Vatican: Homosexuals have "profoundly distorted minds"

Church screams into a void

So what are they going to do after they defrock half the priesthood?

But seriously, who the heck pays attention to these clowns? They issue these pronouncements and people do whatever the heck they wanna do with no regard to what the church leadership thinks.

 

I hope no one's shocked at this.

Is there any doubt that the Catholic Church, while posessed of some virtues, has on certain subjects a completely medieval view??

 

Re: Church screams into a void

In a narrow sense, this may be true on an individual level. But both the church and its, let's say, "enemies" are trying to move the definition of normal to their side of the debate. This is an ongoing public battle of the heart of morality and the winner in shifting the norm has real affect on the individual choices of people. Clearly the pro-gay voices care:
----------
Grillini said the Catholic Church was part of the problem.

"It is precisely because of the Catholic Church's homophobia that homosexuals have difficulties. If the Catholic Church would just stop its campaign of hate against gays, a good part of the problems of gays would be resolved," the gay MP said.
----------

 

Name Jean-Luc Godard the Pope and most of the world's problems would be solved.

Hence my avatar.

 

Medieval man:

"Homosexuality is not normal."

Modern man:

"The only thing we cannot tolerate is intolerance."

 

Re: Re: Church screams into a void

Well, being from the most Catholic city in the USA, I can say that the norm here is for people to completely disregard whatever comes from Rome and do what they want to do.

I'm sure some gay Catholics may have problems caused by this and that's a shame. My guess is that most of them just do what the straight Catholics do regarding, say, birth control - ignore Rome entirely.

 

Re: Re: Re: Church screams into a void

New Orleans?

Or, for that matter, the Vatican's position on the current war.

 

This only holds if we think that "gay" and "straight" are immutible categories fixed throughout time. In fact, there's a lot of evidence that people living exclusively gay or exclusively straight lifestyles are products of the last 100 years.

To take the medieval man, I'm pretty sure Sir John Humpsalot thought he was normal when he was getting with his squire, because, you know what, most other knights and people in positions of power took advantage of those under them (so to speak) to get sexual release. It didn't matter whether they were male or female, what mattered was the release and, not to put too fine a point on it, being the insertor rather than the insertee.

Does this matter much with what the Church said today? Not too much, but let's not justify their actions by reference to some imagined past where gay was wrong when such terms as 'gay' and 'straight' wouldn't have made any sense.

 

Who Would Jesus bomb?

Actually, I thought about that after I posted it and I wonder if LA is now the most Catholic city in the US. Whatever, Chicago has a lot of Catholics and the vast majority don't give a crap what the Pope says.

True, although I have seen Catholic clergy and lay groups (no pun intended vis a vis the "birth control" comment) in the anti-war rallies here.

 

Shocked, no. Disappointed, yes.

 

That doesn't look like APPLE pie ...

 

The Church has condemned it from day one. How do you explain that? I can see if in the last 100 years they came out and said something, but they have said it for a long long time.

 

There, that was easy.

 

I would like to see evidence about the Church and their stand against homosexuals. I would be surprised if there is anything much more than 100 years old, because, as far as I know, "homosexual" did not become an operative term in the lexicon until about the turn of the century.

This is, of course, different from homosexual acts and practices, which have been around a long time. And the church may have condemned those acts as sinful. But I highly doubt the Church condemed "homosexuals" as a category of sinners, much less imputed they had "profoundly distorted minds" because a strict division between homosexual and heterosexual did not exist.

 

I'm fine with that. I have no particular interest in mounting a public argument in defense of the Roman Catholic Church or any church, even my own, on this topic.

 

Sure he did. Just ask the Catholic Church.

 

They tried to go the "paperless office" route until about 95AD or so although Saul of Tarsus was renowned for his memo writing skills.

 

As a Catholic, I'm disturbed by some of what comes from the Holy See, this being one instance. I think you'll find that a lot of "Western" Catholics feel the same way, as joepak has not-so-subtly noted.

I respect the Pope for his leadership over the past 20-plus years, but I do admit that he's stuck too far in the past for the good of the Church's moving forward. I have a sneaking suspicion that the next Pope will be far more "forward-looking" than JP2 and the Catholic Church will be better off for it.

 

Must be buried away in the archives, along with the Nazi gold receipts.

 

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

"This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition,"

In other words, homophobia is not officially sanctioned by the Catholic church, either.

 

I don't think so. The notion of people (as opposed to sexual acts) being gay or straight is fairly recent, historically speaking.