More Sex Please, Says Pope

Got your attention?  Sounds implausible that Pope Benedict XVI would ever say this, right?  Well, The following headlines were found in the Daily Telegraph, a British Newspaper, when reporting on the Pope’s annual Curia:  Pope Says Humanity needs ‘saving’ from homosexuality:  The Pope has said that “saving” humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rain forests.”  

Well this sounds more plausible right, because we all know that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin.  The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that marriage is for the sole purpose of procreation (the more sex reference). But the thing is, the Pope did not really say either in his annual Curia. 
In a British journalist’s blog on this story, entitled “More Sex Please, Says Pope”  it is told that no where in the Pope’s Curia is the word homosexual or transsexual behavior even mentioned.  It may be implicit in his Curia because of the Church’s teachings but so could the headline “More Sex Please” be implicit in his talk.    Here is what the Pope actually said where the headlines and the outrageous story came from:

“[The church] must defend not only the earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to all. It must also defend the human person against its own destruction. What’s needed is something like a ‘human ecology,’ understood in the right sense. It’s not simply an outdated metaphysics if the church speaks of the nature of the human person as man and woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected.

“Here it’s a question of faith in creation, in listening to the language of creation, disregard of which would mean self-destruction of the human person and hence destruction of the very work of God. That which is often expressed and understood by the term ‘gender’ in the end amounts to the self-emancipation of the human person from creation and from the Creator. Human beings want to do everything by themselves, and to control exclusively everything that regards them. But in this way, the human person lives against the truth, against the Creator Spirit. Yes, the tropical forests merit our protection, but the human being as a creature merits no less protection – a creature in which a message is written which does not imply a contradiction of our liberty, but the condition for it.”

Now, yes, implicitly one could infer the Pope is talking about homosexuality. He does later affirm the church’s position of marriage as a sacrament between one man and one woman.  But is he really saying what the British Tabloids stated?  Couldn’t he also be speaking about violence that we perpetrate on each other through wars and domestic violence?  Couldn’t he also be talking about various addictions that destroy the human persona?  These could also be implicit in his talk about developing ‘a human ecology’.

At the very least it is a distortion of the Pope’s intent.  The Pope and the Roman Catholic church has said and taught many things that are contrary to Protestants and others’ sensibilities, we do not need to be adding words to him that are not there.  To do so only increases the suffering of the people within the Roman Catholic Church who are sexual minorities.

Now I can argue about his use of the word ‘gender.’  Science is revealing to us that gender is not merely male and female.  One in every 1000 births are born as inter-sex beings.  Their chromosomes are not strictly XX or XY but some other combination resulting sometimes in undefined genitalia at birth or missing aspects of genitalia such as no ovaries or no testes.   Gender is no longer an either / or  male and female.  The Creator Spirit, as the Pope refers to god, made sure of that for some mysterious reason.    To purposely limit our understanding of gender is also to “live against the truth, against the Creator Spirit.” 

Advertisements
Published in: on December 23, 2008 at 5:50 pm  Comments (6)  
Tags: , , , ,

6 Comments

  1. Excellent post, especially your concluding sentence.

    Here is something else that the Creator Spirit made sure of for some mysterious reason. . .

    [Robin, thank you. I do not understand the connection of your eclipse photo to this post, however.]

  2. The Pope isn’t a private citizen without resources here to make himself understood.

    If he was misquoted or if the large number of news stories on Google News are stating his views falsely, wouldn’t the Vatican put a press statement out there clarifying his remarks.

    The BBC is a reliable source for news — here’s what they are reporting:

    Gay groups angry at Pope remarks
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7797269.stm

    Personally, I think his comments are anti-gay, anti-transgender, and anti-feminist. And I think that Benedict was intentional in what he said.

    [Thank you for your comments and the link to European reaction. I am not denying that there is implicitly in his remarks anti-gay rhetoric. Nor am I denying the Roman Catholic teaching about homosexuality. I am stating that he did not make any explicit remarks. One cannot state and put into quotes that the Pope said, ‘Humanity needs “saving” from homosexuality.’ Those are not his words. I printed here the translation of his text that the BBC is referring to here. The reaction news you reference is referring to the original news article of the BBC and so it is a reaction mainly to already distorted information. If my only source to what the Pope said was the BBC news report then I would respond angrily too.

    If we are going to take the Pope to task then take him to task on his actual words and explicit meaning of those words and not on an implicit meaning of his words. This is my point. It does not do any of us any good to distort the words of others when fighting injustice.

    For example, I take the Pope to task with my comments on his limiting the use of the word ‘gender’ when scientifically gender has been proven to be no longer simply male and female.]

  3. I have searched at Steve Caldwell’s suggestion for some sort of retraction from the pontiff if he indeed did not imply the headlines in the British tabloids. What I found was the official Pope Benedict XVI blog entry http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24836472-5005962,00.html?from=public_rss on the topic.

    Mon, 22 Dec 2008 7:35 AM PST
    From correspondents in Rome

    POPE Benedict XVI has denounced gender theory, warning that it blurs the distinction between male and female and could thus lead to the “self-destruction” of the human race.

    When the Roman Catholic Church defends God’s Creation, “it does not only defend the earth, water and the air … but (it) also protects man from his own destruction”, the Pope said in his end-of-year speech to the Vatican hierarchy today.

    Gender theory, which originated in the United States, explores sexual orientation, the roles assigned by society to individuals according to their gender and how people perceive their biological identity.

    The Catholic Church has repeatedly spoken out against gender theory, which gay and transgender advocacy groups promote as a key to understanding and tolerance.

    “If tropical forests deserve our protection, humankind … deserves it no less,” the 81-year-old pontiff said, calling for “an ecology of the human being”.

    It is not “outmoded metaphysics” to urge respect for the “nature of the human being as man and woman”, he told scores of prelates gathered in the Vatican’s sumptuous Clementine Hall.

    There the focus is on gender theory which the Pope denounces and denounced in the text that I quoted above. The comments to this post are similar to mine regarding gender.

    Again, my emphasis in this post is that if we are going to intelligently argue against what the Pope has said, then we have to use the language that the Pope used. I stand by my stance that to say that the Pope said “Humanity needs to be saved from homosexuality” is placing words into his mouth that he did not say. To do so only adds increasing hurt and suffering and removes the conversation from any ability of having a reasonable discourse. Blessings, Fred

  4. :[Robin, thank you. I do not understand the connection of your eclipse photo to this post, however.]

    The total solar eclipse “Eye of God” is something else that the Creator Spirit made sure of to serve as a regularly recurring cosmic symbol of its attribute of divine omniscience. If one wants to bring total solar eclipse symbolism much closer to the main subject matter of your post, solar eclipses were often seen as the union of a female moon with a male sun, or vice versa in some cultures. In the esoteric art of alchemy this concept was synthesized into the Rebus a half solar/male half lunar/female. hermaphrodite being. So, at least from the standpoint of alchemy, the total solar eclipse represents what you call an “inter-sex being”. Learn something new every day eh? Consider this esoteric information a Christmas present, or more properly a somewhat belated winter solstice gift.

  5. In searching for a suitable alchemical artwork that corroborates what I said above I found this interesting web page from a website about Freemasonry. The following text sufficiently support’s what I have said but the images of the Rebus are “less than perfect” –

    The alchemists held that the Philosophers Stone was created by unification of two opposites to create a third, perfected thing. The Operation of the Sun and Moon, sometimes described as the work of Gold and Silver, or Fire and Water, Male and Female, and so on. In this was God and Man mingled, and the powers of creation would open up to the perfected adept who had cultivated the philosophical stone. By the application of an intense heat, or fire, the separated elements would be combined into philosophical gold. . .

    The double headed-eagle, as the ensign of the Alchemical Rebus or Stone of the Philosophers, symbolizes this process, the magnum opus or Great Work of spiritual regeneration. Through its unification of opposites and association with alchemical Fire, the path of regeneration and ascent up the Tree of Life is indicated.

    These two paragraphs tend to support what I have believed for some years now. . . which is that the total solar eclipse is the elusive “Philosopher’s Stone”, or at least symbolically represents it.

    Here’s a very good Fred Espenak photograph of the original source of inspiration for the “double-headed eagle” symbol, the mythical phoenix bird, the ancient Egyptian solar falcon god Horus, and a whole flock of other mythical birds of the sun for you to ponder.

  6. This colorized alchemical drawing of the rebis aka rebus does the job quite nicely. Please note that the hermaphroditic aka androgynous rebis is standing on a winged sun symbol. . .


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: