"Queer & Catholic"

SebBerkovich · 26-02-2013 11:41am #1

Found an article today in the Guardian that briefly discusses how a disproportionate number of gay men seem to join the RCC

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/26/anti-gay-rhetoric-of-religious-leaders

Makes some good comparisons with the number of right wing politicians and Evangelist preachers who get found out to be gay despite being very much against the idea publicly.

The author is himself a gay catholic, something i still have trouble understanding is even possible given any cognitive thought.

krudler · 26-02-2013 5:11pm

Years ago I was dating someone who had a family member who was gay, openly so, and a staunch catholic, I couldn't fathom being part of an organisation that hates you, and is quite vocal about it, doesn't make sense to me.

eyescreamcone · 26-02-2013 5:19pm

krudler wrote: »

Years ago I was dating someone who had a family member who was gay, openly so, and a staunch catholic, I couldn't fathom being part of an organisation that hates you, and is quite vocal about it, doesn't make sense to me.

I couldn't fathom being part of an organisation that hates anyone - especially friends of mine who are gay.

If you are Catholic are you automatically anti-gay??

seamus · 26-02-2013 5:21pm

eyescreamcone wrote: »

If you are Catholic are you automatically anti-gay??

Yes. If you are Catholic you support the view that homosexuality is an evil perversion and that homosexuality is to blame for child abuse.

If you don't support this view, then you're not Catholic.

I can understand someone who realises that they're gay, but believes it to be something which is wrong and can be "fixed", would reach out to anti-gay organisations to try and "fix" themselves. But I can't understand someone who is happy with their sexuality choosing to support an organisation that hates them.

Though I suppose no doubt there were some black members of the KKK and plenty of women who will attack equal rights campaigns.

No accounting for people I suppose.

SebBerkovich · 26-02-2013 5:22pm

seamus wrote: »

Yes. If you are Catholic you support the view that homosexuality is an evil perversion and that homosexuality is to blame for child abuse.

If you don't support this view, then you're not Catholic.

Wouldn't it be awesome if it was actually THAT easy. :pac:

Gbear · 26-02-2013 5:25pm

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Wouldn't it be awesome if it was actually THAT easy. :pac:

If it was that easy and people weren't so quick to perform the mental gymnastics required then they also wouldn't be likely to Catholic in the first place.

Cabaal · 26-02-2013 5:28pm

krudler wrote: »

Years ago I was dating someone who had a family member who was gay, openly so, and a staunch catholic, I couldn't fathom being part of an organisation that hates you, and is quite vocal about it, doesn't make sense to me.

Have to agree, its like being black and being a member of the KKK (if somehow they allowed you to be a member). Its kind of insane.

I guess its for people that can't face reality and secretly perhaps hate what they are and can't face it?

Penn · 26-02-2013 5:28pm

In a way, I do understand it. You place your faith and belief in God higher than your sexual desire. So even though you're homosexual (and one who engages in homosexuality), you still believe in God to the extent that you convince yourself it'll still be okay for you to be homosexual because you follow the Church in pretty much every other way, and that since you believe in and worship the Catholic God, the Catholic Church is the only one you feel you can belong to, despite how the church feels about you.

I mean, it's f*cked up, but I understand it in a way. The two things are pretty much incompatible, but they don't want to compromise one over the other, so they try to have both.

Sofiztikated · 26-02-2013 5:30pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Have to agree, its like being black and being a member of the KKK (if somehow they allowed you to be a member). Its kind of insane.

I guess its for people that can't face reality and secretly perhaps hate what they are and can't face it?

Or maybe someone can be gay, and believe in a higher power, and that the RCC is closest to what they believe in?

SebBerkovich · 26-02-2013 5:33pm

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Or maybe someone can be gay, and believe in a higher power, and that the RCC is closest to what they believe in?

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

(lesbians have to settle with being nuns)

witchgirl26 · 26-02-2013 5:34pm

seamus wrote: »

Yes. If you are Catholic you support the view that homosexuality is an evil perversion and that homosexuality is to blame for child abuse.

If you don't support this view, then you're not Catholic.

I can understand someone who realises that they're gay, but believes it to be something which is wrong and can be "fixed", would reach out to anti-gay organisations to try and "fix" themselves. But I can't understand someone who is happy with their sexuality choosing to support an organisation that hates them.

Though I suppose no doubt there were some black members of the KKK and plenty of women who will attack equal rights campaigns.

No accounting for people I suppose.

I disagree with you on this. I'm Catholic. I am not of the opinion that homosexuality is an evil perversion and that homosexuality is to blame for child abuse. That's not what Catholicism is about at its core so you can't say if you don't believe that you're not Catholic. Much more complex.

This anti-gay sentiment that appears to be put across often comes from much older Catholics who are seperated from the modern world but sometimes a view from the "grass-roots" of local priests etc show that thats not the opinion of everyone.

I ain't saying the Catholic church is all grand or anything - it is messed up and needs some serious sorting - but not everyone who is a member of the faith is like that.

SebBerkovich · 26-02-2013 5:36pm

witchgirl26 wrote: »

This anti-gay sentiment that appears to be put across often comes from much older Catholics

Like the pope?

Penn · 26-02-2013 5:43pm

witchgirl26 wrote: »

I disagree with you on this. I'm Catholic. I am not of the opinion that homosexuality is an evil perversion and that homosexuality is to blame for child abuse. That's not what Catholicism is about at its core so you can't say if you don't believe that you're not Catholic. Much more complex.

This anti-gay sentiment that appears to be put across often comes from much older Catholics who are seperated from the modern world but sometimes a view from the "grass-roots" of local priests etc show that thats not the opinion of everyone.

I ain't saying the Catholic church is all grand or anything - it is messed up and needs some serious sorting - but not everyone who is a member of the faith is like that.

I agree in a way. But with respect, the Bible does teach that homosexuality is a sin, and the entire Catholic Church regularly condemns homosexuality.

"Modern world" has nothing to do with it. I agree that the Church doesn't require you to hate homosexuality and doesn't think it is to blame for child abuse (some members do, most don't. But it's not a Church teaching), but the notion of condemning homosexuality is one which is ingrained pretty deeply in the Church, and doesn't change just because the "modern world" is more accepting of homosexuality now. The Church believes that people who engage in homosexuality are sinful and evil. If you disagree with that, you disagree with the Church. And if you're a follower of the Church and it's teachings, then that is something you're not supposed to do.

witchgirl26 · 26-02-2013 5:48pm

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Like the pope?

Indeed who I don't like and am glad is stepping down. And I also know quite a few very religious people who did not like him being elected pope when it happened as they felt it was time for someone progressive (the way Pope John Paul II had been in the 70's when he was elected). Just because he says something, doesn't mean we all instantly believe it & take it as the only way, eg I don't believe that condoms make the aids crisis worse.

Sarky · 26-02-2013 5:51pm

You're not required to like a pope, only obey him.

Cabaal · 26-02-2013 5:54pm

witchgirl26 wrote: »

Indeed who I don't like and am glad is stepping down. And I also know quite a few very religious people who did not like him being elected pope when it happened as they felt it was time for someone progressive (the way Pope John Paul II had been in the 70's when he was elected). Just because he says something, doesn't mean we all instantly believe it & take it as the only way, eg I don't believe that condoms make the aids crisis worse.

Yeah but that's the problem, if you don't believe the pope is right and your picking and choosing the catholic faith which the pope is the head of and you might as well just call yourself a generic christian instead of a roman catholic.

To be honest, some people like to call John Paul progressive but he was hardly that progressive. He declared masturbation a mortal sin.

Such nonsense, its evident from the whole religion that they have some insanely big hang outs about sex in ANY form.

oldrnwisr · 26-02-2013 6:19pm

witchgirl26 wrote: »

I disagree with you on this. I'm Catholic. I am not of the opinion that homosexuality is an evil perversion and that homosexuality is to blame for child abuse. That's not what Catholicism is about at its core so you can't say if you don't believe that you're not Catholic. Much more complex.

This anti-gay sentiment that appears to be put across often comes from much older Catholics who are seperated from the modern world but sometimes a view from the "grass-roots" of local priests etc show that thats not the opinion of everyone.

I ain't saying the Catholic church is all grand or anything - it is messed up and needs some serious sorting - but not everyone who is a member of the faith is like that.

witchgirl26 wrote: »

Indeed who I don't like and am glad is stepping down. And I also know quite a few very religious people who did not like him being elected pope when it happened as they felt it was time for someone progressive (the way Pope John Paul II had been in the 70's when he was elected). Just because he says something, doesn't mean we all instantly believe it & take it as the only way, eg I don't believe that condoms make the aids crisis worse.

It never ceases to amaze me how many times catholics have to have their own religion explained to them.

As Sarky has said:

Sarky wrote: »

How is it that so many Catholics don't know the first thing about Catholicism? It's not exactly new, there's been plenty of time to learn the rules...

So let's just get a few things straight.

Firstly, the Catholic Church does actually (and incorrectly) teach that homosexuality is something "ordered toward an inherent moral evil." The catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

So, biblically and doctrinally the Catholic Church condemns homosexuality.

The question is where this leaves you as an ordinary Catholic.

This is answered by the Catechism too:
"Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it."

OK, to better explain this you may want to start by reading this:

Magisterium

Basically, the magisterium of the church is a kind of ranking system which the church applies to its various teachings. It goes from the highest "ex cathedra" which requires that you not only follow the teaching but believe that the teaching is true, down to ordinary magisterium where you don't have to believe it is correct, you just have to obey it.

So, in summary, the Catholic church does in fact condemn homosexuality and although you are allowed to disagree with the belief, you are nevertheless required to support the church's position. That is if you wish to call yourself Catholic.

Knasher · 26-02-2013 6:21pm

witchgirl26 wrote: »

That's not what Catholicism is about at its core so you can't say if you don't believe that you're not Catholic. Much more complex.

Well it is the position of the church since 1870 that you are required to accept that the pope is infallible (believe he is always correct) in order to be catholic. Paradoxically you aren't required to believe the pope is infallible in everything he says, and rather unhelpfully they will only sometimes tell you when the pope is being infallible.

So where that leaves you is anybodies guess.

krudler · 26-02-2013 6:39pm

witchgirl26 wrote: »

Indeed who I don't like and am glad is stepping down. And I also know quite a few very religious people who did not like him being elected pope when it happened as they felt it was time for someone progressive (the way Pope John Paul II had been in the 70's when he was elected). Just because he says something, doesn't mean we all instantly believe it & take it as the only way, eg I don't believe that condoms make the aids crisis worse.

Ha, "all the stuff the church says that's morally repugnant I don't agree with, but that's not what catholicism is about"

head, meet desk.

krudler · 26-02-2013 6:45pm

witchgirl26 wrote: »

I disagree with you on this. I'm Catholic. I am not of the opinion that homosexuality is an evil perversion and that homosexuality is to blame for child abuse. That's not what Catholicism is about at its core so you can't say if you don't believe that you're not Catholic. Much more complex.

This anti-gay sentiment that appears to be put across often comes from much older Catholics who are seperated from the modern world but sometimes a view from the "grass-roots" of local priests etc show that thats not the opinion of everyone.

I ain't saying the Catholic church is all grand or anything - it is messed up and needs some serious sorting - but not everyone who is a member of the faith is like that.

Why's it on catholicism to change their rules though? their club their rules, if you dont agree find a church that suits a more progressive outlook on homosexuality?

did I just defend the catholic church? I feel dirty now.

robindch · 26-02-2013 6:47pm

witchgirl26 wrote: »

I disagree with you on this. I'm Catholic. I am not of the opinion that homosexuality is an evil perversion and that homosexuality is to blame for child abuse. That's not what Catholicism is about at its core [...]

Well, as oldrnwisr points out, that's what the Vatican requires you to think, and it's not open to debate either.

Nodin · 26-02-2013 6:51pm

witchgirl26 wrote: »

Indeed who I don't like and am glad is stepping down. And I also know quite a few very religious people who did not like him being elected pope when it happened as they felt it was time for someone progressive (the way Pope John Paul II had been in the 70's when he was elected). Just because he says something, doesn't mean we all instantly believe it & take it as the only way, eg I don't believe that condoms make the aids crisis worse.

....the power of charisma. JPII was an arch conservative. He appointed Benny head of the (renamed) inquisition to drive out "liberal" theologians and priests. Theres nothing that Benny has said in his reign that JPII didn't stand for, afaik.

krudler · 26-02-2013 7:23pm

robindch wrote: »

Well, as oldrnwisr points out, that's what the Vatican requires you to think, and it's not open to debate either.

Yet so many think it is, I genuinely don't get why Catholics have no idea whats entailed in being a Catholic. mass, community, nice priests, yay. bigotry and following the pope without question, boooo. its the same religion!

Bannasidhe · 26-02-2013 7:30pm

Nodin wrote: »

....the power of charisma. JPII was an arch conservative. He appointed Benny head of the (renamed) inquisition to drive out "liberal" theologians and priests. Theres nothing that Benny has said in his reign that JPII didn't stand for, afaik.

Perhaps witchgirl26 meant John Paul I?

By the by - 'witchgirl' - strange moniker for a defender of Catholicism given how many 'witches' that particular organisation murdered.

Cabaal · 26-02-2013 8:47pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Perhaps witchgirl26 meant John Paul I?

By the by - 'witchgirl' - strange moniker for a defender of Catholicism given how many 'witches' that particular organisation murdered.

A name like that for a few hundred years could have gotten you killed and your property taken by the church.

Sounds insane now but the fear at the time must have been unreal.

Bannasidhe · 26-02-2013 9:04pm

Cabaal wrote: »

A name like that for a few hundred years could have gotten you killed and your property taken by the church.

Sounds insane now but the fear at the time must have been unreal.

Did a lecture once where we used the Malleus Maleficarum to expose the witches among us and their confederates - lets say no-one 'survived'...

Mainly as they were guilty by association...with me.

PopePalpatine · 26-02-2013 11:36pm

Cabaal wrote: »

A name like that for a few hundred years could have gotten you killed and your property taken by the church.

Sounds insane now but the fear at the time must have been unreal.

Wow, really? Any sources to back that up, they might make for quite the interesting lunchtime read.

Bannasidhe · 26-02-2013 11:44pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Wow, really? Any sources to back that up, they might make for quite the interesting lunchtime read.

http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/witches1.asp

riffmongous · 27-02-2013 12:10am

I wouldn't think it's actually that hard for people to do the mental gymnastics, all you have to do is think 'well look at all the catholic priests who did bad things and they seem to be grand now' and there you go, why switch to an accepting religion when your own one will just forgive you in the end anyway? It's bad enough learning all the prayers first time round, and that was in school where they forced you to, who'd want to go through that again?

wonderfulname · 27-02-2013 12:28am

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.

I've certainly known people for whom that conflict has been an incredible burden and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, I'm not even catholic, am secure in who I am, and some of the crap that organisation comes out with can anger me at the least. The church and it's position in society is an absolute blight on individuals in this regard and any movement towards equality.

fisgon · 27-02-2013 12:52am

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Basically, the magisterium of the church is a kind of ranking system which the church applies to its various teachings. It goes from the highest "ex cathedra" which requires that you not only follow the teaching but believe that the teaching is true, down to ordinary magisterium where you don't have to believe it is correct, you just have to obey it.

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

Nodin · 27-02-2013 4:25am

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 · 27-02-2013 1:43pm

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 · 27-02-2013 1:56pm

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 · 27-02-2013 2:06pm

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 · 27-02-2013 2:09pm

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 · 27-02-2013 2:53pm

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 · 27-02-2013 3:04pm

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 · 27-02-2013 11:15pm

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 · 27-02-2013 11:19pm

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 · 27-02-2013 11:25pm

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 · 27-02-2013 11:34pm

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 · 28-02-2013 12:19am

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

/runs

Hotblack Desiato · 28-02-2013 12:23am

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 · 28-02-2013 12:25am

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 · 28-02-2013 12:30am

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 · 28-02-2013 12:36am

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 · 28-02-2013 12:51am

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 · 28-02-2013 12:53am

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 · 28-02-2013 12:54am

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 · 28-02-2013 12:59am

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.

"Queer & Catholic"

Comments