We constantly hear in the Catholic media how the Catholic church has a “compassionate” stance towards LGBT people and doesn’t advocate violence against them (we’ll just ignore for the moment how the Ugandan Catholic church was instrumental in advocating for the infamous “kill the gays” bill several years back). Yesterday, I found these astonishing quotes from Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI when he was Joseph Ratzinger that put these views into greater context:
Progressives have been up in arms in the past couple of days ever since finding out that Pope Francis had a private meeting with faux Christian martyr Kim Davis during his recent visit to the United States:
That Francis would provide moral succor to a woman who represents the religious right’s continued attack on the civil rights of LGBT Americans while refusing to meet with any LGBT Catholics was a rude awakening for progressives who thought that Francis might be steering the Catholic church on a more compassionate path. My answer to those who have been blindsided by this revelation, is why is this such a shock?
Note: Parts of this originally appeared as posts on the Bilgrimage blog.
I recently finished Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz’s book on mujerista theology in which she said that solidarity needs to replace charity as the pinnacle of Christian virtues and I heartily agree. Last year, I wrote about how the word “uncharitable” is misused by conservotrads (https://extraecclesiamestlibertas.wordpress.com/2014/12/15/a-rant-about-the-c-word-no-not-that-c-word/), and now I’m going to write about why charity falls short as a virtue.
You’ve probably heard already about the token gay man, Ron Belgau (white, middle class, and ostensibly celibate, natch), who will be representing LGBT Catholics at the upcoming World Meeting of Families, and if you haven’t here’s the link:
As per the article, Belgau and his mother is going to lead a session on “Homosexuality in the Family.”
Earlier today, I was on the Wartburg Watch site, reading the comments for a post on the fallout from Joshgate 2.0:
The Wartburg Watch takes a critical look at the trends in evangelical and fundamentalist Protestantism, particularly in the Southern Baptist world. Nonetheless, many of the commenters were complaining about how Josh Duggar was being unfairly demonized for having an Ashley Madison account, when there are liberals out there doing the same thing, without anyone complaining about it. While I’m sure there are people all across the political spectrum cheating on their significant others, there’s a very good reason why Josh Duggar in particular is being raked across the proverbial coals.
Guest post by Myristic Mystic:
I know I’m super late with a post on Caitlyn Jenner, but it wasn’t until today that I came up with the idea for this post. As almost everyone knows, the former Olympian known as Bruce Jenner is now Caitlyn Jenner, forcing the transgender issue out in a way that it has never been before. As one would expect, the way the public has responded to Jenner is divided on cultural lines, with progressives saying, “You go girl!” while conservatives insist, “She’s a MAN, baby!” (I won’t get into the reaction of TERFs — trans-exclusionary feminists — which is a whole other kettle of fish) Since you already knew that, I want to examine the reaction to Jenner from an economic perspective.
Special guest post from Myristic Mystic:
Note: This is an edited and expanded version of a comment I left on Ed Brayton’s Dispatches from the Culture Wars blog.
If you’ve read Rod Dreher for any length of time, you’ll know that he’s been harping on the idea of a “Benedict Option,” conservative Christians withdrawing from society and building their own communities where they can teach their children that homosexuality is a sin and Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden. Damon Linker has written a long idea on the concept in “This Week”: