While it’s good that Pope Francis is willing “not to judge” celibate gay clergy who are devoted to serving the Church of Rome, I think some of the joyous responses are overblown. But I guess we will see if this is a small sign of a larger shift or just a small step back from Joseph Ratzinger’s view that homosexual orientation itself is an intrinsic moral evil that should disqualify even the celibate from serving as priests. You remember Ratzinger, the former Hitler Youth, Third Reich gunner and head of the inquisition, and, oh yes, Pope Benedict XVI. Compared to that, I guess Francis is a saint.
Still, I’d bet Austin Ruse isn’t happy.
24 Comments for “Parsing the Pope’s Comment”
posted by Kosh III on
IMHO
He’s just saying that the witch hunt conducted by Pope Ratzi and JP2 is over.
Sensible considering(as WE know) many if not most clerics are gay.
But he’s not anywhere near the sensible positions of the Episcopals, UCC, PCUSA, ELCA and others.
posted by Lori Heine on
The RCC is trying to keep from driving more people away.
It doesn’t want to turn off any more Catholics who actually know and love gay people, so this pope is gentling the rhetoric.
It doesn’t dare drive away the bigots, either. So nothing more than kinder and gentler rhetoric will come of it.
Sullivan sounds pathetic to me. This is what a lifetime of having the hell scared out of you, and being guilted, does to some cradle Catholics. Even gay ones, who ought to know better.
posted by Houndentenor on
Amen!
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
For once I agree with Stephen – I think responses such as the one by Andrew Sullivan are so overblown as to be embarrassing.
Sully is so obviously looking for some way to celebrate his Catholicism again that he will latch onto anything that isn’t blatantly homophobic from the RCC.
What concerns me is that this Pope can make the most modest expressions – ‘who am I to judge’ – and be trumpeted by some as a gay rights activist.
In other words, these rationed crumbs will soon be seen as enough for the community at large.
Where does Sully go now, after his “We have a Pope” declaration? This pope need not do anything substantial in re: to the discriminatory practices and efforts of the RCC other than say ‘who am I to judge’ – and some are falling all over themselves.
posted by Houndentenor on
Most of us, at least those of us over a certain age, have been guilty of being thrilled at any crumbs from a political or religious or cultural leader. We fawned all over them just because they didn’t want to lock us up, then because they acknowledged that we should have some (though certainly not equal) rights, then employment rights, then civil unions and finally marriage and being able to serve in the military. Looking back it seems kind of sad but progress works that way. Still this comment from the pope was not very much in an era in which people in the west, including the majority of Catholics (non-clergy) are way ahead of him. Why cheer for someone just barely riding on the back of the train? That’s not leadership. And it’s at times like these that I thank the flying spaghetti monster that I wasn’t raised Catholic. (Being raised Baptist was bad enough!)
posted by Ed on
“In other words, these rationed crumbs will soon be seen as enough for the community at large.”
I don’t know what your goal is, but this statement reflects what I am after and that is to be LEFT ALONE to live just like every straight person. I don’t need personal recognition I just need my right to exist just like anyone else to be recognized and respected. That said, I think the Pope’s stated position is a dramatic contrast to that of his predecessor.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
As a Catholic, I think I will take his statements on gay people within the clergy as a ‘wait and see’. Much like his nice statements about poverty and social justice.
Will anything substantial actually come of these statements or will they mostly cosmetic changes that much of the outside world or the lay Catholic has a tough time noticing?
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
“I don’t know what your goal is…”.
I wasn’t sure I expressed myself very well with that sentence.
What I don’t want to see (but think will happen) is a chorus of ‘hosannas’ to this Pope, while the RCC continues to fight equality around the world.
So while you think Francis’ comments are a “dramatic contrast” to his predecessor, Cardinal Dolan assures us that is not the case. And the US Bishops emphasize their opposition to ENDA, and their support for workplace discrimination.
I am not a Catholic. So my ‘goal’ on this topic is a simple one. I would hope that we don’t get so excited by some words (that really don’t say much in themselves) that we overlook the dedicated political push of the RCC to fight exactly what you are after, Ed – a right to exist and be recognized and respected just like anyone else.
posted by Houndentenor on
Ratzinger was a typical self-loathing closet-case. Of course he made public anti-gay statements! That’s what closeted homosexuals do.
posted by ShadowChaser on
First a couple facts: 1) the Ratzinger family never belonged to the Nazi Party. I believe that the family was seen as kind of suspect since they weren’t Nazis and the father of Joseph and George Ratzinger was a police officer.
2) All German males of Joseph Ratzinger’s generation were members of the Hitler Youth. It was pretty much mandatory of German males who were considered Aryan.
3) Yes, Joseph Ratzinger was a gunner in World War II. He was a teenager when he was conscripted into the Home Defense units at the end of the war.
4) It hasn’t been called the Office of the Inquisition since 1908. Since Vatican II, the theological affairs office has been called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. BTW, I don’t think that the Catholic Church has burned any heretics at the stake since the French Revolution.
Now to my opinions … from what I have seen of Pope Francis is a change of tone and style not but not of doctrine or administration. There is much corruption and scandal that he needs to address, such as the Vatican Bank (aka the Institute for Religious Works); I have been somewhat disappointed that Francis hasn’t been more proactive on addressing these issues.
I would be shocked if Francis changed much in terms of Church doctrine. Even when it knows that the doctrine is down right wrong, the Vatican will stubbornly hold on at whatever the cost.
However, the people in the pews are coming over to our side, especially among younger Catholics. Likewise, we are winning allies among Religious sisters and brothers. We are even making strides among the clergy. Trust me when I say that when I am in the confessional, the confessor is more concerned about my prayer life than he is about my sex life.
My guess is that when it comes to gay rights and Catholics, the situation will be the same as contraception and Catholicism … the hierarchy will rant and rave, while the priests, Religious and laity ignore all the noise.
At my age, 55, I know that I won’t live to see full equality for LGBT Catholics in the Church. But I remain hopeful. Despair, the loss of all hope, is the only unforgivable sin,
posted by Jorge on
You remember Ratzinger, the former Hitler Youth, Third Reich gunner
The fact that your hate speech has become an almost regular occurrence when it comes to the Catholic Church and the history of the former Pope does not make each new instance any more amusing or less excusable. It simply proves that there are times when you simply cannot cure ignorance with education. To ShadowChaser’s mandatory remarks (which are frankly an embarassment that they even have to be made yet again on this website), it must be added that Mr. Ratzinger AWOLed during the war.
I will make one observation on the merits.
Actually, let me withdraw my observation, because this article answered what to me was a question. I was debating whether his remarks might be a coded message to the so-called “gay lobby” in the Curia, that while he was very much a reformist, this did not bother him. Well, turns out it’s probably the opposite–he doesn’t want his potential opposition to the gay lobby to be seen as a coded message against gay priests for being gay priests.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The relevant question, it seems to me, is whether and when the Church will abandon/moderate/reverse the current level of political involvement in opposition to equality, marriage and otherwise.
In US history, the Church’s current level of political involvement is almost unprecedented. In the past, the Church has spoken out on political issues, as is its right, and instructed Catholics on the issues involved, as is its duty, but I don’t recall another instance in which the Church was involved in fostering and funding political campaigns (Prop 8 and others) and political organizations (NOM and others), threatening civil authorities (implicit threats to shut down Catholic hospitals with respect to medical insurance issues and direct threats to shut down Catholic Charities programs such as adoption services over marriage equality issues). Nor do I recall official statements to the effect that civil law equality will effectively destroy religious freedom in our country, statements which are nonsensical.
I don’t know what is behind all that, but that — the unprecedented level of organized political opposition, fostered and funded by the institutional Church in the United States (and, presumably elsewhere) — is what needs to be abandoned, moderated or reversed. I don’t expect any public statements from the institutional Church if and when it decides to return to its religious role in the United States, but I hope for a change in the level of direct political activity.
As to Popes, they come and go. I can understand the reaction from LGBT Catholics to any sign of hope that the hard years of the last decade or so are coming to an end, I think that it is a waste of time for the rest of us to be overly reactive to particular Popes or their statements. The institution moves slowly, one step forward and two back, two steps forward and one back, changing almost imperceptibly over the course of many, many years.
posted by Jorge on
“Threatening authorities”? Talk about spin!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“Threatening authorities”? Talk about spin!
You can call the Church’s statements what you want, I suppose, and you are welcome to do so.
Perhaps. My view is that when an Church makes public statements that if a law is passed it will shut down health care and adoption services unless the providing institutions, which are Church-sponsored but government-funded organizations, are granted an exemption from obeying the law, it is a threat. Why else say it?
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
And let’s not forget that an Archbishop has essentially called for denial of communion to those Catholics who support (“advocate”) marriage equality. Which would seem to me to be a threat.
Of course, it is an ‘official’ position of the Catholic Church that politicians who support a woman’s right to choose are to be denied communion as well.
Framing these actions as anything other than “threats” would be “spin”, imho.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Aubrey, the Church has a right to take whatever actions it wants with respect to excommunication of its adherents. At least I think so.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Tom, I agree that any church has “a right to take whatever actions it wants with respect to excommunication of its adherents.”
All I am saying is that the church uses this “right” as a threat to try and curtail politicians from supporting positions it disagrees with.
I think the church has the right to do so. But the fact that it has a right to do so does not lessen the ‘threatening’ aspect of that right.
Just as the church has a right to close its adoption services if it doesn’t get what it wants from a government.
But as you point out, Tom, that right is still exercised as a threat.
posted by Jorge on
The simplist and most logical explanationis because that is exactly what the Catholic Church will do and it does not actually want to do it.
posted by Don on
I see the pope’s comments more in line with a disposition he is espousing. He’s not so much into using political cover issues to dodge the core message of Christianity as previously church leaders have been. i.e. all that talk about the poor, charity, losing oneself in materialism is repeatedly harkening back to actions, not words. All religions drift into demonizing “other” people who are “less righteous” than “us” and not doing the things they should be doing instead. Seems to me Francis is calling on Catholics to drop the name calling the finger pointing and help your fellow man. I see it as a shrewd move. It leaves the ideologues who have spent years debating esoteric abstractions in a quandary. “Let’s drop the talk about gays for a minute and help the poor.” Ball is in their court now. Maybe I’m being overly charitable, but I don’t think so. He isn’t even saying “the church’s teaching is wrong on gays.” He’s saying “not my priority; let’s shine a light over here instead.”
Which is precisely how politics often work. When your record or a position is controversial or unpopular, create a demon and focus everyone’s attention on that instead. I believe the gay talk before was all to take the heat off the pedophilia scandals. “Let’s talk about something else”
posted by Don on
I think many people misunderstand Sullivan’s defense of Catholicism and his strong affinity for it. Although I believe much of his fondness with the topic is a result of being born into the teachings, a deeper read of his fixation is based on his having worked hard on the teachings for personal transformational purposes rather than the blind adherence to cheering on the “home team religion.” Although there may be problems with my parallel, he talks of the transformational power of the pure teachings expressed in the Bible much like St. Francis did in his day. Self-sacrifice for others isn’t a golden ticket to the cloud-kingdom. It is an experience that takes away fear and worry in the here and now. The movie Kingdom of Heaven explores these ideas.
His fixation on Catholicism and the church hierarchy seems to be much of what Francis was trying to say “ignore the politicians, do the work and experience personal transformation.” I think that’s an important point to make repeatedly. Quit looking at those who have been ensnared by the trappings of wealth and power that come with climbing the church hierarchy. Where we diverge, is I judge the hierarchy less harshly. I believe they simply do not understand the core teaching itself and have succumbed to the corrupting influences of wealth and power and do not realize it. “Forgive them for they know not what they do” comes to mind.
Oh, and for the record, not a Catholic. Don’t even consider myself Christian although born into it technically.
posted by Jorge on
…Although there may be problems with my parallel, he talks of the transformational power of the pure teachings expressed in the Bible much like St. Francis did in his day. Self-sacrifice for others isn’t a golden ticket to the cloud-kingdom. It is an experience that takes away fear and worry in the here and now. The movie Kingdom of Heaven explores these ideas.
I don’t read Andrew Sullivan, but you nailed something. Pope Benedict actually defines the Kingdom of God in these terms in Jesus of Nazareth.
Gandhi famously said the reason he is not a Christian despite his great admiration for Christianity’s teachings is because he has never met one. To believe in and accept what the Catholic priests sincerely tell you is, in my own personal experience, something that can take you closer to God and away from the Catholic community.
The Popes always want to bring the community to the front. But the majority is the enemy. It is an undertaking that is simply not possible.
posted by lt.milo on
To call Pope Benedict out for being a “Hitler Youth” is doing exactly what Pope Francis warned against in his airplane press-conference.
We don’t have the right to not forget. We don’t have the right to not forgive. (He clarifies that this is for sins, not crimes). In this time where we can easily access everyone’s past mistakes, we need to remember that we have no right to judge.
posted by Kosh III on
Along the lines of this:
In the Sunday Tennessean, an Opinion page article by Father Breen of St. Edward RCC had effusive praise for the wonderful choice of the talented and brilliant new Dean of Vanderbilt Divinity School. He praised the choice for demonstrating the diversity of people in Christianity.
The new Dean is a black LESBIAN.
posted by Tom Jefferson IIII on
It is always difficult to tell — when a Pope does seem to want to take steps in the right direction — how far he can actually go before internal opposition shuts him down.
The Vatican II was not perfect, but it attempted to fix many of the past mistakes that the Church — as an institution had made — and come to terms a bit with the modern world and some of what the church faithful had to go through.
I been reading a book about a similar effort that might have happened with a short lived Pope in the 1970s. It suggests that Pope John Paul I was not only going to fight internal corruption and commit more of the Church wealth to fighting poverty, but was leaning in the direction of approving birth control and maybe something a tad bit saner with regards to homosexuality.