack homosexuals and transsexuals, comparing their existence to ecological disaster? He's speaking for the Catholics.

If you're a Catholic? He's speaking for you. He's speaking for you. And repudiation of that message of hate will take more than just disavowing him. You can't disavow the Pope and still take Communion next week. It doesn't work like that.

If you're a believer, and if you're a Catholic, then -- and I mean this sincerely, without irony -- God help you. Good luck with all this, because you're going to need it.

Comments

[elvedril.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen the actual wording of the speech (the Vatican site has it only in German and Italian, neither of which I have seen). However, none of the major news stories I've read (including the BBC one you linked) made the speech sound like it did "directly attack homosexuals and transsexuals, comparing their existence to ecological disaster". Rather, the pope, according to these reports, seems to be saying that, just like ignoring the environment can lead to the destruction of the planet, ignoring the basic truth about man (including that there are two sexes and that these sexes are complementary and can come together to create children) can lead to the destruction of humanity.

This is hardly news to anybody who has followed Catholic dogma in the last 2000 years or so. And in fact the pope is speaking for me when he says it. I too think that there are men and women, that they're different but with equal dignity, and that vague talk about "30 possible genders" and other such nonsense is obscuring the real state of things. This position is based on some philosophical concepts which have a long and stories history and I do not it this makes me a bigot.

I'm not expecting you to agree with the pope's view. You're coming from a very different philosophical viewpoint, and while I think the philosophical basis for that viewpoint is mistaken it's still yours. I would however appreciate it if you didn't link to a story saying one thing with link-text saying something completely different. It's unfair, it's inaccurate, it closes down debate, and it diminishes all of us.

Nowhere do you back up your claim of direct attack or comparison of gays/transgenders to ecological disaster. I argue that you don't do this because the facts don't allow you to. Don't be blinded by your anger, read the text. Authorial intent might be dead, but you still have to stick by the literal reading of the text, and I don't think you've done so in this case.

[elvedril.livejournal.com]

the Vatican site has it only in German and Italian, neither of which I have seen

That should say "neither of which I can speak". I apologize for the error.

[ardaniel]

The existence of intersexuals-- and I'm speaking solely of the biology, not of gender identity-- would seem to refute any sweeping claims about the basic nature and function of human genitalia.

[elvedril.livejournal.com]

I'm actually not sure how that follows. Intersex, to the best of my knowledge, is generally considered a rare exception to the norm of the human condition. There are similar exceptions in the case of chromosome sexual division (XXY and so on rather than just XX and XY). I don't think that the exceptions disprove the rule in this case.

In any event, my reply was more of a statement saying that the post was a bit unfair in characterising the pope's words than an attempt to prove or disprove binary sex in humans. I'm not saying you have to believe there are only two genders that come from only two sexes. I'm saying that saying that this is the case is hardly the same as "directly attacking" any group of people.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

I'm actually not sure how that follows. Intersex, to the best of my knowledge, is generally considered a rare exception to the norm of the human condition. There are similar exceptions in the case of chromosome sexual division (XXY and so on rather than just XX and XY). I don't think that the exceptions disprove the rule in this case.

I'm not sure how they fail to disprove the rule. If all of Creation is in God's Image and by God's Will, then the intersexed and chromosome sexual division deviations must demonstrate that the binary state of man/woman is not, in fact, God's Image or God's Will. We're not discussing statistical norms here, we're discussing God the Almighty. For the world to be simple and black and white in this regard, there must be no exceptions. If there are exceptions, then things are more complicated than otherwise claimed.

[elvedril.livejournal.com]

What you said would make total sense except that this is a fallen world. That includes nature not matching up to the ideal, and having small errors and exceptions such as chromosonal misdivisions leading to exceptions to many general rules.

[gwalla.livejournal.com]

I thought mankind was fallen, not the whole world.

[elvedril.livejournal.com]

Catholic theology holds that the fall of man affected the world, which is why the second coming will include a creation of a new heaven and a new earth.

[point5b.livejournal.com]

I don't subscribe to any of those religions, but I can't think of any branch of Jewish, Christian, or Muslim theology that holds the belief that mankind or the world is a perfect expression of God's will. That would seem to be a strawman.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Since faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian Creed, the Church cannot and should not limit itself to transmitting to its faithful only the message of salvation. She has a responsibility for Creation, and it should validate this responsibility in public.

In so doing, it should defend not just the earth, water and air as gifts of Creation that belong to everyone. She should also protect man from destroying himself.

It is necessary to have something like an ecology of man, understood in the right sense. It is not metaphysics that has been overcome by time, when the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and asks that this natural order be respected.

This has to do with faith in the Creator and listening to the language of creation, which, if disregarded, would be man's self-destruction and therefore a destruction of God's work itself.

That which has come to be expressed and understood with the term 'gender' effectively results in man's self-emancipation from Creation (nature) and from the Creator. Man wants to do everything by himself and to decide always and exclusively about anything that concerns him personally. But this is to live against truth, to live against the Spirit Creator.

The tropical rain forests deserve our protection, yes, but man does not deserve it less as a Creature of the Spirit himself, in whom is inscribed a message that does not mean a contradiction of human freedom but its condition.

The great theologians of Scholasticism described matrimony - which is the lifelong bond between a man and a woman - as a sacrament of Creation, that the Creator himself instituted, and that Christ, without changing the message of Creation, welcomed in the story of his alliance with men.

Part of the announcement that the Church should bring to men is a testimonial for the Spirit Creator present in all of nature, but specially in the nature of man, who was created in the image of God.

You see, I have seen the actual wording of the speech.

[elvedril.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the quote. Though I still fail to see the hatered and meanness and attack you're talking about. Are you speaking of the words "the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and asks that this natural order be respected" and "matrimony - which is the lifelong bond between a man and a woman"? That hardly seems like a direct attack to me. It sounds like the pope is laying out a philosophical and theological position, which leads to some a policy position on a controversial issue which is different than your position on that issue. You and the pope disagree on the gay marriage but, while you accuse him of hateful speech, you're the only one calling anybody names.

I'm just saying that what you are doing right now would be the same as if somebody linked to your post here with the link text "Eric Burns attacks Catholic Church, calls for pogroms in American cities" and pretends that this inaccuracy is excused by putting down the fact they're angry and don't need to be fair in the title.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Really?

In so doing, it should defend not just the earth, water and air as gifts of Creation that belong to everyone. She should also protect man from destroying himself.

The Church has a responsibility to both protect the World and keep humanity from destroying himself.

It is necessary to have something like an ecology of man, understood in the right sense. It is not metaphysics that has been overcome by time, when the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and asks that this natural order be respected.

This has to do with faith in the Creator and listening to the language of creation, which, if disregarded, would be man's self-destruction and therefore a destruction of God's work itself.

There is a specific plan and design. Men are men. Women are women. Men should follow the natural order and act according to male nature, women according to female nature. Failure to do so invites self-destruction and the destruction of God's Creation.

That which has come to be expressed and understood with the term 'gender' effectively results in man's self-emancipation from Creation (nature) and from the Creator. Man wants to do everything by himself and to decide always and exclusively about anything that concerns him personally. But this is to live against truth, to live against the Spirit Creator.

In the modern world, there are those who discuss gender identity and gender politics, wanting to liberate themselves from what God has intended and instead claim the freedom to express their gender identity and gender preference alike by their own terms. This goes against God and his Works.

The tropical rain forests deserve our protection, yes, but man does not deserve it less as a Creature of the Spirit himself, in whom is inscribed a message that does not mean a contradiction of human freedom but its condition.

Even as we acknowledge the dangers of environmental destruction, we must also acknowledge the dangers of spiritual environmental destruction. We must acknowledge that the world and creation are endangered by the immoral choices that those who would confuse gender and God's intent are making in the name of a freedom they do not actually possess.

The great theologians of Scholasticism described matrimony - which is the lifelong bond between a man and a woman - as a sacrament of Creation, that the Creator himself instituted, and that Christ, without changing the message of Creation, welcomed in the story of his alliance with men.

God gave us marriage. There is no marriage without God. And God defined it as being between a man and a woman. Christ affirmed that. And that's all there is to say.

Part of the announcement that the Church should bring to men is a testimonial for the Spirit Creator present in all of nature, but specially in the nature of man, who was created in the image of God.

We are created in the image of God, with an intent on God's part enbodied in that creation. To change that image or pervert that intent is to desecrate God's work and a failure to affirm what God has done.

(Analysis to follow. I'm working against LJ's charater limit.)

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

(Analysis of the previous.)

It would be very convenient if hate and bigotry were always announced as hate and bigotry. It would be nice if those who spread anger and persecution would be good enough to be ugly when they do it.

But they don't.

The attack you didn't see is clearly there. The conflation of the destruction of the environment and the destruction sown by homosexuality and gender reassignment or identity shift is clearly there. The stark warning that these things deny God and God's creation and that way lies destruction of the self and ultimately the world are clearly there. The Pope is explicating a doctrine that comes down to "homosexuality and gender reassignment is immoral, God creates all marriage, and God doesn't create it for single sex couples."

And you're saying you don't see the hatefulness, the meanness and the attack? And you're saying that the Pope and I have a 'disagreement on the gay marriage?'

I submit that a gay man who wants to marry the man he loves with all his heart would see the hatefulness. I submit that the lesbian widow who watched her wife die and now can't get custody of their child because the courts won't recognize parental rights would see the meanness. I submit that the woman who has wrestled her entire life with gender identity, with feeling alien in her own skin, and who finally took the step to make her male exterior resemble what she feels inside would see the attack.

I didn't call for a pogrom in American cities. The Pope did meanly and hatefully attack homosexuals and transsexuals. That's the difference. And you'll forgive me, I hope, but I no longer see 'gay marriage' as a controversial issue. I see it for what it is -- the systemic and organized dehumanization of the different. The denial -- or in the case of Prop 8 the revocation of the basic rights of others in matters that could not matter less to the people doing the revoking. They don't like homosexuality. It seems ooky to them. And rather than growing up and getting over it and realizing that what two people do in their own house doesn't matter a tinker's damn to them, they organize and they legislate and they set agendas and policies and they claim that it's God's will.

And when they do it in the name of their religion, there are plenty of people in their religion who say 'look, these small minded bigots are ugly and horrible, but they don't represent me.'

The Pope, when he equates homosexuality with self-destruction, gender issues with the perversion of God's will, and the complete incapacity for homosexuals to marry, does represent the Catholic Church.

Beyond that, I don't know what we can say on this subject. If you can honestly read those passages and think they're just a reasonable and sober assessment of doctrinal points without devastating impact on the lives and very identity of the people he's talking about, then nothing I write will convince you otherwise.

[elvedril.livejournal.com]

I guess there's no point of continuing the discussion really. You won't convince me that marrying a person of the same sex is a basic human right that comes from a transcendent, but not divine source. I am apparently unable to convince you that it's possible to disagree on this issue without being a hate-filled bigot.

As an aside, your position reminds me more of those people that denounced anyone who refused to support the invasion of Iraq as unpatriotic. You're denouncing the opposition ad hominem while not feeling the need to explain the grounds of your position since it is obvious and only bigots would disagree.

All that's left to say, and I mean this sincerely, without irony -- God help us both.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

The one thing I will say in response to this is this:

You won't convince me that marrying a person of the same sex is a basic human right that comes from a transcendent, but not divine source.

The core difference between our positions, it seems to me, is that you see rights as deriving and devolving from the divine, whereas I see them as innate. I think, more than anything else, that what two people who aren't me do with each other, when it makes them happy and they both consent, is none of my fucking business. And I think that if I am given certain rights and privileges when I enter into a romantic, intimate and personal partnership with the person I love, then those folks deserve the same rights and privileges that I get, even if my love is a woman and they're both men.

These are peoples' lives we're talking about. This is their very pursuit of happiness. And it doesn't take anything away from you to let them pursue it.

I said it above, and I'll say it here. We are discussing an innately mean concept. It is, to put a direct word to it, cruel. And yeah, I'm saying it's not possible to take the opposite view from mine on this issue without being cruel to people who just want to live their own lives, their own way, without taking a thing away from you.

If the God you venerate requires this, then that God is cruel. If your religious leader puts forth that said God requires this, than that leader is, in fact, cruel. We're not talking about a theory, here. We're talking about millions upon millions of your fellow man.

And that's the thing. My position makes many, many people uncomfortable, because Homosexuality scares them. But my position doesn't invalidate their relationships or take away their rights or make their lives worse in any way. Your position ghettoizes people and leads to pain and despair.

It's hard to agree to disagree in situations like that.

I hope only the best for you. I really do, and I mean it as sincerely as you meant your closing invocation for both of us. But let me leave you with this. Luke 6:30-31 (KJV) reads "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Consider what is being asked of all of us, and consider what we as a society have given and taken away as a result. And consider how you would want others to treat you and your rights in this situation.

Peace.

[elvedril.livejournal.com]

Last reply on this thread, I promise.

I think we both see rights coming from the nature of humanity, though I see them as God-given and you don't. The disagreement, I think, is actually a more deep-seated a philosophical one.

I think you are looking at it from the starting point of the human person. I'm getting this from your phrasing, it's very personal. Things are "cruel" and you place the main motivation of people down to what makes people comfortable or happy.

The Church's understanding of the world, on the other hand, is mitigated realism. This starts from outside the person, in the reality of things. Everything has a purpose, it strives fulfil its nature. A tree is fulfilled by growing and maturing, a person is fulfilled by growing in virtue. These, for the Church, are not personal opinions, they're real truths.

The Church isn't against homosexual marriage because she is scared of homosexuals, rather she's against it for the same reason that she's against premarital sex. She holds that human sexuality is a good given for a particular purpose (growth of mutual love in spouses and the procreation of children). The Church isn't trying to legally ban the use of that gift in other ways, but she is obliged to remind the faithful that certain actions go against a person's calling in life. Furthermore she is called to speak truth on issues and hope to convince the majority.

The pope does not speak on things based on his personal feelings, he speaks based on a scholarly understanding of the truth developed by the Church over centuries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He can no more come out in favor of gay marriage than a chemist can come out and declare that carbon monoxide should stop killing people because that would be nicer.

That's where the analogy of the rain forest actually works. Some people might think it's cruel to prevent a poor farmer from burning some forest to have land to feed his family. But it's not being done because somebody doesn't like farmers, it's done because we hold the forest as worth protecting. Same for the Church, she doesn't fear homosexuals, she just holds a definition of marriage as genuinely true, and therefore worth protecting.

I don't expect you to agree with any of this. I think you have reached your position in good faith and are committed to it since you believe it right. Nor do I expect you to not get angry when you think others are doing wrong, that's a human reaction. I am merely trying to suggest that the whole thing isn't a clear division between common decency and evil gay-bashers. There are good intentioned people on both sides, following to the conclusions based on different premises.

Peace to you as well.