Not surprisingly, loyal Catholic pundits have rushed to the defense of Pope Francis's recent comments on homosexuality, assuring us that they don't represent a change in Vatican policy. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that that's the case. It's business as usual. Is that better or worse? His conciliatory comments mean Francis has learned absolutely nothing about the priestly abuse scandal that's done so much to tarnish his denomination.
And that's not surprising. He belongs to the same generation as all the other bishops who were complicit in the scandal. So his outlook naturally reflects the status quo ante of his colleagues. People are often defined by the views they formed in their teens and twenties–or even childhood. They don't generally revolutionize their outlook after they come of age.
Assuming the papacy is even capable of reforming the priesthood in reference to homosexual scandals, that would take a future pope of the younger generation whose views were shaped post-scandal rather than pre-scandal.
Because a cleric who served in Latin America is no doubt considerably tainted by the mentality of Western abuses? Quite an assumption. I suppose we also can't trust any protestant lay preachers who were growing up/active during the era of televangelists.
ReplyDeleteIt's business as usual. Is that better or worse?
Better, frankly. Because Francis just managed to do something you should wish you and your compatriots were capable of doing - getting orthodox Christian teaching on the topic of homosexuality reported in a more accurate and positive way by the mainstream media. Because, as has been made abundantly clear, the methods you supported have been a disaster.
Which is why now is as good a time as any to suggest you finally get around to removing Exodus International from your sidebar. And maybe do a post confessing that, as far as that bit of evangelical social experiment was concerned, it was a dramatic failure and a misstep.
Crude
Delete"Because a cleric who served in Latin America is no doubt considerably tainted by the mentality of Western abuses? Quite an assumption."
Not my argument. Better luck next time.
"Better, frankly. Because Francis just managed to do something you should wish you and your compatriots were capable of doing - getting orthodox Christian teaching on the topic of homosexuality reported in a more accurate and positive way by the mainstream media."
If you think his statements on homosexuality represent "Christian orthodoxy," then that just goes to show how heterodox Catholic "orthodoxy" is.
"Because, as has been made abundantly clear, the methods you supported have been a disaster."
What methods would those be? We have a president who cheated to get elected and reelected. We have judges who subvert the democratic process, thereby imposing the views of the cultural elite on unwilling masses. Actually, that shows how impotent the liberal establishment is to win by persuasion.
In the meantime, it's not as if modern Catholic countries or states and municipalities dominated by Catholics have been conspicuous for their social virtues. Take Europe, or Massachusetts.
"Which is why now is as good a time as any to suggest you finally get around to removing Exodus International from your sidebar."
The blogroll needs to be undated, no doubt.
"And maybe do a post confessing that, as far as that bit of evangelical social experiment was concerned, it was a dramatic failure and a misstep."
What makes you think Exodus Int. was a social *experiment*, much less a failed experiment or misstep?
Human organizations that start out well can be corrupted over time when the original leaders retire. Exodus Int. may have helped a lot of people for a long time before it went bad. What makes you think it failed *them*?
Human organizations are like appliances. When one wears out, it's time to replace it. In this case, the Restored Hope Network, spearheaded by Bob Gagnon.
Not my argument. Better luck next time.
DeletePretty much was your argument. Well done on abandoning it!
If you think his statements on homosexuality represent "Christian orthodoxy," then that just goes to show how heterodox Catholic "orthodoxy" is.
His statements on homosexuality is that homosexual desires are intrinsically disordered, and the acts are sinful. But sinners are nevertheless welcome to be Christian, particularly repentant ones.
Are you a sinner, Steve?
Actually, that shows how impotent the liberal establishment is to win by persuasion.
Do I really have to quote the poll numbers illustrating the complete, within a decade, collapse of support for conservative social values on the gay topic?
I agree that the liberal establishment resorts to underhanded tactics. The problem is they also do this *in order to persuade people*. Conservatives, meanwhile - particularly at the blog level - see the solution to every problem as 'be even more belligerent, keep doing the same things'.
It's not working.
In the meantime, it's not as if modern Catholic countries or states and municipalities dominated by Catholics have been conspicuous for their social virtues. Take Europe, or Massachusetts.
'Europe'? Because the birthplace of Protestantism is now the land of the Catholics? How about the UK, with the Anglicans? Or the nordic Lutheran countries? I suppose that's where social conservative values thrive, yes?
Nor did I say the Catholic Church's track record on this has been spectacular - I'm talking about Francis specifically. He's actually getting through to people, while not ceding a shred of orthodoxy. Which you probably recognize, but you're loathe to admit as much.
What makes you think Exodus Int. was a social *experiment*, much less a failed experiment or misstep?
Because it was the flagship evangelical response to LGBT politics and culture, and it bombed in the worst possible way. It was poorly considered, it was a bad move - understandable in the context of the time, but eventually it should have been abandoned and rejected long before it was apparently co-opted and corrupted by its star pupil.
And it's yet another example of how the old approaches of social conservatives have failed. Stop freaking out just because someone - even the Pope - treats homosexual persons AS persons, while at the same time repeating the same orthodox teaching about the disorderedness of the desires and the behavior.
Human organizations are like appliances. When one wears out, it's time to replace it. In this case, the Restored Hope Network, spearheaded by Bob Gagnon.
Except they don't become 'worn out'. They become corrupted, as you said. Exactly how many churches and social conservative groups and political parties must go corrupt under your watch before you start to change your approach with them? How many mistakes do you need to make before you recognize that, perhaps, you really have made a mistake?
We're on the same side, but people like you need to concentrate on actually being effective, not making excuses for why you're trying the same failed strategy for the hundredth time.
Crude
Delete"Pretty much was your argument. Well done on abandoning it!"
I didn't abandon my argument. I repudiated your straw man.
"His statements on homosexuality is that homosexual desires are intrinsically disordered, and the acts are sinful."
What he actually said was: "“A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will — well, who am I to judge him?...The problem isn’t this (homosexual) orientation."
And he said that in response to a question about Monsignor Battista Ricca, a recent papal appointee with an alleged catamite relationship in his past.
I didn't abandon my argument. I repudiated your straw man.
DeleteDodges like the above fool no one.
What he actually said was: "“A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will — well, who am I to judge him?...The problem isn’t this (homosexual) orientation."
Give the full quote: "A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will—well, who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn’t this (homosexual) orientation—we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby."
You may want to check the Catechism the pope is citing, where you'll find pretty well what I said: intrinsically disordered. The pope is not saying that homosexual orientation is somehow ordered or 'right'. He's saying that the orientation in and of itself does not render one always and forever barred from society, or even religious society.
What should he have said? "Hell no! I don't care if you're celibate, if you have any same sex sexual orientation at all you should be fired and shunned!"? Not only is that non-Christian, it's stupid. He manifestly did not say that homosexual is great and normal, and he reiterated that the acts are sinful and the desire disordered. But they can and should be integrated into society, without losing light of this. Meanwhile, he also cracks down against the gay lobby - which is, frankly, getting to the heart of the problem.
Stop creatively interpreting things to try and cast Catholics in the worst light possible. Sometimes, Catholics - even the pope - do the right thing. You should be bitching about the idiot press here, not Francis.
His conciliatory comments mean Francis has learned absolutely nothing about the priestly abuse scandal that's done so much to tarnish his denomination.
ReplyDeleteHow is this the case?
He doesn't see the need to exclude homosexuals from the priesthood.
Delete