Pope Francis I: How does this affect the worldwide gay community

Just a few thoughts from a historian and medievalist.

I am aware that quite a lot of us have mixed feelings about the Roman Catholic Church, but if you will allow me I will do my best to try to put into perspective the signal the cardinals are sending the world with the election of Cardinal Bergoglio as Francis I.

The Church Perspective

It is not far from the minds of the Princes of the Church that the Roman Catholic religion is rapidly losing relevancy in the modern world. Two conservative popes who terribly mishandled the various pedophilia scandals and a strongly rising Opus Dei meant that none of the changes the Church needed to make would be made.

There was a practical reason to elect a South American pope, obviously the strength of the Church now resides in South America, 42% of the congregation are Latino and older Western Europe is on the wane.

Age: Bergoglio is already an old man, 76 years old. It is doubtful he will reign more than a decade, this could be seen as bow to the older conservatives who were strongly rejected in this Conclave for a cardinal doctrinally similar to Joseph Ratzinger.

This election is high theater and a strategic public relations decision. This pope's job will to be clean up the mess Ratzinger left behind. Bergoglio is doctrinally left of Ratzinger.

Symbology is everything

1. South American or New World Pope, a first.

2. Bergoglio is a Jesuit, no Jesuit had been elected Pope previously because the Jesuit order has been under interdiction twice for 100 years each. The Jesuits are one of the more liberal major orders.

3. No Pope has ever taken the name Francis (as in Francis of Assissi), a subtle signal that this Pope sees the value of humility, not the doctrinally certain mantra that Benedict sermonized, wrote and lectured about. Bergoglio took and oath of poverty and can be viewed as a return to a simpler philosophy of ruling the Church.

4. Bergoglio has often stated publicly that the Church should RESPECT (not merely tolerate), gay people. A stunningly liberal position for a cardinal and certainly for a Pope.

It bears watching if any of thia will make a difference, the Church rarely changes quickly...but this seems to be a signal to the world at large that the Church knows it needs to make some changes.

I don't view my post as prescient, but as a conversation starter. I would value other people's opinions, just keep it cool and respectful. You would be helping me out if you come to this topic with some well thought out opinions.

~JC

He also would clean the feet and kiss HIV AIDS victims. I dont recall any pope doing this. We aren't going to get the reforms we want but its a step in the right direction.

This new piece of crap, Pope Palpatine II, has in the past described same-sex marriage as a “destructive attack on God’s plan” and that same-sex adoption is a form of discrimination and abuse against children.

In 2010, he fought against the introduction of same-sex marriage and adoption rights in his home country of Argentina saying that the population would “face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family. He added: “At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”

He went on to describe introducing equality as a move from “the ‘Father of Lies’ who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God”. In the Gospel of John, ‘the Father of Lies’ is a term for the Devil.

Cristina Kirchner, the President of Argentina, said the Catholic Church under his leadership in the country was reminiscent of "medieval times and the inquisition." The president of his *own* country!

So when you have a loathsome asshole like that, I'm not sure how you could describe my feelings as "conflicted." They are rather clear: He is a disgusting pile of shit that will bring social, economic, and emotional ruination on millions of gay people around the world for years to come. By telling the gullible, illiterate unwashed masses of his religion that the devil is behind equality for gay people, he inspires and encourages behavior that not only leads to oppression, but to violence as well. One only need to look at Africa to see how Christianity has spread like a plague to the terrible detriment and danger to gay people.

Firstly Robbie, a lot of rhetorical ammunition has been expended by the Church to keep gays from marrying. I expected no change from this new pope in that regard. But I am not content to equate this man to Joseph Ratzinger just yet.

I am not naive enough to believe this college of cardinals composed 100% of John Paul II appointees and Benedict XVI appointees to select anything less than someone who agreed on the issue of gay marriage with JPII and BXVI.

The jobs of Cardinal and Pope are political, nothing more and nothing less. I do not expect to run blissfully back into the arms of my former church. But as an academic I am expected to analyze the doctrinal differences between Bergoglio and Ratzinger, despite my personal feelings.

I have read and translated Bergoglio's letter exhorting nuns to prepare for a battle between the conservative values of the church and the secular progressive leadership of Cristina Fernandez. The language used was not unexpected from an organization that has been trotting out "natural law" as a reason for over seven centuries. In some ways it is "comforting" to see that, because a doctrinal progressive IF elected would face incredible barriers.

The best anyone can expect from the Church is a doctrinal softening, a call for respect for gays and lesbians, but no softening of the anti-marriage position. There will be no ordination for women under this pope, and it is unlikely that priests will be given a chance to marry and have families either.

But the election of Francis signals the halt of Opus Dei's growth of influence. Jesuits lately have fared poorly in the doctrinal battles between orders and offices and Opus Dei benefitted. It also signals a reassesment of whether the office of pope should be held by a theologian or a pastor and the signal here could not be more clear. This pope is a pastor, not a theologian.

None of us will live to see the church change and embrace its gay and lesbian congregation, there is simply too much reverance for St. Thomas's natiral law arguments. Nonetheless, the election of this pope signals a shift to the left in terms of what the church has done since 1978.

I will take a wait and see approach. These old men are not stupid, they did what they felt they needed to do to attempt to reassert the church's relevance. You may expect changes to always be incremental with the RCC.

Respects,

~J

You contend that a Jesuit pope is an improvement. Yet it is the Jesuit boast, ‘Give me the child for his first seven years, and I’ll give you the man,’ that is it absolutely chilling. The sinister way in which a gullible, vulnerable child is spoon-fed laughably false information that later leads to the oppression, violence, and death of millions of people makes their indoctrination of this hateful belief system so vile.

Religious leaders are well aware of the vulnerability of the child brain, and the importance of getting the indoctrination in early. It comes at time when the cognitive centers of the brain are still developing, which is why they can trick a child into believing with every fiber of his being that Allah rode into Heaven on a pony with wings and a man-face or that Yahweh magically impregnated a Palestinian girl so he could incarnate himself as his own child to save humans from behaving the way he created them to behave.

So powerful and effective is this way of getting "believers for life" that it convinces women that they should shut the hell up and let men lead everything. It convinces slaves that they should shut the hell up and listen to massah. And, yes, it even convinces gay people to shut the hell up and minimize and even dismiss the horrible things done to gay people in the name of Middle Eastern religions for thousands of years.

The brain is very good at shutting down thought processes that are upsetting and contradict things that were cemented as "true" when you were a gullible 5-year-old. The phenomenon is called cognitive dissonance. Would you be open to the possibility that cognitive dissonance, rather than your background as an academic, is what compels you to want to see the new pope and/or Catholic Church in a light far favorable than he/it is due?

MOD: While discussing religion and your opinion of it is fine, please keep in mind that others in this community do ascribe to these beliefs. Please be respectful of those beliefs.

In parts of the world *right now* there are people whose religious and "strongly held beliefs" include carving out the clitorises of pre-pubescent girls so that they will never know sexual sensation. These girls are essentially castrated and will live the rest of their lives that way. There has been strong advocacy for decades now in trying to stamp out this horrifying, disgusting practice, famously led by Tom Hanks' wife, Rita Wilson.

So just to clarify, if a fleetie lives in a part of the world where clitoral mutilation is regularly practiced and he talks about how it's not that big of a deal and who cares if it spreads to other parts of the world, are we really expected to "respect" that religious belief just because it's a belief? Should Rita Wilson just keep her mouth shut and let little girls get carved up because it's not "respectful" of the belief?

Or are we supposed to respect only some religious beliefs (i.e., the Christian ones)? Honest question, since that what it kind of sounds like.

I can't speak for the administration here, but I'm of the opinion that there is a difference between blanket condemnation of a belief system and criticizing or opposing it's individual tenants. There is also a difference between the aforementioned and degrading the individual or group of individuals who believe a certain way.

It is fine, in my personal opinion, to voice opposition of inhumane or morally bankrupt doctrines so long as it is in an effort to help enlighten and enhance the lives of those who ascribe to such beliefs or are affected by them, with respect to those who believe them.

Let us be mindful not to overreach ourselves in condemnation. Almost every religion, while they may have their dark spots, serves a purpose in the world, and perhaps more importantly, the lives of the people who adhere to it. Christianity as an example, for all it's missteps and the way it has polarized the issue of homosexuality, regardless of denomination, still contains beautiful meaning and history.

That said, I feel the most important thing in the context of this discussion, is to ensure that criticism does not become personalized. You do not necessarily have to respect the beliefs, but respect the humanity of the individual or groups that adhere to them, their freedom of choice, reasoning, personal experience and identity. And yes, that means having a certain sensitivity to how they might perceive criticism towards their strongly held beliefs.

As one who clearly understands the malleability of human consciousness, let us be mindful that should we have walked a lifetime in another's shoes, we would believe the same things they do. "Bad" beliefs are the construct of ignorance, and there are no "evil people", only unfortunate circumstances in which they are raised. We are one in that regard, so treat each-other as we would ourselves, opposing doctrines, not people, with temperance, patience, and sensitivity, towards the goal of shared enlightenment through the dissolution of ignorance.

I am not saying that this has been violated, but I hope it offers clarity in regards to your question and will set the tone for a more peaceful discussion of such fiery issues.

I'm sure Ms. Wilson dosen't go around calling people a "piece of crap", a "piece of shit", the "devil"( father of lie's,ect), or refer to them as a sith lord. Education, compassion, and respect are our most powerful tools to win people over a people.

I want everyone to bear in mind that my personal and private position on the Chruch is not too far from Robbie's. There is a degree of moral bankruptcy to the RC Church's position. What organization do you know of that is comprised of somewhere north of 30% gay men treats their kind more shabbily than this Church?

But I am not allowed the luxury of my personal opinion when I speak "wearing my academic hat."

Francis is somewhat doctrinally left of Ratzinger, who is a doctrinal and theological conservative and ran the Inquisition arm of the Church under John Paul II (SCDF). Francis has been, most of his career as a priest, a pastor. A social progressive of the family. But still does not believe in equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. Why? Because the Church teaches Thomism and natural law as part of theological career training for the vocation of the priesthood. Yet, this man who just got elected, despite his anti-marriage position has called for, in public, respect for gays and lesbians. This is something that Benedict would never do, despite the rather unusual and borderline homoerotic relationship he shares with his papal secretary, Father Georg Ganswein.

If anyone is interested, in any degree, to the tortured past and future the Roman Church has about nonconforming sexuality, I recommend Mark D. Jordan, who explains in great detail how the church created the current definition of "sodomite" and "sodomy" out of whole cloth (The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology). He is one of the most learned of gay scholars on the Church, and not incidentally potentially one of my PhD committee members.

I study this part of history because I believe the key to certain modern problems lie there, I happen to have the Roman Catholic background, so to some extent I understand the guilt and grave doubts that gay members of the Catholic faith go through, having gone through it myself. I can't just dismiss it out of hand.

...and for the record I am not offended in the least about what Robbie has posted here. It is a valid opinion expressed with passion. I ask for nothing more than that. I started this conversation knowing that it would evoke a strong emotional response, so I bear responsibility for this topic. But we (referring to all gays and lesbians, inclusive of those of faith) need to be informed and understand just why we are where we are today in relationship to faith and our sexual orientation.

Boswell was a believer and one of the finest gay historians of his age. I am one of his successors who is secular with a religious past. There are questions JEB left behind that demand answers for all our sakes. So no matter how I live my life, my research puts me in this uncomfortable place. More help from you all would be appreciated.

~J

Understanding and compassion are key, but I don't see such things anywhere near the Vatican. And I will not sit idly while lies are spread about who I am as a person.

I am sorry, but his words are ludicrous. If marginalizing a group of people in the world isn't contrary to the message of compassion that the Church has insisted on for eons, then I am truly lost at what the definition of hypocrisy is.

I respect what people believe in, but to a point. Respect is universal, and without it I see very little (if any) validation in the beliefs of one or many.

S-

Stonewall is meant to be a safe and inclusive environment for all it's members. No one should ever be made to feel that they cannot voice their own personal or religious views for fear of them being attacked or. Consider the wording of any critique and moderate your passion with reason, empathy and above all respect. If your goal is to enlighten and not just bask in secular righteousness please Keep in mind you may be shooting your own objective in the foot my making others feel like you don't really understand them. No one is going to listen on a personal level to someone whom they think does not get them. People don't like to be made to feel deficient or be called brainwashed for believing in something. It's offensive and judgmental and resoundingly hypocritical to employ the same prejudiced, bigoted and adversarial modus operandi that our detractors feel just as justified using against us in the name of their own personal or collective beliefs. Not everyone feels comfortable toeing the party line or being firmly on one side of a very polarized issue. They should not be made to feel alienated or afraid that the simple beliefs that they feel make them a better person are going to be subject to a savage deconstruction.

Flawed in practice though it may be, the cardinal tenets of Christianity are kindness, love and compassion, even for your enemies. The fact that these tenets have been warped or flat-out disregarded by the people that make up the congregations and their leadership is the fault of the people and the leadership, not the words themselves and IMHO, nor even the Deity that is believed to have inspired them. I'm not Catholic I was raised in a non-denominational church who's doctrine is closest to that of the Baptists. And while their practiced doctrine did make it a bit more difficult for me to come to terms with my own sexuality it also did teach me some very important lessons and continues to inspire me to treat others with kindness, compassion and respect. It inspires me to examine my own actions and my own motives in a very harsh mirror in order to better myself. Religions change and with them their doctrines but this process takes time and patience. Corruption will always be present in any human endeavor whether it be political, social or spiritual. I don't think religion and by extension the Catholic church is obsolete, just in need of an upgrade. They're just realizing that they've still been in closed beta while the rest of us are already playing the expansion. ;)

Quote by Jacien

It's offensive and judgmental and resoundingly hypocritical to employ the same prejudiced, bigoted and adversarial modus operandi that our detractors feel just as justified using against us in the name of their own personal or collective beliefs.

Yeah, Jacien. It's the exact same thing: I chased Christians down the street with a baseball bat as had happened to me. I threw eggs and bottles at Christians from passing cars as repeatedly happened to me when I lived in West Hollywood. I went on a decades-long PR blitz equating them to child molesters. I campaigned and made it illegal for Christians to serve in the military, adopt children, and get married. And then I made sure to change the constitutions in states all over the country to ENSURE Christians would never get the chance to get married. I bought television networks, book stores, newspapers, and a whole host of other media to heap lie after lie about Christians and drive Christian teen suicides to a rate that is 7 times higher than non-Christians.

I did all of those hypocritical things. But only in your False Equivalence fallacy fantasy.

The truth of the matter is, everything I posted was factually correct. (Okay, except for calling the pope a piece of shit, but only because he's not *literally* a piece of shit.) It may be upsetting to you to confront your cognitive dissonance, but it is a real phenomenon and accepted by every major psychological association in the world. Children are born atheists but are indoctrinated into believing in gods. That is an indisputable fact. Children retain the religion of their parents to a number that nears 100%. That is an indisputable fact. Your religion is an accident of your birth. Had you been born in Saudi Arabia, you would most likely be Muslim with the same level of defensive belief.

Pointing out *why* people still believe in the ancient Middle Eastern gods is not employing "the same prejudiced, bigoted and adversarial modus operandi" that Christians use to vilify gay people. I am quoting actual scientifically determined facts. Christians are quoting ancient texts that were written hundreds of years after the very people they talk about had died.

I am not a bigot as you claim. I am confronting the horrible things Christians have done. Speaking out against atrocities IS NOT THE SAME THING as committing the atrocities in the first place. And I never personally attacked anyone on this board as you have done to me. So who is the real hypocrite?

Robbie I do apologize if I've offended you. I do not appreciate the attitude in which you have made your position known and nor do I appreciate what in my view is a very intellectualized view of bullying. I don't care how factual you may feel it is, to single out people like Lorenius or myself having a religious background and calling them brainwashed products of our environment is really just plain mean. I know you've had terrible experiences, you've told me about them and I'm sorry they happened to you. And there is plenty of factual evidence to support your claims but please keep in mind that this is a safe place for everyone and the more vitriol you pour into your well-though-out words, the more you might be alienating certain members of our community, and this just isn't the place for that. Once again I apologize to you Robbie, I like you very much. :)

MOD: To akin Christianity to a plague, saying anyone who believes in a god is indoctrinated, and painting every Christian as a hate monger is not being respectful. I'm not going to debate what should or shouldn't be respected. This is a second warning. Keep this conversation polite and respectful or the thread will be closed.

Robbie,

Then with all due respect confront the ignorance and bigotry with the best weapon you have, your mind. I am a historian, my work to make people aware of the heavily bowdlerized history presented by the Magisterium helps everyone whether they believe or not.

I am not equating my experience with yours, but I too was made to feel "othered" by the Church, it is why I am no longer a member of the Roman Catholic Church, or frankly, any other organized religion. There is a difference between spirituality and (organized) religion. One does not need a building or a group of old white men to feel a connection to something higher than yourself (be it God or Gaia or something else).

Your mileage may vary, but I choose to simply live the best life I know how to live. Be good to people, love my friends, and be the best man I can be for the man I love. Sometimes I mess up, but that is because I am human, not because I am malicious.

My passion for history stems from the belief that I can help people throw off the chains of wilfull ignorance and use knowledge to expose dishonest brokers of false facts for the charlatans that they are, and when it comes to false facts, there are no greater masters of creating false facts than the purveyors of organized religion...or politicians... and the reason it works is because...people need to believe in something greater than themselves. Charlatans of all stripe have been taking advantage of that key weakness for a very long time.

I know its raw and I know it hurts..and I did not intend for this topic to cause you distress...but know I do not endorse the Church or those who choose to be hurtful to other human beings, but they are a particular problem that needs to be studied.

~J

We all realize that this discussion could be a Very Special Episode of DS9 involving Dr. Bashir, a Vorta, and a Bajoran, with a worm-hole alien peeking around the corner and winking at the end, right? :)

LOL. In point of fact, yes I do, Robbie. But who would be Bashir?

~J

... No comment.

Other than that... uhh "wow" will have to do. lol

Quote by Lorenius

LOL. In point of fact, yes I do, Robbie. But who would be Bashir?

~J

Indeed I wonder... Who would be cast as the mentally superior product of morally dubious science know-it-all who always comes off as being kind of annoying? :P

I'm sorry Jeff, I think it might be you. :laugh:

I know Sej wouldn't mind playing a Vorta. ;)