If Only the Pope Would Listen to Himself

This, ironically, is the Pope trying to make a point about homosexuality:

People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given to them by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. When freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God.

But I was an adolescent growing up in a conservative Catholic home, and that’s when I was disputing the idea that I have a nature, hoping instead that my sexuality was a fundamental choice I could make. Finally in the 80s I accepted I was gay and stopped stripping myself of dignity by trying to live a lie in discord with my nature.

The Pope thinks he’s arguing against homosexuality, when in fact he’s explaining why ex-gay therapy is a moral shame.

Share:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Reddit

7 comments to If Only the Pope Would Listen to Himself

  • 1
    Jason D says:

    absolutely.
    It’s so weird for these people, they refuse to talk TO us about who we are, instead they make assumptions and talk ABOUT us as if we’re not hear to testify about our own lives. 

  • 2
    Matt says:

    Jason D hits the nail on the head! This is one of the thing that annoys me the most about this kind of anti-gay rhetoric: the arrogance that underlies it. The assumption that they know more about my life, my experiences, my feelings, my “nature”, than I do. I’m not fond of the term “mansplaining”, but the concept is certainly useful. Here we see the pope “straight-splaining” what it means to be gay.
    Another interesting thing: When I first read that quote, I assumed he was condemning transgender people. All that stuff about denying one’s “bodily identity” smacks of “You’re not really transgender: it’s all in your head”. The fact that the quote can be read as either anti-gay or anti-trans, or both, confirms that LGB people and T people, despite our differences, are engaged in the same struggle. Our opponents tar us with the same brush of “natural law”.

  • 3
    Regan DuCasse says:

    Exactly my friends.
    Hence this question I confront the anti gay with all the time.
    Who has more credibility about being Jewish?
    A non Jewish anti Semite (who would have no restraint voicing an opinion about Jews and how they deserve to be treated).
    Or a Jewish person?
    Same for being black.
    A non black person, with little experience around blacks.
    Or a black person?

        Yet, even though in retrospect, the anti gay see that prejudice against a Jew or black person is wrong and they don’t lecture either on their lives.
        There is little restraint when an anti gay person talks AT a gay person or about them, as if with expert knowledge about being gay.
         And they will get all huffy about being defined as a bigot for expressing their views. But are also free with comparing homosexuality with every reprobate, pathology and paraphilia known.
         And they also have a serious disconnect between expressing and opinion, and using that opinion in civil and public policy on the TREATMENT of gay people.
    And opinion versus treatment, apparently is a differentiation they cannot and will not make.
     And eventually, as we all know, being restricted from this treatment of gay people, suddenly makes them the victims of unjust religious censure.

        And they also assume that the usual people they debate haven’t had ANY religious education. They love to order anyone to ‘read the Bible’. Or if you’re not fuming the debate with a big show of piety, you’re not pious at all.
      It’s clear to me, that using any of that is an excuse to not have to engage in more complex and critical thinking.
      And these people who think they have all the answers, are parroting something they heard from someone else. Namely whoever wrote the Bible.
    But apparently the teaching and writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights escapes them and doesn’t represent ‘The Truth’.
      In short.
    These folk are not only arrogant. But STUPID arrogant.

  • 4
    Deeelaaach says:

    When I was young many years ago, my father spoke to me of the days in the future when religious folk like himself could be fired for stating their position on homosexuality.  All those years ago, he did not realize, as he likely does not now, that his belief about “the gays” was little more than ignorance and perhaps ignorant bigotry.  Of course if you make such comments you should be fired – if you made those comments about blacks, hispanics, women or any stripe of person by way of their immutable traits, you get the axe, and rightly so.  You’re displaying your belief system, one which is divisive to the community of workers you belong to. 

    You’re saying to them that one of you is “lesser” for wont of some characteristic they don’t have, such as straightness, maleness, whiteness, blackness, or some other thing which you think the target of your beliefs doesn’t have.  Maybe that’s why we’re so icky to them – we don’t have what they think we should have – straightness, or in my case, straightness and the gender most people think I was born with.  Oops, I’m speaking from our point of view – from their point of view, we chose to deny what we were God given.  Me?  I guess I did make a choice – I stopped denying what God gave me. 

  • 5
    Dana Pille says:

    Pretty much the only argument against homosexuals is the Bible. In a Country that boasts of Religious  Freedom, what right does any American have to pass a law based on any one particular Religious belief? Isn’t that an attack on Religious freedom? Billy Graham said in 1981 “I don’t want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it.” 
    Billy Graham was a true Christian, unfortunately his son Franklin, now leader of the family business, is not one of those good Christians. He’s blaming all the ills of this Country on the acceptence of Gays, and the undereducated are eating it up. He also recently stated that if we keep heading down the path were going, God may destroy our economy. Of course we can’t blame the greed of men, because some of those men are big contributors. Franklin Graham is involved in a Christian movement, heavily involved in Washington. Raechel Maddow exposed it late last year. The organization tries to stay quiet. They surround themselves with Senators and Congressmen, and hold prayer studies for them. They also have a house, that is listed as a Church, that they use for special worship. This was used by a Senator to have an affair on his wife. When it was first exposed the Church members tried to cover it up. They believe they should always protect their own.

  • 6
    Jim Stone says:

    WELL SAID!!!!  AND..Happy Christmas to you guys!!!  This sounds really cruel but these old relics need to “go to the light” as was said in the movie “Poltergeist.”  They are a dying breed that is hanging on to an idea that is vanishing..and vanishing quickly..THANK GOD!
    I made this vid a couple months ago on our collab channel “Outlatebutgreat” on YouTube.  It pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole “Catholic CRAP!”
    Jim
     
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqtgFdSdRsE
     

  • 7
    clayton says:

    “People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given to them by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves.”
    He seems to be arguing that we each have a fixed bodily identity (male or female), that the identity gives us each a (presumably) sexual nature (which he would argue was heterosexual), and that to deny the nature is wrong.
    If I accept all these premises at face value, wouldn’t, then, a choice to be “celibate” be as much a denial of nature and bodily identity as a choice to be homosexual?  How is it that the clergy get to choose to deny their nature and call it a virtue?  Shouldn’t all denial of nature as conferred by bodily identity be treated as equally sinful?

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>