What the New Pope Says about Gays

[Anthony]

I do. I find all of it morally reprehensible. I read an article today on how Cardinal Ratzinger is trying to stop the Spanish legislation allowing gay marriage and adoption.

I find his policy not only intensely disagreeable, but vicious and counter-productive.

Ant.

 

[sue4u2]

[Q]CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

(During an audience granted to the undersigned
His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, approved this Letter, adopted in an ordinary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ordered it to be published.)

Given at Rome, 1 October 1986.
JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER
Prefect
[/Q]

I hope this isn't how he feels, now. This makes me , the second paragraph completely contradicts the first...

I go back to the quote Irvine511 posted in another thread:

"religion is for people who are scared of going to hell.
spirituality is for people who have been through hell."

 

[john1800]

redemption for what?

The same redemption that every one of us needs -- from our sins.

Did he say anywhere that homosexuals were worse than anyone else? No.

I need redemption as much as anyone else, gay or straight.

 

[john1800]

Is this a joke post? Jesus is not recorded as saying anything about sexual orientation.

No he wasn't. You're right. But he did say that everyone needs to be born again.

 

[melon]

No he wasn't. You're right. But he did say that everyone needs to be born again.

It was a metaphor. No one brought up this "born again" nonsense until the rise of Biblical fundamentalism in the 19th century. 1800 years later, and, suddenly, there needs to be a special process to be "born again"?

I was born once 25 years ago. I made sure to do it right the first time around.

Melon

 

[john1800]

It was a metaphor. No one brought up this "born again" nonsense until the rise of Biblical fundamentalism in the 19th century. 1800 years later, and, suddenly, there needs to be a special process to be "born again"?

I was born once 25 years ago. I made sure to do it right the first time around.

Melon

Okay, then, so what was it a metaphor of?

 

[melon]

Okay, then, so what was it a metaphor of?

Paul was "Saul" prior to his conversion. The idea is simple enough: if you grow up and act like a real fucking asshole, once you "find Jesus," you're supposed to stop acting like an asshole. In practice, of course, I find that questionable with some people who choose to become "born again." I think they see it as an open license to be judgmental and be an even bigger asshole, due to the doctrine of "grace" for "salvation."

The problem comes, of course, when you've been morally upright since you were born the first time around. Hence, there's plenty of people who don't feel a need to have some "born again" epiphany, because they've been "believers" since they were young.

The fact remains that "born again" Christianity is mostly a 20th century phenomenon, which extended out of 19th century evangelical Protestantism. So either the first 1800-1900 years of Christianity is rotting in hell for not being "born again Christian" or this is just a concept taken way too far by a certain set of modern Christians.

Melon

 

[shart1780]

1Corinthians 6: ( 9-10 )
"Do you know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

 

[melon]

1Corinthians 6: ( 9-10 )
"Do you know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

First off, I've brought up this subject more than once.

I find it curious that "malakos" has finally been translated "male prostitutes." "Malakos" refers to young boys. "Arsenokoitai," horribly mistranslated as "homosexual offenders" (let me guess...you're quoting from the NIV? ), refers to the older men who'd have sex with them in temples. In short, it refers, at minimum, to temple prostitution ("idolatry") and, at most, to pedophilia. In the Greco-Roman era, it was not uncommon for older men to prey on younger boys. Thankfully, this is a practice that has long been abandoned. Not thankfully, we now have a concept in the Bible that we have no modern equivalent, so now all the bigots come out of the woodworks attempting to link it to homosexuality. Sorry, it doesn't work.

In case you don't believe me, homophobic old Roman Catholicism puts contextual footnotes in its Bibles, and has this to say:

"The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes [that your version translated as "male prostitutes"; Greek: "malakos"] may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated Sodomites [that your version translated as "homosexual offenders"; Greek: "arsenokoitai"] refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Romans 1:26-27; 1 Tim 1:10."

You know, specific heterosexual sex acts are condemned, but what people do to the so-called "same-sex" passages is that they make sweeping condemnations of *all* same-sex acts on the basis of these passages, while opposite-sex acts are treated with nuance. That is, if heterosexuals are forbidden to rape houseguests, then it'll be interpreted as a prohibition against rape. If homosexuals are forbidden to rape houseguests, it's interpreted that God hates all homosexual acts. It's a consistent and bigoted pattern.

Melon

 

[financeguy]

1Corinthians 6: ( 9-10 )
"Do you know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Drunkards, hmmm...looks like GWB's in trouble so.....

 

[financeguy]

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged:
and with what measure ye mete,
it shall be measured to you again."

St Matthew - C7, 2/3

I'm surprised that someone who reaches the position of self styled "Vicar of Christ", appears so unfamilar with central teachings of Christianity, such as the above.

 

[Se7en]

First off, I've brought up this subject more than once.

I find it curious that "malakos" has finally been translated "male prostitutes." "Malakos" refers to young boys. "Arsenokoitai," horribly mistranslated as "homosexual offenders" (let me guess...you're quoting from the NIV? ), refers to the older men who'd have sex with them in temples. In short, it refers, at minimum, to temple prostitution ("idolatry") and, at most, to pedophilia. In the Greco-Roman era, it was not uncommon for older men to prey on younger boys. Thankfully, this is a practice that has long been abandoned. Not thankfully, we now have a concept in the Bible that we have no modern equivalent, so now all the bigots come out of the woodworks attempting to link it to homosexuality. Sorry, it doesn't work.

In case you don't believe me, homophobic old Roman Catholicism puts contextual footnotes in its Bibles, and has this to say:

"The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes [that your version translated as "male prostitutes"; Greek: "malakos"] may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated Sodomites [that your version translated as "homosexual offenders"; Greek: "arsenokoitai"] refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Romans 1:26-27; 1 Tim 1:10."

You know, specific heterosexual sex acts are condemned, but what people do to the so-called "same-sex" passages is that they make sweeping condemnations of *all* same-sex acts on the basis of these passages, while opposite-sex acts are treated with nuance. That is, if heterosexuals are forbidden to rape houseguests, then it'll be interpreted as a prohibition against rape. If homosexuals are forbidden to rape houseguests, it's interpreted that God hates all homosexual acts. It's a consistent and bigoted pattern.

Melon

melon brings up a great point about inconsistencies within translation. but also, something i always keep in mind, is that the writers and characters of the bible had limited scientific knowledge. had they known then that science now suggests that homosexuality is not a choice would they still have been so against it or would they have accepted it as natural behavior? what i'm saying is - joshua asked god to stop the sun in the sky, but in fact, the sun doesn't move...the earth does...joshua just didn't know any better.

 

[verte76]

That's right, science as we know it was virtually non-existent when these things were written. Modern science as we know it started to develop in the seventeenth century, post-Renaissance, with Sir Isaac Newton (damn, I forget his dates, he was born in 1642, I think) leading the way and still considered by some to be the most influential scientist who ever lived. Incidentally, Sir Isaac was also a deeply religious man who won compliments from the clergy for his knowledge of Scripture.