
Pope Francis to parents of LGBT children: ‘God loves your children as they are’ - afrcnc
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2020/09/17/pope-francis-parents-lgbt-children-god-loves-your-children-they-are
======
djaque
I hope that the church will change with the times, similar to the way their
practices and beliefs with respect to racism have changed since the 60s [1].

However, I wouldn't take the pope's words as a sign of that change. I have
friends who are gay or lesbian and formerly part of the catholic church. When
he says that god loves them, I assume it is in the sense that god loves
everyone, even sinners. From what I understand, gay people are seen kind of
like drug addicts by the church. People who are worthy of pitty, but are still
considered "sick".

Being told that you are sick from your earliest memories because of who you
are attracted to, something you don't have control over, leaves lasting scars
on a person. All of my gay friends who left catholicism grew up killing that
part of themselves and pretending to be someone they are not for like the
first two decades of their life. The rest of their life has been spent trying
to rebuild themselves from that. From literally being taught to hate
themselves for what they are.

The one friend I have who did come out as a teenager was dissowned by her
parents and had to move in with a relative. She spent two years living out of
a cousin's house and people like her who are less fortunate are out there
without a home right now for the crime of being gay.

I really hope that the church will adapt and recognize the real damage they
are inflicting on children, but like I said, I'm not very optimistic.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_race](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_race)

~~~
zozbot234
> From what I understand, gay people are seen kind of like drug addicts by the
> church. People who are worthy of pitty, but are still considered "sick".

This is not at all the case in Christian doctrine that I'm aware of. "Gay" is
a sexual orientation, and Christians including Catholics have no objection to
sexual orientation _per se_. However it is possible to object to disordered
sexual _practices_ , such as heterosexual fornication that inherently denies
the true human dignity of those who are objectified by such practices, and
also to other practices that are similarly objectifying and involve
victimization and denial of human dignity.

Separately, Christian doctrine also objects to those who "put a stumbling
block in the blind's path" by promoting destructive practices e.g. via
ideology or lifestyle, and unfortunately a sizeable part of so-called LGBTQ+
social activism has not clearly spoken out against objectifying and disordered
practices, and in many cases has promoted them quite irresponsibly. However
this is always a critique of some highly-visible social _activist movements_ ,
never of sexual orientation itself!

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
> unfortunately a sizeable part of so-called LGBTQ+ social activism has not
> clearly spoken out against objectifying and disordered practices, and in
> many cases has promoted them quite irresponsibly

Eh? What on earth are you talking about? The morality of the various gay
people I know is, not coincidentally, the morality of everyone else. If you're
talking about BDSM then if it's consensual it's fine (and if not, it's a crime
of violence). If you mean other than BDSM then I've no idea what.

and btw what does 'disordered' mean.

~~~
zozbot234
> then if it's consensual it's fine

So, you're saying that consent is always fully informed, freely given and
involves deep awareness of every aspect or possible consequence of even
strange and unusual sexual practices such as BDSM? Because this is what it
would take for consent to be truly ethical. I don't believe this is what
always happens. And yes, I do worry the BDSM community, by and large, is
significantly understating the risk that, e.g. some self-defined "doms" and
"tops" might engage in behavior that _is_ in fact grossly unethical by any
sensible standard. And other parts of the LGBTQ+ community can be similarly
problematic. Let's face it, rape culture has existed for thousands of years
and it can still be a huge problem today.

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
> So, you're saying that consent is always fully informed, freely given and
> involves deep awareness of every aspect or possible consequence...

Mostly, yes, and where it is not, if a person is new to this stuff they always
has the right to say stop. Always.

> even strange and unusual sexual practices

'strange and unusual' is weaseling. Whether they are or aren't 'strange' or
'unusual' is irrelevent. If consent is given between adults, consent is given.
And it can be withdrawn at any point. If you don't understand this about BDSM
you should find out more about it (NB. it's not my thing either, but I'm not
going to judge).

> some self-defined "doms" and "tops" might engage in behavior that is in fact
> grossly unethical by any sensible standard.

this is pure emotive projection of you not liking this stuff. 'grossly
unethical', lord, if it has consent, it's fine. Let people get on with what
they wish; don't judge, and if you talk of 'sensible standards' you need to
nail this down.

> And other parts of the LGBTQ+ community can be similarly problematic

So you throw in more claims of badness but carefully don't say what.

> rape culture

I presume this exists in heterosexual culture too? It's just as wrong there.

Your post feels more driven by a kind of homophobia than understanding - or
any desire to understand.

Like I said, I'm not into it but that doesn't make it wrong by my standards.

Edit: I'm hetero and for the life Of me I can't understand why a bloke would
fancy a bloke. But they do. And that makes no sense to me, but I'm not going
to condemn it, and when I see 2 people liking each other, of any gender, I
just feel happy for them.

~~~
zozbot234
> if a person is new to this stuff they always has the right to say stop.
> Always.

While this is hopefully the case, surely you must be aware that this does
_not_ in fact absolve the other person from needing to know what they're
doing, and to truly care for the person's well being. After all, a victimized
person might often be too shocked, scared etc. to even say anything. Or they
might assume that what they're experiencing is "normal" even when it's not.
Sexual ethics is _really, really_ complicated, and more problematic practices
like those in the BDSM spectrum only add to the complexity. "Consent" alone
just doesn't cut it, true love and care for others is essential.

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
Of course you must care for the other person's wellbeing. Which includes
consent freely given. BDSM emphasises that. Go and read stuff.

> After all, a victimized person...

In such a case consent has not been freely given. Therefore this would be
classed as assault. Edit: there's nothing specific to gays or BDSM in this
either, exploitation of vulnerable people can occur in plain hetero
relationships with plain vanilla sex.

> Sexual ethics is really, really complicated

I don't agree. It _can be_ \- not _is_ , it _can be_. Difficult corner cases
of ethics always exist eg. treating a person against their will because that
person hasn't the ability to consent so someone else must, and the treatment
is given without consent (I was in hospital in the next bed to a guy, a child
in a man's body, where this happened. Not a nice experience). In most cases
things are straightforward. Most adults are adults.

> Consent" alone just doesn't cut it, true love and care for others is
> essential.

Freely given consent does cut it.

The stuff about true love, I reject. That's a christianised view of sex.
People can and do have sex while liking but not loving each other, and you
have no right to judge them for it.

...care for others... Obviously

~~~
zozbot234
> exploitation of vulnerable people can occur in plain hetero relationships
> with plain vanilla sex.

Of course, and Christian ethics rejects such exploitation. The term is
fornication, which directly derives from the Greek and Roman terms for their
widespread practice of prostitution. But overly "casual" sex can also be
similarly objectifying and exploitive.

And Christian ethics says that we must _always_ care for our neighbor with the
same love we have for ourselves. Surely this must be all the more true in
inherently complex and problematic matters like sex. This is the care for
others that is asked of us.

> I don't agree. It can be - not is, it can be.

Given the grievous consequences that can be involved in sexual victimization,
it seems safe to say that sexual ethics is _always_ a complicated matter. Not
because of weird "corner cases", but because of the extreme level of maturity
- and indeed of human self-dignity, self-actualization, autonomy etc. - that's
required of us to avoid even unwittingly victimizing others. The case where
two people are genuinely and happily in love with each other is not a
"christianised view" that we're insisting on for the sake of being judgmental;
it's just basic sexual ethics on easy mode.

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
> and Christian ethics rejects such exploitation

You recognise no other ethics? You abrogate all ethical judgements to your
narrow viewpoint, apparently leaving none for others - of all other religions
and in my case, atheism. So I am amoral? immoral? You haven't learnt from the
horrors that christianity inflicted upon so many. In not learning, you are
willing to perpetuate them.

> But overly "casual" sex can also be similarly objectifying and exploitive

'overly'? define 'overly' here. It's just a causally slapped-on label. You
disapprove of casual sex, well that's your view, not mine. Any sex is fine if
it's consented to, including degrading sex, which is loathsome to me but some
like that - I will not tell others how to live their lives. But some
christians will, it seems.

> Given the grievous consequences that can be involved in sexual
> victimization, it seems safe to say that sexual ethics is always a
> complicated matter

Heck, this sentence is a mess:

"...that can be involved in sexual victimization" as opposed to other
victimisation?

"it seems safe to say" Does it? You need to justify this - again without
presumptive weasel wording.

"...it's just basic sexual ethics on easy mode." More weaseling, implying that
my position is 'easy mode' therefore childish and wrong.

If we assume adults can give consent freely by dint of being adults and not in
exploitative circumstances, that's enough for me and covers the vast majority
of encounters. You're just wrapping up an uncharitable (but christian!) view
of what's right and wrong saying others should obey it. This caused eg. gays
to have a miserable time for centuries. Shall I mention the treatment of jews,
the crusades, the inquision.

I reject anything that leads to a rerun of those, I reject your value system
(at least on this aspect). I reject your judgement of others. I reject your
intolerance.

Some words from the bible I do like: Judge not lest you be judged.

~~~
zozbot234
> You recognise no other ethics? You abrogate all ethical judgements to your
> narrow viewpoint, apparently leaving none for others - of all other
> religions

The rule of reciprocity is part of many ethical traditions, as is general
respect for temperance and self-control in sexual matters. So I'm not sure how
christianity is alone or even 'narrow' in this respect. Of course we should
not be judgmental of people for what they do in private, since they're not
involving anyone else and can be assumed to act with at least basic
responsibility. But those who actively promote lifestyles and ideologies in
the public sphere can be fairly criticized.

Like it or not, promoting a lifestyle or ideology such as LGBTQ+ means making
very specific claims as to how "others should live their lives" and we all
should be free to choose whether or not to further promote these claims and
values.

