Friday, October 23, 2020

No Pope Francis didn't say that gay relationships are ok

 In a new movie the Pope's position on active homosexuality is grossly misrepresented.

The Vatican has confirmed that in fact the Pope did say:

“What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered. I stood up for that.”

But like Pope Francis's comment on divorce and remarriage this comment needs to be understood in context.

In the case of divorce and remarriage the Pope has explained that he was referring to very unusual cases where a woman divorces her husband, remarries, has children with the new "husband", but then decides that what she's doing is wrong and decides that she and her new "husband" must live as brother and sister without marital relations.  However her new "husband" basically threatens her with death or violence if she refuses to have relations with him and she has no way to protect her life and the lives of her children if she doesn't do what he wants.  In that case she may be able to receive Communion because she is effectively being raped; she's not actually freely consenting to the sin.  But that's not an assured thing; a priest has to work with her and see if in fact there is no way for her to leave.

The case of civil unions is similar.  Here's what the Pope posted at the time he endorsed civil unions:

"...in fact there are very close unions between people of the same sex, which do not in themselves imply sexual relations, but a very intense and stable alliance. They know each other thoroughly, they share the same roof for many years, they take care of each other, they sacrifice for each other. Then it may happen that they prefer that in an extreme case or illness they do not consult their relatives, but that person who knows their intentions in depth. And for the same reason they prefer that it be that person who inherits all their assets, etc. This can be contemplated in the law and is called ‘civil union’ [unión civil] or ‘law of civil coexistence’ [ley de convivencia civil], not marriage.” "

The key thing here is that the Pope is saying what the Church has always taught. Two men who are in love can live together so long as they don't engage in sexual acts. 

Of course the problem, as with many of Pope Francis's comments, is that he makes a what appears to be a sweeping statement, "I supported civil unions", without in the same sentence mentioning the details of when he thinks they are ok.

Whether it's because he's an incurable optimist who believes any signifiant fraction of gay couples live together chastely or because he is a bad communicator his words can be misconstrued to mean something he didn't say.

He most certainly wasn't saying that sexually active gay couples, who are rarely monogamous, are living a life conformed to Christ that society should approve of.

No he was saying that in certain rare instances there are heroic gay people who live out Christ's call to chastity who should have the right to have their "partner" have the ability to make decisions for them.

Hence nothing the Pope said is in fact in contradiction with Church teaching.

However his prudential judgement, should the Church support civil unions when only a tiny fraction of them meet his criteria, is incorrect.  It's important for non-Catholics to realize that Catholics think that while we should listen to the Pope on prudential matters his expertise and authority is in moral and theological matters not prudential ones.

For example in this case he has a special authority to say that only gay relationships that are chaste, ie no sex, are acceptable but he has no special authority when talking about whether or not civil unions for gay couples should be legalized.

There is another problematic "quote" from Francis in the documentary which says:

“Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it.”

While the Pope did say those words he didn't say them together or even in that order. Here's the full quote:

“I was asked a question on a flight - after it made me mad, made me mad for how one news outlet transmitted it - about the familial integration of people with homosexual orientation, and I said, homosexual people have a right to be in the family, people with homosexual orientation have a right to be in the family and parents have the right to recognize that son as homosexual, that daughter as homosexual. Nobody should be thrown out of the family, or be made miserable because of it.”

“Another thing is, I said when you see some signs in the children and from there send them to - I should have said a ‘professional,’ what came out was ‘psychiatrist.’ I meant to say a professional because sometimes there are signs in adolescence or pre-adolescence that they don’t know if they are homosexually oriented or if it is that the thymus gland didn’t atrophy in time. Who knows, a thousand things, no? So, a professional. The title of the daily paper: ‘The Pope sends homosexuals to the psychiatrist.’ It’s not true!”

“They asked me the same question another time and I repeated it, ‘They are children of God, they have a right to a family, and such.’ Another thing is - and I explained I was wrong with that word, but I meant to say this: When you notice something strange - ‘Ah, it’s strange.’ - No, it’s not strange. Something that is outside of the usual. That is, not to take a little word to annul the context. There, what I said is that they ‘have a right to a family.’ And that doesn’t mean to approve of homosexual acts, not at all.”

Taken in context it's obvious that when Pope Francis is referring to a family he's not talking about a family of two gays but of the family of the gay person and their parents.  He's saying that parents shouldn't throw gay children out of their family but work with love and compassion to help their afflicted children live a life in conformance to God's will.

Suffering from same sex attraction is not itself sinful and while living the gay lifestyle is so is having any form of sex outside of marriage. Hence parents should no more kick their children who suffer from same sex attraction out of the family than they should a boy who has sex with girls who he isn't married to.  Sin is sin and we're all sinners so that we must love our children even though they sin not toss them out as garbage. But precisely because we love them we must work to get them to abandon their sinful ways for their own sake because all sin hurts us in this life as well as the next.

Note too that the Pope is very clear in his last sentence that he is in no way saying that homosexual acts can be morally acceptable. The deliberately butchered quote is designed to make you think that the Pope is defending the gay lifestyle when in fact he's clearly condemning it because massive promiscuity and any form of sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman hurts us.

12 comments:

Groll said...

So you/the pope support legalizing civil unions? Or would the government need to ask and make sure they aren't having sex first before allowing them to enter a civil union?

Do you have a source for your claim that sexually active gay couples are "rarely monogamous"?

Also, do you plan to comment on the pope's condemnation of Trump's family separation policy?

Thanks!

trinko said...

If you read the post it should be clear that I don't agree with the idea of civil unions and the pope does so only for those who are living without sex

According to Kinsey less than 5% of gay couples are monogamous

David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison conducted a non-random study of 156 stable committed male homosexual couples. They found that none of the over 100 couples that had been together for more than 5 years had been sexually monogamous or exclusive. The authors, themselves a gay couple, argued that for male couples, sexual monogamy is a passing stage of homophobia and that many homosexuals separate emotional fidelity and sexual exclusivity. What matters for male couples is emotional not physical faithfulness. Reference - D McWhirter and A Mattison, "The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop", (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall).

Of course the Trump plan is in fact a court order and was followed by Obama too.

After a certain period of time asylum applicants are put in jail and since most people don't want kids in jail the family is separated just like the families of any American accused of a crime and jailed awaiting a hearing is separated.

In any case any family separation, other than in cases where there is reason to believe that the children aren't in fact the children of the adults claiming to be their parents--which happens quite a lot these days since families with kids are more likely to be released on the US waiting for their asylum hearing--, are purely voluntary.

Anyone caught trying to sneak into the country who doesn't want his family separate only has to wait in Mexico for their asylum hearing.

Groll said...

oh, ok. So you disagree with the pope (guess he isn't all that wise). And under your interpretation the pope is suggesting a law that would require the government to somehow verify people are not engaging in certain sexual acts. Sounds like a great law. Won't cause any problems. Or maybe you are choosing to interpret his words in a way that conforms to your preexisting beliefs.

And the reason the pope's comments are getting backlash from American Bishops (saying the pope "clearly contradicts what has been the long-standing teaching of the Church about same-sex unions") is that the Bishop is not as smart as you and cannot correctly parse the pope's words to find the "true" message. I mean the alternative is that your argument is nonsense. Which can't be so.

I mean the pope did endorse civil unions for gays in Argentina as an alternative to gay marriage when he was merely a cardinal. But you're probably right. He probably wanted Argentina to only allow chaste gays to enter into civil unions. He just never said that because it's obviously implied.

Moving on...

I like how you referenced a 40 year old book that only looked at non-random selection of male gay couples. How about some more recent/rigorous studies? Maybe https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5958351/ or https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-018-1178-7 or https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&context=psychology_articles none of which support the claim that gays are "rarely monogamous". I mean there's nothing wrong with polyamory but from you this looks like some blatant homophobia with a thin smokescreen of science. It's ok I know you won't click those links. Wouldn't want any conflicting information entering your echo chamber.

And your response to the claim that the child separation policy was inhumane... Is to blame the migrants? Do you not agree with the pope's assessment? Is the treatment of the migrants justified in your eyes?

You say this was a judge's doing but provide no source. Even so the administration could've taken actions to stop it. The huge increase in detain rates of migrants was Trump's doing (by e.g. making it harder to seek asylum by slowing down the process). The most confusing part of your position is that Trump signed an executive order ending the practice (see https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-executive-order.html). If he could do that at any time then he does hold responsibility.

I mean man you say Biden is a bad Catholic but you are really making the pope look bad here.

trinko said...

If you knew anything about the Catholic Church you'd know that the Pope is only infallible when he declares he is speaking infallibly about matters of faith and morals. The question of how to deal with chaste gay couples is a prudential matter where Catholics acknowledge the pope can be wrong.

It's not my interpretation it's what the Pope's words that I quoted say. He isn't suggesting civil unions for sexually active gays. That implementing such a law would be impossible isn't the Pope's concern since he in fact isn't in charge of making laws but as the Pope he does have the right to discuss what the moral basis of the laws should be.

So you're not going to address my reasoning or what the Pope has actually said but declare that the American Bishops are infallible? If you actually read most of their statements they complain that by not being more precise he creates confusion not that he's heretical. Also the information I cited didn't come out at first and some Bishops responded without knowing how the Pope's comments were taken out of context.

He supported civil unions in Argentina as a lesser of two evils situation. He never said that civil unions, except for chaste couples, were morally acceptable.

So wait your first source says "Sexual and behavioral health interventions grounded in assumptions of monogamy, or that are designed to promote monogamy as an ideal moral and behavioral standard, may be inapplicable and even harmful."

Further it no where states that gays aren't in fact highly promiscuous but only that their nonmonogomy is consensual.

Your second source is also about consensual nonmonogomy and it says "Males, gay/lesbian individuals, bisexual individuals, and those who identified as “Other, Non-Hispanic” were more likely to report open relationships."

Your third source is also about consensual non-monogamy and doesn't show that gays aren't highly non-monogamous

I take it you didn't actually think I'd read the links.

how is it a fear of gays to point out that they're highly promiscuous? check out https://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_promiscuity

Yes I do blame the illegal immigrants since they can ensure it doesn't happen simply by agreeing to wait in Mexico for their asylum hearing. What comments by the Pope are you referring to by the way?

The Obama administration did nothing to stop it and that doesn't seem to bother you. But of course Trump has taken steps to end it; he's said that if the illegal immigrants wait in Mexico for their asylum hearing rather than breaking the law by trying to enter illegally their families won't be separated.

If you decide to rob a store you'll be separated from your family. If you're a single mother and you rob a store you'll be separated from your children. Why should people who break our immigration laws be treated better than we treat citizens?

Biden is a bad Catholic since he supports the mass murder of the unborn including the killing of viable babies who would survive if just delivered and the killing of unborn girls because the mother wants a boy.

In addition Biden has said he'll use the power of government to force Catholic nuns to provide contraception and abortion inducing chemicals. That's like an Orthodox Jew saying he's going to force Jewish deli's to provide pork products.

The fact that every word out of the Pope's mouth isn't infallible doesn't mean he's bad but that he's human. Only when declaring doctrine to be infallible is it really God not the Pope speaking. Paul pointed out to Peter that Peter was wrong and no Catholic thinks there's a problem with that.

Perhaps before you attack the Church and the Pope you might learn a little bit about both.

Groll said...

> If you knew anything about the Catholic Church you'd know that the Pope is only infallible when he declares he is speaking infallibly about matters of faith and morals

yeah ... I never mentioned infallibility. I'm well aware papal infallibility is designed to not be falsifiable.

> It's not my interpretation it's what the Pope's words that I quoted say

of course it is. all quotes have to be interpreted. nowhere did he ever say precisely the things you are claiming. You yourself suggested he may be a bad communicator and said that he often makes unclarified sweeping statements that need to be properly interpreted.

> So you're not going to address my reasoning or what the Pope has actually said but declare that the American Bishops are infallible?

See I was finding a higher Catholic authority than you and pointing out they disagreed with your interpretation of the pope's words. I never said the American bishops are infallible. I can find no Bishops who share your "chaste-gays" interpretation and many who apparently disagree (and do think it's heretical).

> So wait your first source ...no where states that gays aren't in fact highly promiscuous but only that their nonmonogomy is consensual

Ok so if you read father down the article you will see that it shows a majority of gay people in the study are monogamous. The claim we are discussing is whether they are "rarely monogamous". This study challenges that notion.

> Your second source is also about consensual nonmonogomy

True but who cares? It provides data on rates of monogamy among the gay population. And again shows monogamy to be more common than both consensual non-monogamy and non-consensual non-monogamy. Again evidence against your position.

> Your third source is also about consensual non-monogamy and doesn't show that gays aren't highly non-monogamous

Did you read the articles? The data table shows way more monogamous gay people than non-monogamous (77 to 9 people).

> how is it a fear of gays to point out that they're highly promiscuous?

homophobia is defined as "dislike of or prejudice against gay people". you think promiscuity is bad so attaching it to gays counter to the scientific evidence is homophobic.

> What comments by the Pope are you referring to by the way?

Wow amazing. You wrote paragraphs defending the Trump family separation policy in response to my citing the pope and you didn't even know what comment I was talking about? Maybe google it? I know Breitbart doesn't report negative stories on Trump so you'd only come across this if you accidentally hit your old drudge report bookmark.

trinko said...

but if you knew that the Pope wasn't speaking infallibly you've shot down your own point that somehow I was doing something significant in critiquing the Pope for being wrong on a matter of prudential judgement.

And of course you continue to ignore the evidence and quotes from the Pope and citing Bishops without actually saying what they said. What I've seen shows that they agree with me that the prudential call for legalizing civil unions is wrong despite their potentially being useful for the gays who would live together chastely.

Further the Bishops weren't defining official Church doctrine so they're not "higher" authorities than me but it's good to know the you admit to invoking the argument from authority

I provided multiple sources that say that gays aren't in fact mostly monogamous. All 3 of your studies use self reporting where gays would tend to lie since they don't want people to stigmatize them for their massively promiscuous lifestyles.

trinko said...

Here are some more sources about gay promiscuity:

28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
1978 study, 78% of gay men had more than 100 partners, 28% more than 1000: "A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984." (catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)
There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females, 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)

Or how about this:

The third odd thing about homosexuality is the quantity of homosexual men’s preferences, as compared to those of homosexual women. Homosexual men are famously promiscuous, a fact that became well-known with onset of AIDs, when studies of gay men who were HIV positive revealed average numbers of partners in the hundreds (and even though gay men who were HIV negative had much lower numbers, the average for them was still dramatically higher than the average numbers for heterosexual men). https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sex-murder-and-the-meaning-life/201006/homosexuality-queer-problem

trinko said...

A phobia is an irrational fear. No one is afraid of gays. The use of the term homophobic is an attempt to intimidate people from speaking truth to power.

The fact is gays are massively promiscuous and that makes sense. Heterosexual men tend to be promiscuous, that makes sense from an evolutionary perspective since the cost of a man getting a woman pregnant is low, but women "domesticate" them because women, from an evolutionary perspective, benefit from stable relationships where the man takes care of her and their children since women invest so much more into producing a baby.

I showed that Trump's separation policy allowed parents to decide to not be separated from their children so it can't be bad. I didn't ask for the Pope's quote since I assumed it was taken out of context like his alleged comment that Trump wasn't a Christian.

Groll said...

> I was doing something significant in critiquing the Pope for being wrong on a matter of prudential judgement.

Uhm, one would hope the pope would be a wise and good person outside the area where they are magically infallible. But if you're ok thinking god chose an idiot who can't communicate for the position then fine. Just doesn't seem like something a catholic ought to be saying but what do I know.

> Further the Bishops weren't defining official Church doctrine so they're not "higher" authorities than me but it's good to know the you admit to invoking the argument from authority

Uhm, religion (especially catholicism) isn't like science. The bishops are ordained and do have special powers and say. Their authority is real. But even if it weren't one would believe they have a better understanding of the religion and interpreting the pope's words than mere laity like yourself. I'll ask you again: can you find a Bishop who explicitly agrees with your interpretation of what the pope said? That would be convincing.

> I provided multiple sources that say that gays aren't in fact mostly monogamous. All 3 of your studies use self reporting where gays would tend to lie since they don't want people to stigmatize them for their massively promiscuous lifestyles.

Uhm, what? What other means do you suggest we use to determine their monogamy other than asking? Did the studies you cite use some kind of "monogamy detector"? You only reject the evidence I provide because it interferes with your preconceived notions.

Groll said...


> Here are some more sources about gay promiscuity:

I see we are moving the goal posts now. The issue at hand is monogamy and now you provide evidence about promiscuity. You can have lots of short-lived monogamous relationships and appear "promiscuous" by these metrics but always be monogamous. Remember this all started with my asking for a source for your claim that gays are "rarely monogamous".

And again you provide sources from 20-40 years ago. Even if scientific methods/practices hadn't improved certainly behavioral patterns will have. I'm gonna need something more recent.

But many of the studies are useless because they provide no comparable straight baseline. If gays are "promiscuous" that must be in comparison to the straight population (and again promiscuity isn't even the question at hand).

Only your final claim tries to do the comparison properly but cites two different books published a decade apart and a you provide a dead link. Well I got the books from a library (don't say I don't put in the effort) and yeah the claim is BS.

The book " The male couple : how relationships develop " explicitly states in its introduction that the people they interviewed were not randomly selected and this "prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay male community". You'll have to take my word because I assume you are too lazy to get a copy of the book. So right away this claim collapses.

The other book " The Social organization of sexuality : sexual practices in the United States " shows huge variation in infidelity between different cohorts of men (ranging from 7% to 37%) and obviously since the book is so much older it doesn't include a comparable cohort for the men in the other book. A terrible comparison but what should we expect from the FRC. Not like they have an incentive to be fair.

Also, obviously all this data was collected via self-reporting the very method you said was unreliable. Maybe they even overestimate their number of sexual encounters in surveys (a known phenomenon in straight males).

> The third odd thing about homosexuality is the quantity of homosexual men’s preferences, as compared to those of homosexual women

Oh so you admit that half of gays (namely lesbians) aren't "rarely monogamous". Fun.

> A phobia is an irrational fear. No one is afraid of gays. The use of the term homophobic is an attempt to intimidate people from speaking truth to power.

You don't get to tell me what words mean and you cannot just infer a words current meaning from its latin roots. Society defines what words mean in context. But if you have a problem with that you can just accept that when I say homophobia I usually mean "an irrational hatred of gays". I could also switch to "bigoted" if that would help.

> I didn't ask for the Pope's quote since...

you literally did ask.

trinko said...

So a 1 month long monogamous relationship followed by another isn't promiscuous? Talk about redefining terms.

Please explain why you are sure that human behavior patterns change over a span of 20 years? And of course the studies do provide that as the Psychology Today article stated. When AIDS hit SF one of the major news magazines said that straights had 5 partners over their lifetimes. The average gay had 50 or more and the average gay with AIDS had hundreds.

Ok so if you throw out all data based on non-random sampling then at least one of your sources goes out too.

While lesbians tend to be less promiscous they have much more "spousal" violence than heterosexuals do

Sorry but phobia means phobia and homophobia means an irrational fear. You don't get to redefine words because you don't like what they mean.

And once again you demonstrate that you don't follow things. I didn't ask for the Popes quote in my first response as the context makes clear. Duh.

The reason "modern" studies don't sometimes show the extent of gay promiscuity is that their authors are often gay or they're afraid of causing gays to be stigmatized.

"Psychologist J. Michael Bailey has stated that social conservatives have taken such surveys as evidence of a "decadent" nature of gay men, but says "I think they’re wrong. Gay men who are promiscuous are expressing an essentially masculine trait. They are doing what most heterosexual men would do if they could. They are in this way just like heterosexual men, except that they don’t have women to constrain them."[35] Bailey, J. (2003-03-10). The Man Who Would Be Queen. p. 87. ISBN 978-0-309-08418-5.

trinko said...

"One 23-year-old user told me that the only places he can find gay men are clubs and Grindr, and both are hypersexualized. The cultures of both intimidate him. According to Pachankis, gay culture is often “status-focused, competitive, hierarchical, and exclusionary.” He explains that these traits are common among men generally, but in the gay community, they become amplified in a group that “both socializes and sexualizes together.”

The 23-year-old is afraid of rejection, and Grindr shields him from the pain of in-person turndowns. “My framework now is sex first. I don’t know how to date people in person.”

His relationships, he says, start with casual sex on Grindr. They first meet at 2 am for a hookup. He’ll try to schedule the next sex date a little earlier, maybe 11 pm. Then the next step may be drinks.

But this sex-first approach hasn’t led to lasting relationships for the men I interviewed and is affecting their self-worth and identity. “My self-esteem now is all about my sexual ability,” the 23-year-old said. “I don’t feel confident about myself as a partner in any other way.”

Another user told me he downloaded the app hoping to find a husband. Now he says that when he and a boyfriend (he’s gone through several) fight, his natural response is to open Grindr to “find an alternative” instead of working through problems. He can’t maintain a monogamous relationship because he is constantly cheating." https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/4/4/17177058/grindr-gay-men-mental-health-psychiatrist

Also if gay men are so monogamous why are the 32 times more likely to get AIDS?