All you Catholics, give me some help.

[Pablo Rafael]

If anyone is interested in battling anti-gay sentiments among Catholics, help me out at the Catholic.com forums.

I am trying to make a presence there so at least one person is making a pro-gay statement. There are a few people who are more moderate, but most are firmly in the "you're a horrible sinner" camp. The other moderate voices have been very timid.

It is good to post here and relax. (Sad isn't it, that one can't relax, be honest and discuss issues with the people in one's own church?)

The wesite is

http://www.forums.catholic.com You have to go to the "In the News" section under "Culture of Death" (That category really grates on my nerves!)

Tu Amigo, Pablo

P.S. On of the threads is about homosexuals "hijacking" the Christian fish symbol. (Actually it was the archdiocese of LA that used the rainbow fish.) I hijacked it to use as my avatar. That'll teach 'em.

[novaseeker]

I popped in there to take a look, Pablo, but I'm sorry I can't offer much assistance (and I'm not a Catholic any longer, either).

The attitudes that you see expressed there by posters such as 'Jennifer' and 'Jeffrey' are more or less typical of what I have seen of many Catholic internet users, and to be honest, simply reflect the "Magisterium" of the Catholic Church as defined by Rome. Jennifer simply pointed that out more eloquently than Jeffrey did, but the substance is the same: homosexuality is disordered, if naturally occurring in some people, and while it is a tragic disorder which should be treated with compassion, people who have the disorder are called to absolute chastity, because any homosexual act is intrinsically evil as a violation of the natural order, per Natural Law theory as articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas. The current Pope himself has gone to pains to reiterate all of this in some detail in the past few months due to the debates happening in Italy over gay marriage/union/partnership legislation, which the Vatican is actively and vocally lobbying against.

As a result, it's virtually impossible to discuss these kinds of issues with them unless one argues that Roman authority is not the final word (as you kind of did), and if you argue that, you're automatically considered a disloyal Catholic by these sorts of true-believing Catholics, folks who happen to have the Vatican and the hierarchy on their side, cheering them on. In other words, discourse is disallowed: Rome has spoken, loud and clear on this issue, and you either submit to that as a "faithful Catholic" or you are, to some degree, an infidel.

I hate to sound so negative. Doubtless, there are countless numbers of fine Catholics who are both fine Christians and supportive of our issues as a matter of social justice. But the Catholic Church, as an institution, is also undoubtedly a fundamentalist one at the moment, and one that inspires Catholic Fundamentalism in many of its members. It's different from the "Bible Churches" in the source of absolute authority (Vatican/Magisterium as compared with literal biblical text), but nevertheless it's very much packaged, officially at least, as an all-or-nothing proposition, with defiance against the clear teachings of the Magisterium, to be viewed objectively as unfaithfulness and sin. Of course, there are many Catholics who are "conscientious objectors" on this and other issues, but although Vatican II spoke eloquently about the primacy of individual conscience, the Church, under the previous Pope and through the mouth of the current one when he was a curial Cardinal, substantially closed that avenue, stating that the "ordinary Magisterium" of the Church required full moral and intellectual assent as a matter of obedience and loyalty to God, regardless of one's conscientious objections.

[Pablo Rafael]

Novaseeker,

I do agree it is probably too much to think I will convince someone. My hope is to get some Catholics to at least think about the situation and look into it. Maybe some will realize that there are other ways at looking at the issue. That's how it was for me; a little doubt, searching, prayer, Bible study, and then after a while, a reformulation of belief.

We Catholics also have a tendency to NOT follow official church teaching very well. (With all the non-Biblical garbage that has come down from Rome over the centuries, who can blame us.) In my parish the atmosphere is very accepting. I am pleased that a few more moderate voices are somewhat coming to my defense.

You gotta' love this "Jeffrey", however. He is bringing up all of the six "clobber" verses and giving me a chance to refute them one by one. I couldn't have set it up better if I had tried.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[dewdrop_world]

I tried to register a couple of months ago - multiple times - but they never approved me. I wonder if they know who I am and I'm being blacklisted?

Where's the smiley for "paranoid delusions"?

I read some of the forums and I know what you mean. People forget that Jesus did not come to us to establish the Catholic Church. He came to show us the way.

James

[Joe Brummer]

Pablo,
Kudos for you that you are willing to confront misinformation and talk with the Catholics on their board. Are you using the rainbow fish avatar there?

Joe

[Joe Brummer]

Nova,
I see your point about not being able to convince others (Cathoics) about homosexuality not being a sin. I offer just an idea. Go to the board and offer yourself. Don't debate it with them, the debate in itself gives them a power they don't really have. Just be yourself and chat with them. Prove to them you are not what they have learned about gays.

I have found the most powerful thing that changes minds, and we saw it best with Gay into straight America is to be just be you. It shatters all of their misinformation when they find their isn't anything disordered or screwed up. We just are people. Nothing throws them for more of a loop than the truth. We are not what they thought we were.

Don't bother with the scripture thing, don't bother with the sin or no sin, deal or no deal. Offer yourself to them like a sacrifice. I assure you this act of love is stronger than any bible debate you have ever heard.

Let them attack you with words, let them damn you to hell and then ask them if that is what Jesus would do? Is that what Jesus did? It is not.

Just my two cents.....

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

Don't debate it with them, the debate in itself gives them a power they don't really have.

Joe- Your words remind me of the phrase, taken from tanspersonal psychology:

"What you resist persists."

And thank you for the reminder about what really matters- and how to go about being the change we seek. Needed to hear this today.

There is a fascinating article on matters Catholic in the latest Out Magazine which I referenced on the 'bisexual' thread. http://www.out.com/detail.asp?id=21655

Luxuria, like most of the activists I met in Rome, says civil unions will have a better chance of passing if more gays come out. “If you hide, then all the issues in society can be hidden,” she says. “It’s a political responsibility to be open about reality.”

Luxuria’s words come back to me one sunny afternoon on a walk with an American who lives in Rome as an illegal alien, a gangly, erudite man who brings Ichabod Crane immediately to mind. Meeting him is, in several ways, an unexpected appointment with reality.

He prepares me for my visit to the Vatican by describing a few details that most tourists overlook. In the crypt of St. Peter’s basilica, for instance, just down the hall from John Paul II’s final resting place, lies the tomb of the 13th-century pope Boniface VIII, who may have murdered his predecessor, Celestine V, and who was tried posthumously for heresy. At his trial, Boniface’s valet testified that the pope had sodomized him, explaining that he gave it up for Papa because it was a feast day. In life, the pope had publicly proclaimed, “It is no more a sin to lay with women or with boys than to rub one hand against the other.”

After we laugh ourselves silly over this and other venal chapters of church history, Ichabod surprises me, saying, “For all of that, it’s hard for me to be cynical about the church.”

He has AIDS, and he does not have health insurance. His treatment, for free, comes from Gemelli Hospital at the Catholic University, which has a large clinic that cares for people with AIDS in Rome. When he first went there for help, he was concerned that he would be turned away because he is in Italy illegally. He is not sentimental, but his voice shakes when he recalls his physician’s reassurance: “Don’t worry, we’re doctors. We’re here to take care of you.”

For no charge, he has been hospitalized at Gemelli. He has received chemotherapy and thousands of dollars’ worth of prescription drugs for Karposi’s sarcoma and other complications. The lesions on his face are beginning to fade.

He says, “I grew up in the Bible Belt, with a great distaste for hypocrisy. The Vatican is one of the most homophobic institutions in the world and probably the most gay institution in the world, outside of gay nightclubs. And yet within that paradox there is actually a great deal of room for humanity and passion. For me, living in Italy has been about learning to live in paradox.”

I thought I understood. But I didn’t, and I did not begin to understand my own ignorance until my last day in Rome. It was a rainy Monday morning when I walked into St. Peter’s for the first time and, without warning, found myself crying softly but uncontrollably.

[novaseeker]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

Nova,
I see your point about not being able to convince others (Cathoics) about homosexuality not being a sin. I offer just an idea. Go to the board and offer yourself. Don't debate it with them, the debate in itself gives them a power they don't really have. Just be yourself and chat with them. Prove to them you are not what they have learned about gays.

I understand what you're saying, I really do, but for me there is just too much water under the bridge with Catholicism. I've thought quite a bit about it, but ultimately decided that it would be best for me not to interact with Catholics in that way. I hope that others who are similarly situated are more capable.

[Emproph]

I got a warning on my first try!

Well it was a general public warning, "This thread is off topic," but the warning part was in big red letters. The important part is that no one can respond directly... they can only read.

I don't think I did too bad on the non-violent thing either, but God, what a mess!

~~

And isn't the Pope supposedly "infallible," like the Bible? Thus any Vatican decree is on equal footing as God's Word? Essentially deifying the Pope/Vatican to the level of God?

And how is it possible to get away with starting and maintaining a religion where the so called elders are called "father?"

Matthew 23:8-9
8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

I am nuts crazy or is this religion fundamentally based on Blasphemy and idolatry? And mind you I went to Catholic grade school so I'm not knocking their ability to teach the Bible.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I get the impression that the way Catholicism was designed was to epitomize the function authoritarianism – more so than other religions.

Yay, nay?

[Daniel]

I cannot find the scource of the following thought, but I recall reading somewhere, that, if you want a window into how the Caesar's ran Rome, look to the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, this is the perspective of the social historian and speaks to how organizations are stuctured and managed. Some see this:

A totalitarian dictatorship accountable to no one. Very god-like, no?

After all, the Caesar's were deified. My favorite illustration of this was the character of Livia in Masterpiece Theatre's I, Claudius ('76) when she intoned: "Claudius....I want to be a Goddess!'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074006/quotes

[novaseeker]

And isn't the Pope supposedly "infallible," like the Bible? Thus any Vatican decree is on equal footing as God's Word? Essentially deifying the Pope/Vatican to the level of God?

It's a bit more subtle than that, but in effect it can amount to that.

Technically, the Pope only speaks infallibly when he speaks "ex cathedra" (a latin phrase meaning "from the throne/chair"), which has generally been taken to mean when he makes a formal statement of dogma. Some Catholic commentators think it also applies to other papal statements of a serious nature, such as teachings on moral issues -- but there's disagreement about that, and the Church's own official position on it isn't the clearest.

However, aside from the technical infallibility issue, the Church teaches that everything that is a part of the ordinary teaching of the Church (what Catholics call the "Magisterium") is to be assented to in full by the faithful as a matter of obedience to God, regardless of whether one disagrees. This pronouncement is relatively new (1990s) and goes against some things that were said at the Second Vatican Council (1960s) that indicated that the Church recognized the primacy of a well-formed individual conscience. The more conservative hierarchy closed this idea down, indicating that even those whose conscience objected had an obligation to give their full assent, moral and intellectual, to the "ordinary Magisterium" of the Church, and not just things that are "dogma" or "infallible declarations of the faith".

I remember when this interpretation was published in the 1990s and a Catholic priest friend of mine wittily described it as "non-infallibility infallibility".*** Basically it's a means to shut down dissent in the Church.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I get the impression that the way Catholicism was designed was to epitomize the function authoritarianism – more so than other religions.

The way that things shook out in the Western Catholic Church eventually it did become rather authoritarian, but that development was the product itself of struggles between church and state, struggles between papacy and episcopate, struggles with the reformers and the like. It doesn't have to be that way, and in fact, Pope John XXIII (the one who convened Vatican II) was not particularly authoritarian at all ... but his example doesn't sit well with many of the current folks in Rome.

And how is it possible to get away with starting and maintaining a religion where the so called elders are called "father?"

In Greek, the priests were referred to as "presbyteroi" ("elders"), which came to be referred to as "priest". The Church still refers to the body of priests as the "presbyterate". The use of the shorthand term "Father" developed as simply a shorthand term for "presbyter", which is itself a term that signifies, functionally, "priest" or "minister". It's a shorthand term that developed because of the significance of the role of the Bishop, first, as an indication of his "spiritual fatherhood" over the local church, and then, later, of the priests who stood in his place as the church began to grow such that it met in places without the Bishop being present. Mt. 23:8-9 isn't really dealing with the use of the name "Father" in this way any more than it would suggest one cannot call one's biological male parent "father" (which would also seem prohibited by a literal reading of the text). The text means that noone should mistake, or substitute, the authority of a rabbi or other father figure for the real authority of God.

-------

[Edit to add a reference] ***

The 1990 document is called an "Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian", and includes the following interesting commentary:

"”When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.”

”When the Magisterium proposes ’in a definitive way’ truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.”

”When the Magisterium, not intending to act ’definitively’, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.”

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by Emproph

And isn't the Pope supposedly "infallible," like the Bible? Thus any Vatican decree is on equal footing as God's Word? Essentially deifying the Pope/Vatican to the level of God?

Actually, yes and no. The declarations of the Pope are only "infallible" when they are made ex Cathedra , literally from the chair. There are other situations in which other aspects of infallibility of the Catholic Church come into play, also. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility for a good overview.

And how is it possible to get away with starting and maintaining a religion where the so called elders are called "father?"

Now, here you have a real point. It is not limited to Catholicism, BTW. Many other Christian movements or cults have established individuals, men primarily of course (???), as "father". When considering the mysogynist teachings of many of the "fathers of the church", is it any wonder that this developed.

What appears to be the next round of gender denigration occurred with the “Church Fathers”. St. Clement of Alexandria (150-215 C.E.) had such a contempt for women that he believed such a feeling must be universal. He wrote, in his book Paedagogus that in women, “the consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame.” Tertullian (160-225 C.E.), the African Father of the Church, called women "the devil's gateway”. Origen (185-254 C.E.) is well known for his hatred of sex and women. At the tender age of eighteen, he castrated himself in his quest to achieve Christian perfection. Origen's teaching weaved together the Christian hatred for women and abhorrence for the sexual act into one system, in which women were considered worse than animals because they were continuously lustful. St. Ambrose (339-397 C.E.), a Doctor of the Church, and Bishop of Milan reminded believers that the way woman was originally created confirmed her second class status: "Remember that God took the rib out of Adam's body, not a part of his soul, to make her. She was not made in the image of God, like man." Jerome (342-420 C.E.) called women the “root of all evil”. The list goes on and on and includes other “fathers” like John Chrystostom and Augustine of Hippo. One has to wonder at the psychological profiles of these individuals who, had it not been that their aberrant views were comfortable to men because they reinforced some long-standing cultural biases, would have been considered insane in any other age or context. To say that these individuals simply embellished lessons of scripture with their own interpretation of Paul’s theology lessens the impact these men had on theological thought. These misogynist men, because some of their thoughts have had profound significance, found places of power and importance in Christian culture and have been considered primary interpreters and commentators of Christian faith for the church through the ages, despite having “raped” the scriptures by interpretation through the lenses of their own bias and hatred.

Of course, to establish power in the social structure, religious elite had to intervene between God and humans. The name "father", then, served to position these godly men between the Father (uggh, meant for God) and the creatures. I find it interesting that Jesus was the one who coined the name "Father" for God. Does it seem a bit - I don't know - presumptious for others, including Paul, to assume Jesus' position with regard to relationship with God?

[Pablo Rafael]

It is interesting as to how the conversation has gone there on the two threads on homosexuality. (One has since been closed by the moderator; the other one as Patrick mentioned is at least for the moment still active.) It is interesting to see the large variations in opinions:

There are those who say anything connected with homosexuality is evil. No love in this group.

Then there are those who follow the church teaching that it's OK to be homosexual; just realize that it is a disorder and for heaven's sake don't have sex.

Then there are those who think it is a sin, but we shouldn't condemn anyone; let's welcome gays anyway.

Lastly there are those who think it isn't a sin.

There have been more postings in the last two categories than I thought. And no one has attacked me directly. (I have tried to be nice.) I have been encouraged about that at least. It seems to be the younger people who are more open to think positivly about including gays in the church. That is optimistic when looking into the future.

That whole idea about "infallibility". I have not yet met any Catholic in person who actually believes it. That doctrine only came into place in the 20th century, by the way. Just a look at history shoots the "papal infallibity" idea to shreads. I have found that Catholics don't as a whole follow the church teachings very well, and official pronouncements are taken with a "grain of salt". In the last diocese newsletter it stated that a very small percentage of American catholics believe in the church's stand on contraception (I think it was 4%; not sure, but a ridiculously small number.)

There are also a lot of official teachings on the book that are ignored or so altered by later teachings that it renders them invalid, even if not oficially refuted. Purgatory is one example. Another one is the post-reformation statements that anyone who believes in salvation by grace alone is anathema (condemned to hell). Salvation by grace through faith is a common teaching at our Sunday masses. Catholicism is a varied and contradictory religion. (It suits me well; I find many contradictions in my life.)

Oh, and I don't use that rainbow fish symbol over there. Like I said, I'm trying to be nice (and appear squeaky clean too). No need to antagonize. They are my church family by the way; we're kind of disfunctional but that just adds some extra interest to life.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[dsdrane]

Originally Posted by Pablo Rafael

(and appear squeaky clean too)

Appear?!

Do you mean to say you're not really squeaky clean, Pablo???

[Pablo Rafael]

Originally Posted by dsdrane

Appear?!

Do you mean to say you're not really squeaky clean, Pablo???

I didn't do it!
Nobody saw me!
You can't prove anything!

[dsdrane]

[Diane Vera]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Joe- Your words remind me of the phrase, taken from tanspersonal psychology:

"What you resist persists."

I consider that phrase to be a vast overgeneralization. A lot depends on what you are resisting, and with whom, and how.

I agree that debating with religious fanatics about their religious beliefs is not likely to convince them.

However, I've had better results with some other approaches to debating with conservative Christians on GLBT issues. For an example, see Defending a humanistic ethic: The example of opposing homophobia on my page about Promoting religious tolerance. Admittedly, this example involved evangelicals back in the late 1970's; I'm not sure whether the same approach would work as well with conservative Catholics at the present time.

[jethro]

Hi Pablo, I am not a Catholic, in my life had a lot to do with them, and claim some
of my best friends were faithful Catholics, though I have never accepted their traditional
dogma, priests masses, popes etc, it has never affected my friendships nor my study
in that area, i have no personal prejudices held, merely a difference in thought.

I have looke into the Catolic Forum Site and registered. What help do you need?
You know as well as I you can not change fixed thinking!

love ya

jethro

[Pablo Rafael]

Jethro,

I actually haven't posted at the catholic.com forums in a little while. I need to get my resolve up and go over there again.

I have found most catholics that I meet to be quite reasonable and fairly open-minded in their thinking. However, there are those on the forums that are rabidly homophobic. There is always the brick wall of, "The official church teaching is THIS; you must believe it." (I do very poorly at believing something because I am told to.) I want to make a positive, non-confrontational presence there just to let people know that there are gay catholics who are just regular devoted parishoners. There are a few other gay catholics that post regularly.

I should gather my courage and go look at what is going on over there. Not tonight though.

Pablo

[jethro]

Hi Pablo.I registered on the Catholic forum this morning, received activaion email
as a registered member, made 4 attempts to enter the site, and each time was
informed an'invalid password/user name!!!' Yet there was but ten minutes between
my registration and my attempt to post. I believe there was deliberation not to accept
me because on the entry question,'are you Catholic/protestant/what...my reply was
none of them. I believe like their non acceptance of homosexuals, I am of the
opinion the have a non-acceptance of non-Catholics!!! I had much to say on that
forum Pablo, and intended to share my confrontation with Padre Pio in the 60's
when I worked and lived in Italy. The story won the award for the Catholic Newspaper
here in New Zealand, where a number of my articles appeared.
However, never give up Pablo.

Keep smiling, read my short skit on Jean Meslier, and get his'Testimony'-free
download at Gutenberg Orojections, quite something what this Catholic priest
had to say about the faith in a dying testimony. I used to spend time at a Cistercian
Monastry here in New Zealand. the former Abbott was a grand person, also a Celt
like me, what a peaceful restorive place it was and still is.

jethro