wow
Homosexual marriages are part of “a new ideology of evil” that is insidiously threatening society, Pope John Paul says in a new book published Tuesday.
Ok, so while I fervently disagree, I understand conservative Christian beliefs about abortion. There’s a logical train of thought in which, if you belief life begins at conception abortion does clear hard to human life. Conservative Christian beliefs about gay marriage, however, are honestly beyond me.
Part of an “ideology of evil”?! Clearly there must be some aspect of gay marriage that I simply don’t grasp. Last time I checked, it was two people who love each other pledging to live their lives together. Where does this ominous sounding evil come in? The love part? The commitment part? YO NO COMPRENDO!
Comments
As far as I see it, I think they believe that legalising gay marriage will mean de-sacralising marriage as a holy institution… But guess what, no one`s talking about opening catholic marriage or any religious marriage for that matter to same-sex couples. One thing is religious marriage, which falls under the exlusive jurisdiction of each church, another is civil marriage, which is the State`s responsability and doesn`t necessarily bear the scope of procriation.
As a Catholic Christian, let me explain a couple of things. While I feel that the “evil” rhetoric is a bit too much, here’s the basic view. The Catholic Church likes babies. And it does not like sex that will not ever produce them. Hence the no contraception rule. Marriage, in the church’s eyes, is the only appropriate place for sex, because it is the setting in which a couple is most prepared to have and raise children. Marriage, children, and family are ultimately bound up in one another. This is the issue. Of course with the rising divorce rate, domestic violence problems, and the widespread use of contraception, this view of marriage, which used to be the prevailing view, has fallen to the wayside. The church’s aggresive campaigning against gay marriage, is, if you will, a final attempt to reverse the current marriage trends. In my opinion, this battle was lost a long time ago. But this is the reason. It should also be kept in mind that this book is not official church doctrine but the pope’s personal opinion. Maybe in most people’s minds there is no difference but in canon law there is.
But I would like to point out to you a trend in the media that tends to demonize conservative religious groups in general, and the Catholic Church in particular (or maybe that’s just me, because that’s what tends to stick out at me). Every time the pope or any other church official talks about homosexual marriage, abortion, or any other “conservative” topics, the liberal media looks on and frowns. But there are other moral issues which I guarantee are spoken about just as equally, but never publicized, for instance, Archbishop Sean O’Malley’s (of Boston) letter concerning the death penalty and why the church is opposed to it upon Mitt Romney’s announcement that he would try to reinstate capital punishment in Massachusetts. I’ve been hearing for months about churches closing in the Boston area, but not once have church efforts to advocate for affordable housing in Boston been in the mainstream media. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard about the oppressive nature of certain guidelines of church social justice teachings in the popular media, but it’s only within church circles that you learn about all the papal encyclicals concerning social justice that talk about the rights of workers, that call for peace in the world, that voice concerns over the abuse of the environment and natural resources, and gaps in world wealth. I advise you to take a look at the major social justice teachings of the church: the major encyclicals are on this website: http://www.justpeace.org/docu.htm#The%20Social%20Justice%20Teaching%20%E2%80%9CCanon%E2%80%9D
I absolutely agree that liberals (in the media and elsewhere) have become so lost in their belief in secularism that they have forgotten not only that America is a deeply religious country, but that the forces of religion have been the leaders in social justice throughout.
The problem, and I think the reason that liberals have forgotten about social justice, is that the rhetoric of abortion and gay rights is so inflamatory that liberals are reactionarily defensive and blinded to the other aspects of the religious movement.
In other words, its hard to blame liberals for forgetting that Pope John Paul has been amonst the biggest crusaders against poverty for the last 50 years when he calls gay people evil.
Just a clarification–the pope does not call gay people evil, but rather the institution of gay marriage evil. I realize that in some people’s minds there is not a huge difference, but in terms of church teaching and doctrine there is. There is nothing in Catholic Church teaching (I do not speak for other Christian denominations) that being gay, or even being in a gay relationship, is a sin. The prohibition is against gay sex. Since the church idea (and the mainstream idea) of marriage involves sex. Like I said before, it involves a very different view of the role of marriage and family in society than is common in American culture.
Personally, I feel that church and state definitions of marriage are currently and can continue to be radically different. However, I feel like the (again) media makes individuals such as you believe that the church calls gay people “evil”. This is not the case, and this is among my aforementioned complaints about how many religious beliefs are depicted in the press.
ok, so gay sex is evil? I’m unclear on how that really differs, because for the gay people I know, the sex part is really where they feel different than straight people. The gay rights movement isn’t about making the world tolerant of gay people holding hands, its about making the world tolerant of gay people being in love and, yes, having sex.
A question, and this one is really key for me: if the Catholic Church is worried about the continuation of families that perpetuate the species etc., how do other people who wouldn’t otherwise be in those types of families getting married effect the people who are in those families? I guess that’s a long way of asking, how exactly does gay marriage threaten the sanctity of my parents’ marriage? or of my possible future marriage for that matter?
Andrew, I think the Catholic Church still have that old belief that gay people can be “healed” with proper counselling, that`s why they feel that the harder you make life for them, more gay people will “see the light” and revert to heterosexualism. That`s absurd, but I think it`s the secret hope beyond their official doctrine.
I’m not asking that you agree here, but I am asking that you acknowledge that this is an argument with its own logic which is very different from yours. I hope that O_Pombo is not serious about the whole “converstion to heterosexualism” thing. I think a huge difference in perception here is that in our society, sex is considered to be something that no person should live without. This is not the view that the church has. In the church’s eyes, sex always should have a dual purpose: as an act of love and as an act of procreation. It is an act that produces life, and since this is its main biological purpose this should not be separated from its emotional aspect. And if one of the two are not present, than abstinence is the best choice.
As for the question about your parents, I don’t think I can speak for your parents–I know nothing about their faith or principles. As I said before, this fight on the part of the church is an attempt to hold valid an argument about this dual purpose of sex that has been deteriorating over the past 50 or so years. The church knows that if gay marriage is widely accepted, that this argument will not hold water.
O-Pombo’s comments illustrate very plainly what I complained about in my first comment, which is that when the media and individuals do not agree with what the church says, or do not fully understand it, all of a sudden there is some hidden right-wing agenda meant to marginalize people, and we conclude that organized religion in general is horrible after all. What I hope to explain here is that although this teaching is about far more than homophobia. I hope that individuals can at least recognize this.
Hey hey hold on!
I didn`t mean to disrespect you or your beliefs in any way. If I did offend you due to the way I said what I said on my previous post, I honestly apologise. Living in a country that only exists as so because the Pope recognised it in the 12th century and where about 85% of the population is Catholic, I have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church`s heritage, religion and social work, even though I do not utterly agree with some aspects of its common speech.
This “convertion to heterosexualism thing” is in fact sometimes suggested by some European bishops. Within the Church (like in any other organisation) there are fanatics, and sometimes the general public is led to think they represent the views of the whole Church because it certainly sells more newspapers and it raises more audience for the 9 o`clock news to show a clergyman nagging about gays than to show how Catholic missionaries are helping local communities in Thailand to overcome the damage and losses due to the tsunami.
Anyway, as I said before, one thing is Catholic marriage, an institution of canonic law. Another is civil marriage, which belongs to each State`s jurisdiction. This last one does not imply procriation (it would be against the Constitution if it did, because it would be discriminatory to couples who can`t have children or who don`t want to have them). The church has the right to impose its own rules concerning Catholic marriage – and it should – however, as for civil marriage rules (or any State rules or policies for that matter, unless clearly against basic principles of “natural law”) it should stay off politics.
That is one thing, that I completely agree with you on. I just wanted to make the point that we should analyze information we receive so we can get at the reality of things.
As for your question, Andrew, I have also thought about this question a lot. It was explained to me later in this way, in a public discussion on the issue. What is necessary in sex is what is called an “openness to life” meaning that if one is unable to procreate one is willing to adopt children. Another individual then asked how this differs from a committed gay couple that has chosen to adopt, and the response was that since a child comes from a man and a woman biologically, this is the ideal setting in which a child should be raised. This isn’t always possible, but should always be strived for.
Alright, now I know that argument will outrage some people. I’m sorry about that, but that is the argument as it stands. It was a really great public discussion, though.
And I need to run to class.
ok, so if adoption is ok but a gay couple isn’t because they don’t have the “natural” roles, should we also take children away from single parents, or not let them adopt?
The problem for me is this, the Church’s standard has a million exceptions, for single people, for infertile people, etc. etc., but it doesn’t have an exception that falls on the same basic premise for gay people, and that’s because the church thinks that being gay is wrong. All of the other utilitarian arguments don’t hold up unless you make that first step, and that’s a first step I am far from willing to take.
I guess the difference is this: biologically, infertile couples ARE an exception. They’re an anomaly. Additionally, being infertile is seen as a kind of medical problem (or handicap or disability if you will). Being gay is not.
I feel like the situation with single parents/gay parents and adoption is this: while it’s not ideal for a child to grow up without both a mother and a father, there are situations (ie death of parents, abuse, inability on the part of parents to financially support a child) that make adoption on the part of a gay couple or a single person the best option for them. But by the same token, the mother/father structure isn’t there, and so sex should not be a part of the picture.
I’ve been growing up in this tradition my entire life, and I have never been taught to believe or thought that gay people are in any way evil. So it very much puzzles me when individuals outside the tradition claim to know what effect this has on its members. I feel like the church is not the only institution that has been misinterpreted in this way. To take a very campus-relevant example, if finals clubs don’t admit women, does this mean that members of finals clubs are sexist and hate women? I don’t think so. But this is also something that could be very easily misunderstood.
From Comment 2: “The Catholic Church likes babies.” As a student of evolution, this makes a lot of sense to me. If you want power and you want to survive, you reproduce a lot, especially in a dangerous environment. Whether anyone officially recognizes or admits this, I think it is important to recognize that this sort of effect is at play here.
I don’t entirely disagree with this. What you say makes sense, and I feel for some Catholics (not most) this is a genuine concern. Although there is also a very historical basis. Throughout the early history of Christianity, and especially in the Middle Ages when infant mortality rates were high, having lots of children meant not just the survival of the faith, but also the survival of family names, local identities, etc. I think that if the reason you suggest was the only reason for this idea in the church, then it doesn’t make sense for priests, nuns, and monks to take vows of chastity, or even to forbid premarital and extramarital sex. Also, Catholicism is certainly not the only worldview that does not approve of contraception. It is just the one I (and many others in the United States) are most familiar with.
Post a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.