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]

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.