What the pope's not reading
I doubt any of Pope Benedict's advisers will give him to read while he's visiting Turkey. It's from the much-respected and amounts to a compilation of evidence in support of the claim that the Catholic Church in America has lost the plot. The editorial argues that most American Catholics are no longer paying attention to the moral teaching of the church on sexual ethics, and for good reason. Addressing new documents from American bishops tasked with examining contraception and homosexuality, the editorial say this:
It is difficult to figure out how to approach these documents. They are products of some realm so removed from the real lives of the faithful one has to wonder why any group of busy men administering a church would bother. They ignore science, human experience and the groups they attempt to characterize. The documents are not only embarrassing but insulting and degrading to those the bishops are charged to lead. The saddest thing is that the valuable insights the bishops have into the deficiencies and influences of the wider culture get buried.
Speaking of contraception: did you know that if you combine blood pressure and schizophrenia drugs ? The things you learn on this blog (you lucky members of the blogosphere).
John Allen, the NCR's Rome correspondent, is travelling with the pope in Turkey. You can read his diary of that visit . You'll learn from that diary that Pope Benedict has already changed his position on whether the EU.
This new welcome to Turkish membership of the European Union is in line with the Vatican's renewed efforts to reach out to the Muslim world. Notwithstanding those eirenic gestures, I'm sure some of the pope's security advisers must have advised against this trip in the current climate.
Comments
William: Thanks for the comment about blood pressure and schizophrenic drugs stopping the production of sperm. Maybe that could count as a contraception.Cheers from Miami. Roberto
William
I'm not catholic (or Protestant) but I have to respond to some of this.
It appears to me you are constantly pushing the line that homosexuality is inherent and immutable.
But there is plenty of proof that people change sexual preferences all the time.
John Moss of Culture Club eventually married a woman, Peter Tatchell does not accept sexuality is fixed because he knows so many people that have changed, including his ex-boyfriend.
Alfred Kinsey's research, still a landmark text, also supports the idea that many men live as gays for years and then change.
Now I accept that there are many men who define themselves as gay and have tried not to change and failed in their efforts and I appreciate I cant really relate to their hardships.
But your commentaries never allow for the shades of grey in this discussion, only a simplistic fundamntalist that betrays your knowledge and intellect.
For example True Freedom Trust says there are at least as many people in the church struggling with homosexuality who are implacably opposed to it as there are those outside saying it is ok. And they would know.
And of course, science, contrary to what you imply above, does not accept that sexuality is fixed.
I dont think you are doing your own knowledge justice, nor the impartiality of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in this line you repeatedly take.
And does it have to be said that former gays such as Andy Comiskey (now married to a wife with children) of Desert Stream Ministries do not appear to exist in your worldview.
And although I have raised these points before it appears you refuse to even acknowledge them, and I find that very dissapointing and confusing because they are irrefutably question marks in the landscape you are painting.
And before anyone defends on the basis that I cannot infer all the above from your one entry, I agree. It is just that every entry you make on this appears to be a variation on this theme and there are so many of them.
Love your blog and the discussions,
Sincerely
PB
Sorry, I don't know PB ... but I read a lot a religion news in the media ... and I follow it quite closely. The churches are OBSESSED with sexuality (they really ARE!). I don't know WHY they are so obsessed, but you shouldn't be surprised that journalists write about what they are obsessed with. Would you rather that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ ignore the debates going on in churches? Like it or not, the Anglicans and Catholics go on CONSTANTLY about this stuff. I like these discussions too ... and for the record PB I enjoy your many comments a lot (and most of what YOU write about is sexuality by the way). This debate is in the air right now, everyone's debating it, and I prefer to contribute to blogs that debate the current issues, so lets accept that this one isnt going away and keep debating it. I am a catholic, and this story about the pope matters to me.
well you could knock me down with a feather Kelly, someone who enjoys my comments on this blog! glad to meet you, you must be a rare person.
Anyway, I am not sure you are getting my main point. Sex is sex and it is always going to be talked about alot, I have no problem with that at all.
But I do have a problem with the fact that William portrays the whole church and gays thing in very black and white terms when he must know ther in reality the debate is a very rich and complex range of people, views and experiences out there.
Simply put, it is just not about gays vs Christians as William suggests. You have Christians struggling with homosexuality opposed to homosexuality, you have many people who have left homosexuality, you have prisoners in jails who have converted themselves to homosexuality, you have gay rights leaders saying it is not biological but choice, you have ex-gay non-Christians and ex-gay Christians. There are also many hetero people dabbling in gay sex for thrills.
But in William's world it appears to be it is always fundamentalist Christians opposing gays who supposedly have a biologically fixed sexuality. that is just not reality out there either in science or society.
so in short, I have no problem in discussing sex as much as the next guy, so long as it is balanced and accurate. I have also pulled up William for misrepresenting the bible on this before ie suggesting that Christ may have been gay with no foundation at all.
good to hear from you Kelly
PB
that was a QUICK reply pb! ok, i agree that these are complex topics. I just think you are overstating the whole thing here. Will is right to discuss an important report from catholic bishops and a major Catholic magazine's assault on the Vatican. That's kinda UNUSAL you know, when a leading catholic publication asks if the church's hierarchy is losing the plot! As for your comments on homosexuality, I don't really think your comments would be accepting by most psychologists and biologists. Being gay may not be black and white ... but this much IS black and white ... its wrong to disparage or attack gay people verbally or phyically. Telling gay people they are sick or sinful just because they are gay is an appalling attack and I wouldn't want to maintain a friendship with anyone who had that kind of attitude.
Kelly
you are actually wrong in saying my views are at odds with science, check it out and you will see.
And you need to re-look at the conclusions you have jumped to about me attacking gay people - I never do it.
As a matter of fact I spend half my working life defending a guy that sits next to me from a pagan on my other side who relentless taunts him about being gay.
I like gay people, I have known a few in my time and been propositioned a few times, I might add.
All people are sinful, all people have fallen sexualities, myself included. Looking up to Christ gives us all forgiveness, strength and hope, never condemndation. that is the devil's role.
PB