When Will the Catholic Church End Its War on Gays?

Recently through one of the Google search agents I use to aggregate news stories, I came across a review of the movie "Call Me By Your Name" in the National Catholic Register - which is NOT to be National Catholic Reporter which realizes it is the 21st century, not the 12th century - wherein the reviewer was responding to attacks by Catholic extremists for not strongly condemning the movies strongly enough.  As I am inclined to do, I left several comments on the piece which were for the most part were not greeted kindly (frankly, I was surprised the moderator even published my comments).  

What struck me by many of the comments was an apparent need on the part of many to have someone to condemn and look down upon in order that they could feel superior - much like poor whites that my southern belle grandmother would have deemed "poor white trash" that desperately need to discriminate against blacks due to a similar desperate need to feel superior to someone else. 

The second thing that struck me was the blind embrace of ignorance and a refusal to even slightly admit that medical and medical knowledge has progressed light years from what was know at the time the Church fathers - many of whom seemingly needed mental health care themselves by modern standards - concocted the Church's bizarre rules on human sexuality.  Some even cited writings of the far from holy John Paul II to justify their hatred and bigotry, conveniently forgetting that Popes have proven wrong on moral issues before - e.g., the Popes that issued determination upholding slavery.  The truth is that the Church is wrong in its anti-gay animus and that it is causing countless  younger Catholics to leave the Church.  A piece in the National Catholic Reporter looks at the dilemma facing the Church which could well decide whether the Church largely collapses in modern nations.  Here are excerpts:

In a recent radio interview, Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich-Freising said the Catholic Church needs to provide better pastoral support for lesbian or gay people but stopped short of endorsing blessings for same-sex couples as a general practice or policy.

At the same time, he appeared to leave open the possibility of such blessings in individual cases. Marx is the third German bishop, and the highest-ranking by far, to have raised the possibility of same-sex blessings in recent months.

Marx, the archbishop of Munich, is one of the most influential leaders in the Catholic Church. He serves on Pope Francis' Council of Cardinals, heads the German Bishops' Council, and is president of the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community.

Marx's struggle to articulate a coherent strategy for addressing the needs of the church's gay and lesbian members (the interview does not seem to have included any reference to transgender, intersex or bisexual people) once again shows the dilemma for those trying to work within the framework of current doctrine, church structure and political polemic of institutional Catholicism. There seems to be a recognition by the cardinal that current dogma and practice are failing many in the church, and a desire to find ways to respond to their needs. Marx sees pastoral responses to individual situations as the solution.

The problem with this approach is that it reinforces the church's official view of lesbian and gay individuals and same-sex couples as less than full members of the body of Christ. It requires priests and other pastoral workers to determine whether an individual situation merits the risk of a secret blessing, and implicit validation of the person's sexual orientation and intimate relationships.

Perhaps the only way for the institution to change is through an incremental approach, whereby the number of individual cases gradually increases, and the experience of those involved somehow convinces a sufficient number of those in authority that a change in doctrine is merited. Then the process of debating the theology and tradition that might support such a change could begin. How long such discernment might take is anyone's guess.

In the meantime, the official church's persistent inability to fully embrace LGBTQI people and their families will continue to drive away not only many of them, but also many members of their extended families, friends, and allies — not to mention massive numbers of young people in general.

It bears noting that, in the United States and many other parts of the world, the people of the church are far ahead of its leadership on LGBTQI issues. In countries where same-sex marriage is legal, tens of thousands of Catholics have rejoiced in witnessing the civil marriages of their children, grandchildren, parents, siblings, cousins and friends, many in ceremonies that include a spiritual blessing.

Countless others, especially where marriage equality has yet to be achieved, have joined their loved ones in rituals that celebrate the commitments lesbian and gay couples have made to each other. Their presence and pledge to honor and support these couples represent the triumph of love over law.

It is a hopeful sign that Marx, other German bishops, and indeed numerous Catholic Church leaders around the world are grappling openly with the place of LGBTQI people in the church. An even more hopeful step will occur when church leaders finally engage the true experts in this struggle in genuine dialogue, and we begin to work out solutions together.

Personally, I view anyone who is LGBT that remains in the Catholic Church as engaging in a form of masochism or still suffering greatly from internalized homophobia (sorry, Andrew Sullivan, but why continue to torture yourself?).  Indeed, one former acquaintance continues to remain a Catholic and not surprisingly has the attendant emotional psychological conflicts and damage one would expect.  The simple solution is to walk away.  As for family members of LGBT individuals who remain in the Church, deliberately or not, they are harming their LGBT relatives.   Only massive losses in membership - and most importantly, revenues - will hasten change in the Church.  

Pope Francis' Meaningless Words of Apology to Gays

Another foreign trip with Pope Francis chatting with journalist in an unscripted manner and another wave of breathless, near orgasmic posturing by masochist gays who have failed and refused to walk away from Catholicism and journalists who are still desperately trying to depict Pope Francis as a reformer Pope. This time, as numerous outlets have reported Francis said that Christians and the Roman Catholic Church needed to "apologize to gays and should seek forgiveness from homosexuals for the way they have treated them."  The problem with Francis' nice words is that when he has had the opportunity to dramatically change Catholic dogma and doctrine on gays he has done nothing and backed down in a cowardly fashion to the ugliest homophobes in the Church hierarchy.  Thus, despite Francis' latest statements, gays remain "intrinsically disordered" and "inclined towards moral evil."  Until theses doctrinal positions change, Francis words are worth less than sheets of used toilet tissue.  They mean nothing.  A piece in Vox looks at the meaninglessness of Francis' latest media lauded statements.  Here are highlights:

Pope Francis’s latest comments on gay people have triggered yet another round of coverage about how gay-friendly this pope is. But as welcoming as Francis’s latest comments are, they’re being graded on a weighted scale — one that still allows a lot of homophobia.

In his latest remarks, Francis said Christians and the Catholic Church should apologize to gay people and ask for forgiveness. He said, “We Christians have to apologize for so many things, not just for this [treatment of gays], but we must ask for forgiveness. … I think that the Church not only should apologize … to a gay person whom it offended, but it must also apologize to the poor as well, to the women who have been exploited, to children who have been exploited by [being forced to] work. It must apologize for having blessed so many weapons.”

This all certainly sounds nice. But as with other examples in which the media embraced Francis as unusually LGBTQ-friendly for a pope, Francis’s words are getting much, much more credit than his actions. Because as far as actions go, the Vatican is still anti-gay.

As William Saletan pointed out at Slate, this isn’t a radical departure from what's been the typical line of conservative Catholics for some time now: “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” Francis was saying that he won't “reject and condemn this person,” but that still leaves room for condemning the alleged sin of homosexuality itself.

And the Catholic Church has continued doing just that: The Church states that while gay people “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” they are still “called to chastity” because “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

Francis has also affirmed his opposition to same-sex marriage.  . . . . So the pope has occasionally said things that, alone, seem friendly to gay people. But when analyzed further, the basic teachings of the Catholic Church — and the pope — haven't changed at all: Homosexuality is still seen as a sin, gay people are still called to chastity, and same-sex marriage remains opposed.

But the pope gets a pass on his anti-gay views, simply because, in comparison to his predecessors, his rhetoric is nicer. That may make him slightly progressive compared to some members of his church, but it's far from liberal on gay issues. And if evaluated fairly, the pope's positions are still highly regressive and condemnable among anyone who cares about gay rights.

The bottom line is that until Francis actually changes Church doctrine and dogma on homosexuality, responsible journalist need to completely ignore what amounts to little more than a PR effort to make Catholicism seem less hate-filled to onlookers.  For now, NOTHING HAS CHANGED and, frankly, if there is a Hell, I suspect that Francis will be there with his foul predecessors at some future date. Words are meaningless.  Actions are what count.