"Queer & Catholic"

Nodin

fisgon wrote: »

It's like the rules to some arcane, D&D type, role-playing game. Seriously, who comes up with this sh1t?

Roll against Int.

Links234

wonderfulname wrote: »

You do come across a lot of queer Catholics, some are cultural, in which case it's not far off being catholic and unmarried with three kids, some are celibate, or in the case of trans people not intent on going forward with any transition, this is actually in line with catholic teaching, and for some strong believers it can even prove best for them as an individual, some want to change the system from within, and of course some are just heavily in denial about either their beliefs or sexuality.

you might be surprised to know, there's quite a few transgender people who are quite religious and somehow manage to reconcile their faith with the transitions, I even know some who are catholic. I've no idea how someone could still be part of a religion who's dear leader has repeatedly stated that people who are transgender are worse than gays, will lead to the destruction of the human race and are a greater threat to the planet than deforestation.

makes my brain ache to think of the mental gymnastics people would have to go through to retain their faith, but I guess that's the power of indoctrination at a young age.

krudler

Links234 wrote: »

you might be surprised to know, there's quite a few transgender people who are quite religious and somehow manage to reconcile their faith with the transitions, I even know some who are catholic. I've no idea how someone could still be part of a religion who's dear leader has repeatedly stated that people who are transgender are worse than gays, will lead to the destruction of the human race and are a greater threat to the planet than deforestation.

makes my brain ache to think of the mental gymnastics people would have to go through to retain their faith, but I guess that's the power of indoctrination at a young age.

Especially if you'd think god made you the way you are(not you specifically I mean trans people who are catholic) and then to be told by god's supposed spokesperson on earth that you're abnormal and evil, indoctrination does have a lot to answer for.

Gbear

Given that there's probably catholics on the LGBT forum would it be worth having a thread on it there? Or would it just get messy?

Beruthiel

Gbear wrote: »

Given that there's probably catholics on the LGBT forum would it be worth having a thread on it there? Or would it just get messy?

I believe there was a thread in that forum on this subject in the past.

OldNotWIse

SebBerkovich wrote: »

The "No Chicks" rule probably inspires a bit of faith...

(lesbians have to settle with being nuns)

Eek lesbian nuns :( Flashback to secondary school PE :eek: THose hockey skirts were just waaaaaay too short.

I had bad thoughts about our PP at mass a few months ago. I didn't dream them up, they just popped into my head. I'm terrified now I will be punished in some way lol

wonderfulname

Gbear wrote: »

Given that there's probably catholics on the LGBT forum would it be worth having a thread on it there? Or would it just get messy?

It's been discusssed, I can find the thread(s) for you if you're interested in seeing what was said.

Links- I'm not at all suprised, I was lumping everyone together bar in the case of those that don't act on the "sin", I didn't really structure that post very well, sorry if it's not the most comprehensible.

Geomy

Some of ye had a right go at witchgirl,even brought yourselves down to having a go at her about her user name bottom dwellers some of ye are.

I am not the best at the written word, but new comers or non regulars who naively respond to some posts here dont understand how emotive it can get here...

Seen people get banned here for less but ffs she wasn't that bad.
Some of you take the RC more serious and literal than most catholic people I know do,why is that so ?

Bannasidhe

Geomy wrote: »

Some of ye had a right go at witchgirl,even brought yourselves down to having a go at her about her user name bottom dwellers some of ye are.

I am not the best at the written word, but new comers or non regulars who naively respond to some posts here dont understand how emotive it can get here...

Seen people get banned here for less but ffs she wasn't that bad.
Some of you take the RC more serious and literal than most catholic people I know do,why is that so ?

Maybe because us bottom dwellers actually know and understand the tenets of the RC better than most Catholic people.

Geomy

But Bannasidhe I think you're well able to detach from that organisation,yes am I right ?

Taking it seriously and literally gives it power over you,not giving a toss about it sets you free

Bannasidhe

Geomy wrote: »

But Bannasidhe I think you're well able to detach from that organisation,yes am I right ?

Taking it seriously and literally gives it power over you,not giving a toss about it sets you free

Geomy - the problem is it won't detach from my life. It calls me a threat to humanity, tells the world I have a disorder, it tries to control what I do with my own body, it has informed me if I have sexual intercourse with my OH I am going to burn in Hell for eternity...and members of my government take what it says seriously.

It's stalking me but I can't get a restraining order...:(

Hotblack Desiato

Well in fairness for it to be called sexual intercourse, there needs to be a penis involved.























/runs

Hotblack Desiato

Beruthiel wrote: »

I believe there was a thread in that forum on this subject in the past.

'Look, whatever you do, don't mention the war. I mentioned the war earlier, but I think I got away with it'

Bannasidhe

ninja900 wrote: »

Well in fairness for it to be called sexual intercourse, there needs to be a penis involved.

Oh no there doesn't....

Ways and means ninja...ways and means.








Flings dictionary at retreating ninja http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexual%20intercourse

Sarky

It was only 2 years ago that I learned the band Scissor Sisters didn't name themselves after sharp bladed objects to sound dangerous and edgy.

ShooterSF

Geomy wrote: »

But Bannasidhe I think you're well able to detach from that organisation,yes am I right ?

Taking it seriously and literally gives it power over you,not giving a toss about it sets you free

Funnily enough it's all the ala carte catholics that don't "take it seriously and literally" that gives it it's power over society.

Why they continue to call themselves a member of an organisation that a) doesn't share their views on the characteristics of the deity that they believe created us and b) is not a democracy when it comes to these characteristics IS rather infuriating to those in society who would rather the church was unable to interfere with said society.

Hotblack Desiato

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh no there doesn't....

Ways and means ninja...ways and means.

Indeed... but I wonder would two 16 year old girls face the same potential legal penalties as a similar girl and boy, or two boys? I don't know about the two boys scenario, but boy and girl certainly has been prosecuted. It doesn't seem fair to me.

Hotblack Desiato

Sarky wrote: »

It was only 2 years ago that I learned the band Scissor Sisters didn't name themselves after sharp bladed objects to sound dangerous and edgy.

I thought it referred to one snipping off one's external male genitalia. Then I found out what it really means :pac: phew.

Bannasidhe

ninja900 wrote: »

Indeed... but I wonder would two 16 year old girls face the same potential legal penalties as a similar girl and boy, or two boys? I don't know about the two boys scenario, but boy and girl certainly has been prosecuted. It doesn't seem fair to me.

It's not.

Two teens of around the same age regardless of the genders - let 'em alone ffs (while making damn sure they are aware of safe sex and what that entails..)

Hotblack Desiato

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's not.

Two teens of around the same age regardless of the genders - let 'em alone ffs (while making damn sure they are aware of safe sex and what that entails..)

I agree, but the law doesn't, at least not yet. So some types of sex remain more equal than others.

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

The band Scissor Sisters didn't name themselves after sharp bladed objects to sound dangerous and edgy.

I knew that.

Bannasidhe

ninja900 wrote: »

I agree, but the law doesn't, at least not yet. So some types of sex remain more equal than others.

Some kinds of sexual relations are so undervalued that they are just not recognised as important enough to bother with legislation.

Or, one doesn't want to acknowledge them...

Many, many years ago I was reading the various documents held at Kew about the 1885 Labouchere amendment (Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act) which brought in the specifically anti-male homosexuality 'gross indecency' offense which Oscar Wilde fell foul off and was wondering why it didn't include Lesbianism.

The myth is that it did but Victoria wouldn't sign it as she didn't believe laydees would do such a thing, but that is nonsense as Victoria had no right to veto legislation. The documents make it clear that the framers of the legislation didn't want to publicise that female + female sex was possible so decided the best course of action was to pretend it didn't exist. One can't legislate against something that doesn't exist now can one?

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Many, many years ago I was reading the various documents held at Kew about the 1885 Labouchere amendment (Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act) which brought in the specifically anti-male homosexuality 'gross indecency' offense which Oscar Wilde fell foul off and was wondering why it didn't include Lesbianism.

The myth is that it did but Victoria wouldn't sign it as she didn't believe laydees would do such a thing, but that is nonsense as Victoria had no right to veto legislation.

Agreed.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The documents make it clear that the framers of the legislation didn't want to publicise that female + female sex was possible so decided the best course of action was to pretend it didn't exist. One can't legislate against something that doesn't exist now can one?

I suspect there were a couple of factors at play.

One is that an all-male Parliament couldn’t really bring itself to believe that there could be real sexual pleasure in a transaction that didn’t have the mighty phallus involved at some point. Therefore there was no such thing as lesbian frolics, therefore no need for legislation about them.

A variant on this is the belief that, whatever went on between, ahem, like-minded laydees, since there was no phallus involved it obviously wasn’t real sex, therefore not so important and/or not so wicked, therefore no need for legislation.


Yet another variation is that, whether it was sex or not, it wasn’t that important since there was only women involved and, well, women are only women, and what they do is of lesser significance. Men own property and property is power and property descends to heirs, and if a man discovers that he likes the mickey he might end up not having any heirs, and then where will we be? In other words, men’s deviant sexuality was seem as more threatening to the social order than women’s.

On a more prosaic level, you just didn’t have girls-only brothels catering to women, or lust-crazed lesbians roaming Hampstead Heath and frightening the horses. And like-minded laydees were not subverting military discipline and order by paying handsome young guardsmen for a fumble in the bushes in St. James’s Park. In short, lesbian relationships, whether they existed or not, or whether you thought they involved real sex or not, just didn’t seem to be causing the kind of social disruption that required attention from the criminal law.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

Agreed.


I suspect there were a couple of factors at play.

One is that an all-male Parliament couldn’t really bring itself to believe that there could be real sexual pleasure in a transaction that didn’t have the mighty phallus involved at some point. Therefore there was no such thing as lesbian frolics, therefore no need for legislation about them.

A variant on this is the belief that, whatever went on between, ahem, like-minded laydees, since there was no phallus involved it obviously wasn’t real sex, therefore not so important and/or not so wicked, therefore no need for legislation.


Yet another variation is that, whether it was sex or not, it wasn’t that important since there was only women involved and, well, women are only women, and what they do is of lesser significance. Men own property and property is power and property descends to heirs, and if a man discovers that he likes the mickey he might end up not having any heirs, and then where will we be? In other words, men’s deviant sexuality was seem as more threatening to the social order than women’s.

On a more prosaic level, you just didn’t have girls-only brothels catering to women, or lust-crazed lesbians roaming Hampstead Heath and frightening the horses. And like-minded laydees were not subverting military discipline and order by paying handsome young guardsmen for a fumble in the bushes in St. James’s Park. In short, lesbian relationships, whether they existed or not, or whether you thought they involved real sex or not, just didn’t seem to be causing the kind of social disruption that required attention from the criminal law.

Oh, they knew it was possible alright and the records are very clear that they were primarily concerned with not letting this dangerous information out. It was felt that as women had few legal rights the issue could be contained by existing legislation so the more prudent course was to simply pretend it did not exist and therefore ensure it did not gain publicity.

If lesbianism had been included in the legislation this would have been a public acknowledgement by the government it was possible for two woman to have sex, was bound to be discussed as not only could women read, since 1870 there was a college just for them (Newnham College at Cambridge) so educated women were bound to find out and talk about it and...and this is what they feared...try it. :eek:

aloyisious

This might sound strange, but I see no clash of faith in being queer and catholic. So far as I'm concerned, being catholic is being christian. Christianity depends on believing in God. If you believe in God, then you believe that God is responsible for your existence.

Any person who professed to being catholic and claimed one cannot be queer and catholic is faced with the dilemma of that being equal to saying that God screwed-up in creation, that God got it wrong. Any other given/quoted explanation for you being queer faces the "where did you come from, what ****ed you up" dilemma. I'm not going to bother being the dog chasing it's own tail, I just accept what I am and get on with the life given me, **** the semantics.

28064212

aloyisious wrote: »

Being catholic is being christian. Christianity depends on believing in God.

Those two sentences are both true. But it is not a complete statement. Being Catholic also depends on believing in the RCC, and that the doctrines and interpretations it presents are infallible. Which means believing that homosexuality is a sin and a perversion

Christian and gay is not necessarily an oxymoron. Catholic and gay is.

Bannasidhe

28064212 wrote: »

Those two sentences are both true. But it is not a complete statement. Being Catholic also depends on believing in the RCC, and that the doctrines and interpretations it presents is infallible. Which means believing that homosexuality is a sin and a perversion

Christian and gay is not necessarily an oxymoron. Catholic and gay is.

Or to be more precise:

Christian and gay is not necessarily an oxymoron. Practicing Catholic and sexually active gay is.

seamus

IMO if you are to examine it more rationally, "Christian" is really a form of religious weasel word. At the simplest level, a "Christian" is someone who believes in and tries to adhere to the principles of Jesus Christ.

But when you start to dig down into what that actually means, you find that much of the basis for his principles and his existence, are derived from the Old Testament, the whole "dying for our sins" stuff, etc. Thus it's intellectually dishonest to say that you do not regard the OT as factual truth, but you do regard the new testament as factual truth, because the OT is the scaffold on which the NT is based. Kick that down and the teachings and principles of Jesus become nothing more than stories.

That doesn't mean you can't derive some good messages from the stories - love thy neighbour, etc - but it means that you cannot fundamentally call yourself "Christian" while at the same time believing that the OT is a book of fairy tales. That's like saying the Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is an historical document, but The Fellowship of the Ring is just a old fable.

Now, of course, someone could be intellectually honest and say that they don't believe the Jesus myth, but they still try to adhere to the principles of the myth because they think it's just a good idea. But I'd say you'll find very few "Christians" willing to admit to this.

oldrnwisr

aloyisious wrote: »

This might sound strange, but I see no clash of faith in being queer and catholic.

You mightn't but the Catholic Church sure does. It repeatedly condemns homosexuality and campaigns against gay rights.

aloyisious wrote: »

So far as I'm concerned, being catholic is being christian. Christianity depends on believing in God.

Well, no.

In short, all catholics are christian but not all christians are catholic.

To put it another way, while Christianity depends on believing in Jesus alone, Catholicism adds another layer of requirements on top of this. While mainstream Christians believe that it's just you, the bible and Jesus, Catholics believe that the bible can only be interpreted fully and correctly by the Church. As some Catholic bloggers have put it, just as the old testament should be viewed in light of the new testament by Christians, for Catholics, the bible should be viewed in light of church teachings.

aloyisious wrote: »

If you believe in God, then you believe that God is responsible for your existence.

Again, no.

Your conclusion doesn't flow from your premise that Christianity depends on believing in God. You can be a Christian, even a Catholic without believing that God was directly responsible for your existence. Unless of course, you mean responsible in the sense of kick-starting the Universe and consequently the process that would eventually lead to your existence but that would be a bit pointless.

aloyisious wrote: »

Any person who professed to being catholic and claimed one cannot be queer and catholic is faced with the dilemma of that being equal to saying that God screwed-up in creation, that God got it wrong.

Only if you are a creationist or have literalist leanings. As above, being Christian or even Catholic doesn't require such a direct intervention by God in the path of human biology and evolution. Ken Miller, for example, is a Catholic and would have no problem in accepting a naturalistic explanation for homosexuality.

If you're going to take the line that God hates homosexuality and yet it exists, therefore he screwed up, then you might want to start this line of reasoning back a bit further. God also has a problem with evil and sin and yet both of these, according to the Bible, entered the world. Did he screw up, not give a crap or was he powerless to prevent it?


Anyway, like I said in my last post, if you're a Catholic, that means you are (supposed to be) faithful to church teachings, one of which is that homosexuality is really, really bad. Sometimes semantics are important.

aloyisious

I just looked up "did God say the Pope was infallible" and found that infallibility applies to the office of the Pope (and not the Pope) and pronouncements made by him on matters of faith and morals. he must first seek guidance of God, through Christ, on the matter.

What is the gift of infallibility?

The dogma of infallibility was formally proclaimed at the First Vatican Council in 1870. There are several requirements for a dogmatic, papal infallible pronouncement: (1) The pronouncement must be made by the lawful successor to Peter. (2) The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals. (3) The pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is from the very seat and office of Peter. In this way he must be specifically intending to proclaim a doctrine, binding the entire Church to its assent. If one or more of these elements is missing, there is no infallible pronouncement.