Pope repeats rejection of gay clergy and gay culture

Fleawuss

I can't link to the media reports but Francis has repeated the rejection of 2005. What made me LOL was the rejection of gay culture. I take it to mean stereotypical gay culture. So lads (has to be really about men doesn't it) if you mention the Eurovision in Maynooth it's time for the Spanish Inquisition! More seriously doesn't it really show that the RCC doesn't want anything to do with us and we should reciprocate.
Hey Francis I'm issuing a heifer to answer the bull;).

Ten of Swords

The gift of the priestly vocation

Page 82

the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture’. Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies

Usual rubbish from the RCC but the part in bold is pretty offensive actually.

cgcsb

Gay guy cannot relate to men or women. And 60 year old virgins can. Mega lols. Leave them off.

Vojera

I thought the Church was meant to be okay with gay people so long as they didn't act on their "tendencies". Obviously not.

Annasopra

When I hear the Pope and gay in the same sentence. I think of these

Vojera

Those beanie pictures!

suicide_circus

Their club, their rules.

Vojera

suicide_circus wrote: »

Their club, their rules.

I've no issue whatsoever with the Church restricting who can and cannot be members of their clergy according to their beliefs. But the line highlighted above by Ten of Swords is ignorant, at best. Who are they to say that I can't relate to people properly because of my sexuality? And no, I don't care what the Church thinks, but I care that they spread directives like that to others.

Annasopra

suicide_circus wrote: »

Their club, their rules.

In a lot of ways I dont particularly care about the Catholic Churchs views anymore once they dont try to use their theocratic influence on public policy. I always do feel the idea of lgbt versus religion as a person can identify as religious but not lgbt or as lesbian, gay, bi or trans but not religious quite bizzare. There are lots of lgbt people who identify as catholics, muslim etc and lots of muslims and catholics who identify as lgbt. Its possible for humans to have multiple identities. Yes I know the traditional religions reject differing sexual orientations and gender identities but plenty of lgbt people get confort from their faith and they also do assist in changing mindests within churches too. All I'm saying is I accept that there are lgbt people with strong religious beliefs and that I acknowledge people can have multiple identities.

JupiterKid

Organised Religion loathes sexual identities that isn't monogamous hetrosexual where the man controls the wife. It has always been thus. That's why I have no time whatsoever for the church or other religions for that mattter.

Less and less people listen to,them anyway, given the outcome of the SSM referendum and I only welcome its further decline. They are the architects of their own demise.

Annasopra

JupiterKid wrote: »

Organised Religion loathes sexual identities that isn't monogamous hetrosexual where the man controls the wife. It has always been thus. That's why I have no time whatsoever for the church or other religions for that mattter.

Less and less people listen to,them anyway, given the outcome of the SSM referendum and I only welcome its further decline. They are the architects of their own demise.

I think thats quite an over exaggeration. There are plenty of progressive religions e.g. unitarians and many within anglican/protestant churches. There are many progressives within organised religions too.

L.Jenkins

The Papal rejection of Gay Culture reminds me of a quote Adam Savage (Mythbusters), "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

learn_more

The RCC is never ever ever ever going to accept homosexuality or gay culture. No pope who want's to be a pope would even hint at such an acceptance.

Why?

The RRC believes that a man was created with his manhood for the specific reason of impregnating a woman.

The female anatomy and male anatomy are such because God created them that way, for a specific reason. Procreation.

For the RCC to 'bless' homosexual relations would be to accept that organs of the human body weren't 'necessarily' designed for the procreation of children. And of course homosexual acts have no chance of producing children.

So , for the church, who may privately be inclined to bless homosexuality, or at least not deem it as an abomination, would at the very very least have to accept that the human sexual organs were not solely designed for reproduction.

If they were to do that they would at the very least 'imply', whether they intended or not, that perhaps GOD, did not design the human body and therefore there is no God at all. At least not the God they believe in.

There is NO chance in our lifetime, or the next, that any Pope or any church, would say anything that would suggest that there may be no God at all.

This is the dilemma they find themselves in. If they accept homosexuality, everything they believed in goes out the window.

Spirogyra

My experience has been that a lot of 'the faithful' do actually want a more inclusive church.

GreenFolder2

I gave up on them years ago - usual message : Love thy neighbour*

*T&Cs apply. Love may mean hate, judge or patronise depending on circumstances.

Worse than those Unlimited* data plans with the hard limits of 7GB per month.

Sure they "loved" unmarried mothers. So much in fact they got them secure employment - in a laundry without any pay or ability to leave...
They love atheists, protestants and assorted heretics...

Such a lovely organisation generally.

El_Duderino 09

learn_more wrote:

The RCC is never ever ever ever going to accept homosexuality or gay culture. No pope who want's to be a pope would even hint at such an acceptance.

Go on away out of that. Like a monarchy the Catholics can't change too quickly or it undermines it's own legitimacy based in tradition. It can't stand still or it would be left behind.

Gays will be accepted in the not so distant future, the same way straight people who fornicate are accepted now. They won't be able to afford to shun gays for much longer particularly since the marriage referendum. Economics will push the case.

GreenFolder2

learn_more wrote: »

So , for the church, who may privately be inclined to bless homosexuality, or at least not deem it as an abomination, would at the very very least have to accept that the human sexual organs were not solely designed for reproduction.

And therein lies the problem : human are the product of a big, messy evolutionary process that comes up with solutions to things we may not even recognise as things at all because we view the world through the lens of some of these conservative religious philosophies. I mean many religions spent (and continue to spend in some cases) huge amounts of time trying to deny obvious facts and suppress science - seeing evolution or other basic science as a threat to their beliefs. There are still people out there who will get angry because you suggest the story of the earth's evolution isn't actually based on what it says in an ancient book.

If you think about it : humans are more like a super organism / hive - we just call it society instead of an termite mound, an bee hive or the Borg Collective.

We create complicated built environments, modify the world around us, we farm, we tweak nature, pool resources - educate our children communally in schools, pour vast resources into design and maintenance of telecommunication systems that allow us to have real time connectivity to basically anyone anywhere at all timeswe transit systems that allow us to basically be anywhere on the planet in 1 day and we have complicated economic systems to make it all function (often imperfectly but we are getting there bit by bit). We've even managed to get people and things launched into space and are mulling over ideas of spreading to other planets ....

Homosexuality clearly fits into that system somewhere as it's been part of human behaviour for as long as we have been able to record human behaviour in history.

It's fairly damn obvious that for society to prosper and thrive we need a lot of connections and supports, not necessarily to have every individual reproduce directly. The DNA rolls on, the society rolls on, the knowledge base developed and is recorded and rolls on. The society prospers and the genes get passed on and the societal software in terms of knowledge gets passed on.

Evolution tends to stumble upon some outstanding solutions - nobody seems to have ever stopped to think that homosexuality is quite likely part of human evolutionary success and probably has an important role - it's just that for some bizarre reason a bunch of narrow-mindedly dark age beliefs tried to erase an aspect of humanity because they oversimplified things down to man+woman=baby whereas in reality it's tribes, super tribes, aunts, uncles, teachers, villages, towns, cities, companies, organisations, countries, supranational organisations, the EU, the UN, societies, politics, exploration teams, bands, people cooperating on art and culture, medicine, science, all technology and all of those things that make us a success story and define is as humans are about social groups.

Homosexuality fits into that somewhere. We have just made the subject so taboo over the recent centuries that it isn't properly documented or researched.

Also quite frankly, the physical side of it works far too well to be a complete fluke that hasn't evolved in.

Anyway, apologies if this is a bit of a long and off topic rant typed on a mobile but, I'm just fed up with religious pontifications claiming that a huge chunk of humanity is an error.

Ten of Swords

The RCC in Ireland is simply dying of old age, unless there is some societal shift back to religion in the future I can see it being slowly downsized and sold off piece by piece in this county over the next century.

L.Jenkins

Ten of Swords wrote: »

The RCC in Ireland is simply dying of old age, unless there is some societal shift back to religion in the future I can see it being slowly downsized and sold off piece by piece in this county over the next century.

There's a few nice buildings belonging to the Church, I wouldn't mind getting my hands on. There's one on the way to Sligo that seems to have been abandoned or let go in recent years, which would make for a nice home with a great view.

learn_more

L.Jenkins wrote: »

There's a few nice buildings belonging to the Church, I wouldn't mind getting my hands on. There's one on the way to Sligo that seems to have been abandoned or let go in recent years, which would make for a nice home with a great view.

There a bitch to heat though.

SILVAMAN

When Enda Kenny ripped the ass out of the Catholic Church some years back, he ought to immediately have expelled the Papal Nuncio and seized all church assets. The churches could then have been handed back to individual local communities, with the proviso that they belong to the community, and that any monies raised must not be sent to Rome.
The church orders in the abuse scandals have paid less that 25% of what they agreed to pay, and of course Bertie Ahern and his acolytes saw to it that the Church was let off the hook for the vast amount they should have paid.
Francis needs to realise that the beauty of the Vatican architecture and artwork was for the most part created by a section of society that he rejects.

Sonics2k

L.Jenkins wrote: »

There's a few nice buildings belonging to the Church, I wouldn't mind getting my hands on. There's one on the way to Sligo that seems to have been abandoned or let go in recent years, which would make for a nice home with a great view.

They'll crucify you on the mortgage though.