The Catholic Church is kinder, but still wrong on homosexuality

[trotsky]

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/20160627-the-catholic-church-is-kinder-but-still-wrong-on-homosexuality.ece

Throughout American history and, sadly, even today, religions have condoned, if not promoted, homophobia. Some faith groups are making steps in the right direction, however late and however slowly. But I hesitate to call it progress. After all, presenting an outdated belief in a nicer way doesn't make the belief any less outdated.

Don't get me wrong, I was raised Catholic, and Pope Francis has been wonderful for the church's PR. But it's not Pope Francis' style that concerns me. It's his substance.

Earlier this week, Pope Francis urged Christians to apologize to gay people, among others, who have been marginalized by the Catholic Church. The comments came shortly after Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich, Germany, acknowledged that "the history of homosexuals in our societies is very bad, because we've done a lot to marginalize [them]," according to Crux, a Catholic news organization. He added, "As Church and society, we have to say 'Sorry, Sorry.'"

...

But before we shower Pope Francis with praise, "let's not merely say that we love each other; let us show the truth by our actions," as The Good Book says. Once you look beyond the Pope's softer tone, it becomes clear that his words -- void of actions -- are dead.

[msongs]

1. "we apologize for the bad things we did to you...and we will keep on doing those things btw" nt

[niyad]

2. pope photo op is all talk, no real positive action.

the church's stand on women has not changed, not even the bs rhetoric.

[Angry Dragon]

3. perhaps some religions just like to cloak their bigotry within religion

[Warpy]

4. They're wrong on homosexuality mostly because they're wrong on half the human race

You know, the female half they regard with such dread and suspicion that they try to kill off by stupid restrictions on health care and doing things like sending them back to live with homicidal wife beaters.

They have to come to terms with the feminine. Then maybe they can come to terms with what they misperceive as the feminine within gay men.

[guillaumeb]

5. An interresting take:

When you wrote:
"They have to come to terms with the feminine. Then maybe they can come to terms with what they misperceive as the feminine within gay men."

The Catholic Church made a decision many centuries ago to marginalize and minimize the role of Mary (the mother of Jesus) and Mary of Magdala and overemphasized the role of Peter.

The Church emphasized Peter as the rock rather than Peter as the weak man who doubted and abandoned.

But this also can be framed as a decision to attack the goddess centered religions common at that time.

[Angry Dragon]

6. This is one thing I do not understand

You call Peter the rock which the church is founded on, but Paul is the one that they follow.
What do they really find to follow in Peter??

[guillaumeb]

7. He was described as the leader of the followers.

And he was the first Pope. And the name Peter means "rock" in Greek and Aramaic.

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. There's so much wrong with this post, I don't even know where to begin.

You must consult your histories, methinks. And by "history" I do not mean Dan Brown novels. The Roman Catholic Church is much keener on the two Marys than are most other Christian sects. While that doesn't exactly make them feminists, it certainly puts to rest any notion that they somehow minimize the females most prominently featured in the whole Jesus narrative. On the contrary, the Church is rather obsessed with them, and routinely parade the Holy Mother around as a paragon of womanly Christian virtue, and Magdalene as a testament to the redemptive power of Christ on the cross.

And Peter's denials... that would be the Fourth Station of the Cross. Where would they be, if properly emphasized, I wonder? Before Jesus' arrest in the Garden and accusation before the Sanhedrin? Doesn't really make sense chronologically, but what the hell do I know.

Look, Christianity is a misogynist tradition born of another misogynist tradition (Judaism) at a misogynist time in a misogynist part of the world, where it was evangelized by misogynists (like Paul) to misogynists (like the Romans). So please disabuse yourself of the notion that before Peter and Paul came waltzing onto the scene that the pagan peoples of the world were all third-wave feminists suppressed by ascendant Christianity for their unrequited egalitarianism because they most assuredly were not.

[guillaumeb]

10. The name "Dan Brown" is unfamiliar.

But the Catholic Church venerates the two Marys while denying them a real role in the church. Their role was limited to being comforters of Jesus.

As to your finish, you construct an argument that I did not make so that you can correct me. But the fact is that in many areas, Christianity absorbed some of the rituals and stories that had been used by the earlier religions. Some of these religions were female centered, some were not.

An interesting and somewhat silly attempt on your part.

[trotsky]

13. "you construct an argument that I did not make"

Ah, you mean like what you do to people when they criticize certain elements of Islam, accusing them of attacking each and every one of the world's ~billion Muslims. Got it.

[guillaumeb]

14. Keep building your house of straw.

When people criticize violent Muslims that is one thing. But when people insist that Islam is a religion of violence that is quite another. And many of the comments from some few at DU belong to the latter category.

[trotsky]

15. Islam isn't a religion of violence or a religion of peace.

It's just a religion with violent elements and peaceful elements. Like all the rest of them.

But remember, even if someone DOES call Islam a 'religion of violence' that doesn't mean every single Muslim is violent. That's your repeated line of attack, and YOUR straw man.

(PS, it's straw MAN, not straw HOUSE.)

(PPS, would be nice to get a response from you on the other thread.)

[guillaumeb]

16. Which thread?

And when you wrote:

It's just a religion with violent elements and peaceful elements. Like all the rest of them.

we are in agreement. But calling Islam a religion of violence implies that its adherents are violent, or sanctioning the violence.

[trotsky]

17. Nope.

"calling Islam a religion of violence implies that its adherents are violent, or sanctioning the violence"

No it doesn't, that's your spin (and your straw man). That's what I and many others have been trying to tell you.

However it could be argued that any religion that has elements of violence is a violent religion. Why would an all-loving god ever need to resort to violence, or allow calls to violence to appear in the holy texts it is giving to human beings? But that's beside the point.

I am waiting for your response to this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=232189

[rug]

9. Bad Pope. How dare he apologize?

[Lordquinton]

11. Apology without action is insicere

That should be the final step, not the first.

Now, and I see it happening already, people will talk about how great he is because he said Christians should apologize, but didn't address the fundamental issues behind the reason for that apology. And the forced acceptance of it as well.

[trotsky]

12. Exactly.

Like msongs said in the first reply - 'We're sorry how we've treated you, but we're going to continue teaching everyone how wrong and bad homosexuality is, and working against full acceptance of you in society. Are we good?'