CATHOLIC CHURCH AND GAYS AT THE TIME OF POPE FRANCIS

I have not written about the relationship between the Catholic Church and Gays for a long time. Pope Francis undoubtedly didn’t fuel crusades against homosexuals as his predecessor Benedict XVI had done many times, and this fact ignited hopes for a hypothetical change of course of the Catholic Church on the issue of homosexuality and hypothetical openings of Pope Francis himself towards the gays. I say hypothetical because, before becoming Pope, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires he expressed himself with very clear words against the legal recognition of homosexual unions (http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-pope-bergoglio-and-homosexuals), and also the Synod on the Family, had resolved in a fire of straw and in a substantial reaffirmation of the “magisterium” of Benedict XVI in the matter of homosexuality. I don’t believe that Pope Francis has ever had real openings towards gays, but admitted and not granted that he had them, what is certain is that, as it was absolutely obvious to expect, in fact, nothing has changed. The Catechism, as was obvious, has not been modified and the so-called openings have manifested themselves for what they were, that is, as attempts to save face.

I have always been amazed by the insistence with which the homosexual Catholics have sought the approval of the Church, an essentially impossible approval, which would require a profound revision of doctrine and the renunciation of the Church to the dogmatic claim to be the infallible interpreter of the will to God. The Church is a historical reality that of the message of Christ has often made litter and that, like all historical realities, is deeply conditioned by its own tradition that ends up overlapping the Gospel message and becoming confused with it, obscuring it.

I would like to propose to your reading a document signed by the Archbishop of Turin, with which the Archbishop suspends a seminar that is part of the “pastoral care of homosexuals” because its meaning would have been misunderstood. I don’t go into the fact that the meaning has been misunderstood or not, but I want to emphasize that the document is a clear proof that nothing has changed in the Church and nothing will change on the subject of homosexuality.

Below you can read the text of the message from the Archbishop of Turin, as published by the Diocese website (http://www.diocesi.torino.it/site/pastorale-degli-omosessuali-intervento-di-mons-nosiglia/)

“Pastoral care of homosexuals: intervention by Msgr. Nosiglia

Statement by the Archbishop of Turin on 5 February 2018

Below is the declaration by the Archbishop of Turin, Msgr. Cesare Nosiglia, of 5 February 2018, regarding the pastoral care of homosexuals and the interventions that have appeared in recent days on some media:

«Regarding some media interventions on the pastoral commitment of Father Gianluca Carrega, priest of the Diocese of Turin in charge of the pastoral care of homosexuals, it is appropriate to clarify some points.

The Diocese of Turin has for several years promoted a pastoral service of spiritual, biblical and prayer accompaniment for homosexual believers who meet with a priest and reflect together, starting from the Word of God, on their state of life and their choices in subject of sexuality.

This is a service that has proved useful and appreciated and that corresponds to what the Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” of Pope Francis affirms and invites us to do: ” We would like before all else to reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence. Such families should be given respectful pastoral guidance, so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives. “(No. 250).

This is the purpose of the spiritual journey of accompaniment and discernment proposed in the Diocese. It therefore wants to help homosexual persons to understand and fully realize God’s plan for each one of them. This does not mean approving homosexual behaviors or unions, which remain for the Church morally unacceptable choices: because such choices are far from expressing that project of unity between man and woman expressed by the will of God the Creator (Gen. 1-2) as a mutual and fruitful gift. But this does not mean not taking care of homosexual believers and their request for faith.

This is why the path that the Diocese has undertaken does not in any way legitimize civil unions or even same-sex marriage on which the “Amoris Laetitia” clearly states that “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family “(No. 251). Some publications have provided, in these days, different interpretations – often superficial, sometimes biased – that make it necessary to clarify the characteristics and limits of work in this pastoral context. Since we are dealing with people in research who live delicate and even painful situations, it is essential that the information that is published corresponds to the truth and to a correct understanding of what is proposed, with a spirit of profound evangelical charity and faithfulness to teaching of the Church in matter. For this reason I believe, together with Father Gianluca Carrega of which I appreciate the work, that it is opportune to suspend the initiative of the retreat, in order to carry out an adequate discernment.

Mons. Cesare Nosiglia Archbishop of Turin”

Someone was amazed at what was written by the Archbishop of Turin, but it should be emphasized that the Archbishop’s document merely refers to the Amoris laetitia of Pope Francis, who deals in a very short way with homosexuality only in two points, which literally you can read below:

250. The Church makes her own the attitude of the Lord Jesus, who offers his boundless love to each person without exception.[275] During the Synod, we discussed the situation of families whose members include persons who experience same-sex attraction, a situation not easy either for parents or for children. We would like before all else to reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided,[276] particularly any form of aggression and violence. Such families should be given respectful pastoral guidance, so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives.[277]

251. In discussing the dignity and mission of the family, the Synod Fathers observed that, “as for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family”. It is unacceptable “that local Churches should be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies should make financial aid to poor countries dependent on the introduction of laws to establish ‘marriage’ between persons of the same sex”.[278]

[275] Cf. Bull Misericordiae Vultus, 12: AAS 107 (2015), 407.

[276] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358; cf. Relatio Finalis 2015, 76.

[277] Ibid.

[278] Relatio Finalis 2015, 76; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons (3 June 2003), 4.”

The document of Pope Francis refers to the Bull of Indiction of the Jubilee of Mercy, to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and to the Final Report of the Synod of Bishops on the Family of 2015, which in turn dedicates to homosexuality only n. 76:

“76. The Church’s attitude is like that of her Master, who offers his boundless love to every person without exception (cf. MV, 12). To families with homosexual members, the Church reiterates that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his/her dignity and received with respect, while carefully avoiding “every sign of unjust discrimination” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 4). Specific attention is given to guiding families with homosexual members. Regarding proposals to place unions of homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family” (ibid). In every way, the Synod maintains as completely unacceptable that local Churches be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies link financial aid to poor countries to the introduction of laws to establish “marriage” between people of the same sex.”

The Final Report of the Synod of Bishops explicitly mentions the “ Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons ” of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of 3 June 2003, signed by the then cardinal Prefect Joseph Ratzinger (http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-gays-from-prejudice-to-human-rights). The Church’s doctrine on homosexuality therefore remains exactly the one sanctioned by Benedict XVI.

I wonder how, today, homosexual Catholics can maintain an attitude of subjection that involves the subordination of individual conscience to a “magisterium” which in substance has nothing evangelical and does nothing but perpetuate claims of pure prejudice in stark contrast with the scientific truth and with the daily experience of homosexuals.

I have been dealing with homosexuals for many years and I know many homosexuals and many homosexual couples, frankly, to think that God’s plan for these people involves the obligation of chastity seems to me a truly obscene statement.

If anyone has ears to hear, let them hear!

__________

If you want, you can participate in the discussion of this post open on the Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-catholic-church-and-gays-at-the-time-of-pope-francis

POPE, RABBI AND GAY REALITY

I got a comment on the post GAY FRIENDSHIP AND GAY LOVE VIA CHAT like follows:

“What matters is the source of your wisdom, knowledge and understanding. Man must not lean unto his own understanding but in all his ways, his comings and goings, acknowledge HIM and HE will direct your path, and he is THE CREATOR OF THIS UNIVERSE. God despises homosexuality. It’s sickening and disgusting. Satan bought that sin into the world. He came to kill, maim, and destroy mankind. You have free will. You have a choice. Go to the BIBLE it’s the true source and the road map to everlasting LIFE. SATAN IS A DECEIVER.....Peace and Light.....”

Of course everyone is free to believe what in his eyes looks better, but the use of judging reality on the basis of the Bible led to the Inquisition, to the torture and to the  burning at the stake those who, following their conscience, think differently.

Already in the statutes of the city of Bologna, in 1259, citizens were urged to denounce the sodomites and the sodomites themselves were punished with exile, while those who offered hospitality to homosexuals in their home where punished with death.

Throughout the thirteenth century, laws promulgated in Germany, France and Switzerland punish homosexuals condemning them to the stake. In 1277, in Basel, Emperor Rudolph does burn a homosexual at the stake, and this practice is also attested in some regions of France. In 1293, in Italy is attested the first sentence to the stake against a homosexual, when Charles II of Anjou does impale and burn at the stake the Count of Acerra, accused of sodomy, although the reasons underlying were purely political in nature.

In Siena the constitution condemned homosexuals surprised to commit acts “against nature” to a fine of 300 pounds, and to the hanging by the genitals "in the event of non-payment."

The Papal State punished pimps, who offered guys for money, with lashes and perpetual exile, while sodomites were burned at the stake.

Throughout the fourteenth century, the death penalty through the stake is adopted throughout Italy, and will be maintained in the fifteenth century. In Milan under the Sforza, people who denounced homosexuals were rewarded with money. In Venice in the early fifteenth century a scandal that involved in questions related to sodomy the highest offices of the “Serenissima Republic” caused a violent repression of homosexuality.

A special case is the Florentine republic, where until 1400 homosexuals were not punished with the stake, but with monetary fines joined with the "castration" and the cutting of the right hand if the offender was relapsed. However, they were burned at the stake foreigners who committed sodomitical acts during their passage in the Florentine territory. In 1430, following an unpleasant event that shook public opinion, even the law of Florence became more severe, with higher fines but burning at the stake was only required in case of recidivism.

I don’t know if these are ways to oppose against the work of Satan and comply with God's will, frankly, I think these things are horrendous crimes of homophobia that have been masked under the guise of law, as unfortunately happens in some countries also today.

What is certain is that religions have in all this a great responsibility because contributed to incite hatred against homosexuals and continue to do so. Saints such as St. Peter Damian and theologians as the Bishop of Worms Burchard have supported and encouraged with their attitude, anticipating the Inquisition, hatred against homosexuals. I invite you to read an article of this blog dedicated to Liber Gomorrhianus of St. Peter Damian.

I quote here below the passages more interesting for Homosexual Persons of the Message of Benedict XVI for the World Day of Peace XLVI, 1 January 2013, on the theme: "Blessed are the peacemakers."

“Even the natural structure of marriage must be recognized and promoted as a union between a man and a woman, compared to attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role.

These principles are not truths of faith, or are just a tap of the right to religious freedom. They are inscribed in human nature itself, identified with reason, and therefore they are common to all mankind. The Church’s action in promoting them is therefore not confessional in character, but is addressed to all people, regardless of their religious affiliation. Such action is all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, because this constitutes an offense against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice and peace.”

After reading such statements it is natural to wonder if freedom itself constitutes "an offense against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice and peace."

But the positions radically discriminatory against homosexuality are frequent, I quote just an example. In late 2008, the Holy See has taken a position strongly opposed to the project of a universal decriminalization of homosexuality presented at the UN on the initiative of the French Presidency of the European Union, and accepted by all 27 European Union countries. According to the Holy See it is legitimate that homosexuality is prosecuted as a crime.

But the discriminatory attitude doesn’t belong exclusively to the Catholic Church. The Chief Rabbi of France argued that the recognition of gay couples is "at the expense of the public interest and for the benefit of a tiny minority." The speech of the Chief Rabbi was widely quoted in “Osservatore Romano” (the newspaper of the Holy See) and also the Pope quoted some excerpts of that speech.

For those who think that freedom and equality in a moral dimension but absolutely secular and independent of revealed truths of any kind, are the foundation of any civil society, the idea that someone can promote a crusade against the recognition of the rights of others is unacceptable.

Among other things, the speech of the Pope and that of Chief Rabbi are not limited to the adoption but aim immediately, in Italy and in France, to avoid the legal recognition of same-sex couples, which is really inexcusable outside a confessional logic.

At the base of the speeches of the Chief Rabbi and of the Pope there is the assumption that the Bible is the foundation of anthropology, that the world is not as it really is, but as it is described in the Bible and that the world should conform to what the Bible says, statements that to a layman are absolutely immoral.

To say that gay rights are "at the expense of the public interest and for the benefit of a tiny minority" is completely gratuitous, because homosexuality is an anthropological absolutely objective and undeniable reality (gays exist even if someone does not like them and are not a tiny minority) and if someone consider gays as a "tiny minority" he probably doesn't even know exactly what he is talking about and simply repeats dogmatically what the Bible says as if the Bible and not the reality was the basis of anthropology and of civilized life.

__________

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-pope-rabbi-and-gay-reality

GAY MARRIAGE: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE FRENCH REPUBLIC

This post is aimed at comparing two different opinions about homosexual marriage, the first one emerging from an inter-religious conversation between Jorge Mario Bergoglio  then-archbishop of Buenos Aires (now pope Francis), and rabbi Skorka, and also from an interview with Monsignor Juan Vicente Còrdoba, secretary of the Columbian episcopal conference, and the other coming from the legislative solutions definitively adopted, on April 23, 2013, by the French National Assembly.

The comments in square brackets used inside quotations are by the author of this post.

Bergoglio and Homosexuality

On March 13, 2013, the day of the election of Pope Bergoglio, GayProject published a letter addressed by Cardinal Bergoglio to the Buenos Aires Carmelite nuns in 2010, when the same-sex marriage law was going to be approved in Argentina. http://gayproject2.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/pope-bergoglio-and-homosexuals/ .

In 2010 a book by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Abraham Skorka, titled “Sobre el cielo y la tierra” was published by Editorial Sudamericana, Buenos Aires.

This book is a compilation of the conversations between the then-archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, now Pope Francis and Abraham Skorka, rabbi and rector of the Latin-American Rabbinic Seminary in Buenos Aires. The inter-religious conversations are about different topics, such as God, fundamentalism, atheists, death, holocaust, homosexuality and capitalism and took place alternatively in the bishop seat and in the Jewish community Benei Tivka.

In the sixteenth chapter, “Sobre el cielo y la tierra” deals with “marriage between people of the same sex”. So rabbi Skorka opens the conversation: “In my opinion, same-sex marriage has been considered in a very partial manner, compared to the depth that the topic deserves. Cohabiting same-sex couples are matter of fact and are entitled to legal solutions to problems such as pensions, inheritance etc.. (which may be part of a new juridical figure), but equating homosexual couples to heterosexual ones is something totally different. It’s not just a belief question, but we must be aware that this problem concerns one of the most delicate elements our culture is based on.”

Bergoglio replies: “Religion, being at the service of the people, in entitled to express its opinion. And if somebody asks me for advice, I have the right to give it to him. Sometimes the religious minister calls attention to certain points of the private or public life because he is the mentor of the faithful.” Up to this point we can find the usual reaffirmation of the duties and  obviously also of  the consequential rights that religions are entitled to claim, nevertheless Bergoglio introduces a new element pointing out what “is not for religious minister, as he doesn’t have the right to interfere with anybody’s private life, and that’s for sure. If, during the Creation, God faced the risk of making us free, who am I to interfere? We condemn the redundancy of spiritual influence, which occurs when a minister imposes the guideline, the behaviour to follow, depriving people of freedom”. These statements, however, are not intended for possible approval of choices different from those suggested (not imposed) by the church because Bergoglio is quick to point out that “God let us free even to commit a sin. Talking clearly about values, limits, commandments is something absolutely necessary, of course, but spiritual or pastoral interference is not allowed”.

Skorka reminds that in Judaism there are some currents in which prescriptive approaches prevail, but he underlines that in Jewish Law there’s no place for homosexuality, and he adds: “On the other hand, I respect any individual who maintains a reserved and intimate approach to the theme”, then he refers to the Argentinian law of 2010 about civil marriage between same-sex people and access to adoptions by same-sex couples; he reminds the worth that scientists like Freud or Lévi-Strauss attribute to the prohibition of incestuous relationships and to sexual ethic, and he admits to be worried about the consequences for society that laws like that approved in Argentina in 2010 can produce.

Bergoglio considers the Argentinian law approved in 2010 as an “anthropological regression”, since it weakens “an institution millennia old, created in accordance with nature and anthropology”; this way the rejection of homosexual unions considered as equivalent to marriage loses the quality of religious precept, in the name of which church is not allowed to deprive anybody of his freedom, and  assumes the meaning of safeguard of the natural law in opposition to anything unnatural, and also of safeguard of a principle of anthropology, which affirms that heterosexuality is an intrinsic characteristic of the man as such.

Bergoglio then states something apparently open-minded: “Fifty years ago, co-living before marriage was not as common as nowadays. It was something degrading. Then things changed. Today, co-living before marriage, although it’s not right from a religious point of view, does not have any more the extremely negative social weight it had fifty years ago. It’s a sociological fact that clearly is not comparable to the completeness and  greatness of marriage, an institution millennia old that has to be defended. […] We too consider very important what you have just highlighted, that is the base of the Natural Law mentioned by the Bible: the union between a man and a woman”. Shorly, Bergoglio underlines that Bible recognizes the “real” Nature Law, which is identified, in sexual matter, as heterosexuality.

Bergoglio continues: “homosexuality has always existed. The island of Lesbos, for example, was well known for having homosexual women. But it had never happened in history that somebody tried to give it the same status as marriage. It was tolerated or not tolerated, it was appreciated or not appreciated, but never considered equal.” Bergoglio doesn’t even conceive that homosexuality can be considered equated with heterosexuality, because he said it doesn’t embody the Natural Law (strange concept of nature!).

Bergoglio continues with a statement: “We know that during some epochal evolutions the phenomenon of homosexuality sensibly increased”. Actually, in those periods of changing the repressive power of some institutions like Catholic Church weakened, that’s why homosexuality became more visible.

Bergoglio adds: “But in our age, it is the first time we face the problem of assimilating it to marriage, and I consider this as a bad value and an anthropological regression”.

Immediately after, Bergoglio presents the most convincing argument, according to him,: “A private union doesn’t hurt anybody nor the society. Instead, if this union is considered under the category of marriage and the right of adoption is allowed, there is the risk of damaging children. Each individual needs a male father and a female mother who help him shaping his own identity”. The idea of homo-parenthood as something dangerous is taken for granted, though many serious studies about the issue have demonstrated that those are only prejudices.

Bergoglio adds: “I insist: our opinion on marriage of same-sex people does not have a religious basis but anthropological”, and for this reason the limitation of the sphere of the individual freedom would be justified as well as the non-equalization of homosexuals with heterosexuals.

Bergoglio reminds that, for the first time after 18 years of being bishop, he had to draw the attention of a public officer when the major of Buenos Aires, Mauricio Macri, refused to appeal against a first grade judgement that had authorized a homosexual marriage. But Bergoglio points out, twice, that he never talked about homosexuals or used derogatory terms against homosexuals and remarks that he confined himself to the legal issue.

Skorka then widens the subject on the natural law and he reminds that “in the discussion before the approval of the law, somebody invoked the “natural law” thanks to which Nature has in itself the rule leading the human behaviour. So, God himself infused this rule in the Creation. Now, a homosexual may rightly object it was God or Nature that made him that way. On the other hand, somebody declared that love between homosexual people has a multiple nature, because female love and male love co-exist together, although this does not implies a suitable condition to create a family”. These last statements of the rabbi, related to a generic “somebody”, are in fact quite curious.

Skorka introduces the question of the parental figures in the educative field and Bergoglio answers that “generally, people say that it would be better for a kid to be grown by a same-sex couple rather than living in an orphanage or in an institute for minors. Of course, neither of these situations is optimal”.

Bergoglio searches for a different solution which could allow to avoid adoption by same-sex couples. He states that “the problem is that the State does not do what it should, […] We have to consider the situations od children who live in public structures or institutes where everything is done but recover those children. NGOs, the different religious confessions or other kinds of organisations should take care of those minors”, but Bergoglio concludes: “a mistake from the State’s side [the excess of bureaucracy and corruption] does not justify another mistake by the same State [the legitimation of adoptions for same-sex couples]”. In this sense, if regulations and procedures for the adoptions were speeded up and bureaucratic rules “whose actual application encourages corruption” were eliminated, there would be no justification for adoptions by same-sex couples.

Skorka goes on quoting Bible and Maimonides, looking for images that compare the relationship between God and men to the matrimonial relationship between a man and a woman, then he concludes: “A homosexual person loves somebody he knows, a fellow. It is easy for a man to know another man, on the contrary it is much more difficult to know a woman, because he needs to decode her. A man perfectly knows what another man feels, and a woman perfectly knows what happens in the body and in the mind of another woman. Discovering the other sex, instead, is a true challenge”.

Bergoglio ends up this way: “Usually, in the homily for a marriage I tell the groom he must make her more woman, and I tell the bride she must make him more man”.

Monsignor Juan Vicente Còrdoba and the adoptions by homosexual people

Here below you can read, translated into English, an article appeared on the Columbian newspaper “El Tiempo”. The article is titled: “Monsignor Juan Vicente Còrdoba thinks that entrusting two boys to a homosexual man was a mistake”.http://m.eltiempo.com/gente/iglesia-rechaza-adopcin-de-homosexuales/10913132

The secretary of the [Columbian] Episcopal Conference, Juan Vicente Còrdoba, a professional psychologist, questioned the adoption of two little brothers authorized by the Columbian Institute for Family Wellness (ICBF) to an American homosexual man. It’s the case of the journalist Chandler Burr, who has taken back with him the two brothers after a long dispute, consequent to the fact that the adoption had been suspended when his sexual orientation was known.

What do you think about this case?

“I don’t want to judge that man or the ICBF, and I imagine there was a good intention behind. But what kind of investigation was carried out on the personality of the future dad? You have to be sure the adopters are a couple, a man and a woman, or a single man or a single woman with a stable psychology, if you want to entrust a child to somebody”.

Is homosexuality a psychological problem?

“It is not an illness, but a gender identity disease, about the identification of the gender. This is what universal psychiatry says”. [Homosexuality objectively has nothing to do with diseases or with gender identity problems, as World Health Organization confirmed many times.]

What do you know about Chandler Burr?

“I don’t know him and I’m not accusing him of anything, but one thing is clear: he has a homosexual tendency and a ten-year old boy and a thirteen-year old boy will be entrusted to him, among them there is a father-son relationship, they entrust him two boys of an age in which they can be attractive for him and so they can be a temptation”.

Do the children risk something?

“One says: why not giving him two girls? Why right two boys to a homosexual man? He wouldn’t feel any attraction towards two girls, if heterosexual fathers abuse of their daughters and even of their sons, then there’s more to worry about a homosexual man. It would have been better to give the children a father and a mother”.

So a homosexual man can’t house an orphan?

“He can, but he has to be a person with an internalized ability of controlling his tendency, his drives, his passions. It’s very hard not to fall in temptation if somebody has diabetes and he lives in a candy shop”.

What is you proposal?

“I believe that things have been made in a hurry, but it is possible to invert the trial as there was a fundamental fact nobody knew. Thus, revising the trial and bringing it back to a previous phase is something absolutely necessary. It will be very difficult for this man to be impartial and give a pure and transparent affection. Colombia cannot supply its citizens to another country like if they were just goods”.

The Prosecutor’s office investigates Chandler Burr’s couple life. The control authority expressed a negative opinion on Burr’s case, “especially about the psychological valuation test, according to which there are some evident inconsistencies about the existence of relationships with same-sex people”.

The control authority confirmed its request to ICBF for obtaining the revision of the adoption requests by mono-parental families or singles and announced that the case will be followed and this proceeding of adoption will be contested.

The choices of the French Republic

On March 24, 2013, Gay Project published an article: GAY MARRIAGE IN FRANCE AND STATE SECULARITY

http://gayproject2.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/gay-marriage-in-france-and-state-secularity/

The French law has finally closed the phase of the double track: marriage only for heterosexuals and other forms of cohabitation also for homosexuals. Without giving any “definition of marriage” was adopted simply a new text of art. 143 of the Civil Code which now reads:

“Art 143 – Marriage is contracted by two persons of different or of the same sex.”

All contrary provisions must therefore be considered amended accordingly. So the secular France has honoured the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

_________

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:

http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=145

POPE BERGOGLIO AND HOMOSEXUALS

A few hours ago, Cardinal Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, was elected Pope, under the name of Francis. The choice of the name seems to be a harbinger of change, but if there will be a change, certainly will not affect the relationship between Catholic Church and homosexuals.

Cardinal Bergoglio found himself in a strong disagreement with the Argentine government on the issue of marriage between persons of the same sex. On July 9, 2010, a few days before the discussion of the law on marriage between persons of the same sex, the Cardinal Primate addressed a letter to the Carmelite nuns of Buenos Aires in which he described the law on same-sex marriage as “a move of the Devil” and encouraged to join the” God’s war” against the possibility that homosexuals can marry. Former President Nestor Kirchner has criticized the “pressures” of the Church on this point. The President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner accused Bergoglio in strong terms, judging the position of the Church as “typical of the Middle Ages and the Inquisition.”

I reproduce below the full text of the letter sent by cardinal Beroglio to the Carmelite nuns in Buenos Aires a few days before the discussion of the law on marriage between persons of the same sex. The letter points out that “This is not just a political struggle but an attempt to destroy God’s plan” and judged the project to allow marriage between persons of the same sex as something of diabolical origin, “a move by the father of lies.”

Text of the letter

I write these lines to each of you who are in the four monasteries of Buenos Aires. The people of Argentina will face in the coming weeks a situation whose outcome may seriously injure the family. This is the bill on marriage between persons of the same sex.

What is at stake here is the identity and the survival of the family: father, mother and children. What is at stake is the life of many children who are discriminated in advance depriving them of the human growth that God wanted it to be given by a father and a mother. At stake is a direct rejection of God’s law, which is also engraved in our hearts.

I remember a phrase of St Teresa when speaking of her childhood disease, she says that the envy of the devil tried to retaliate against her family because her elder sister had entered Carmel. Here, too, works the envy of the devil, for which sin entered into the world, trying subtly to destroy the image of God: man and woman who have the task to grow, multiply and subdue the earth. Let’s not be naive: it is not only a political struggle, it’s a claim to destroy the plan of God, it’s not just a bill (this is only the instrument), but a “step” by the father of lies to try to confuse and deceive the children of God.

Jesus tells us that, to defend us against this liar accuser, he will send the Spirit of Truth. Today our country, in this situation, needs the special assistance of the Holy Spirit that places the light of truth in the darkness of error, needs this Lawyer to defend us from the spell of many fallacies with which someone tries to justify this law and to confuse and deceive even people of good will.

For this I’m addressing to you to ask for prayer and sacrifice, the two invincible weapons that St Teresa said to possess. Call upon the Lord to send His Spirit to senators who must give their vote because so they will not be moved by mistake or by particular conjunctures but by what the law of nature and the law of God, tells them. Pray for them, for their families that the Lord will assist them, strengthen them and comfort them. Pray that they do much good to the country.

The bill will be debated in the Senate after July 13. Let’s look at St. Joseph, Mary and the Child and ask them fervently to defend the family in Argentina at this time. Let us remember what God said to his people in a time of great distress, “the battle is not yours, but God’s.” May they help, defend and join this war of God.

Thank you for what you do in this fight for the homeland. And, please, I ask you also to pray for me. Jesus bless you and the Holy Virgin protect you.
Sincerely,

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio SJ, Archbishop of Buenos Aires

_______

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:

http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=128

GAYS BETWEEN PREJUDICE AND RELATIVISM

On April 18, 2005, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in the Homily for the Mass for the election of the Roman Pontiff that preceded the opening of the conclave in which, the day after, he was elected pope, said:

“Every day new sects spring up, and what St Paul says about human deception and the trickery that strives to entice people into error (cf. Eph 4: 14) comes true.

Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine”, seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires”.

This sentence opens ideally the pontificate of Benedict XVI in the sign of contrast against relativism. According to the future Pontiff the relativism is “letting oneself be tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine” and its “ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires. “

The positions of the pope on gay rights are well known. I will just mention an article in English, published on the blog Gay Project January 18, 2013 http://gayproject2.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/pope-and-discrimination-of-gays/ .

I don’t enter into the merits of the statements of the pope. I would just like to mention and to develop an Indian legend told by Max Scheler in the first part of “Formalism in ethics and the ethics of material values” an extremely interesting book, published exactly 100 years ago, in 1913, which was intended to clarify what is relativism by treating the matter very seriously. The work is in German, but the Protestant and Jewish cultural influences, perhaps even more than the contents of the book itself, does not make it enjoyable in Catholic circles.

Max Scheler alludes to an Indian legend that I have to expand because it has a considerable explanatory meaning.

Many years ago, in India, a group of blind “wise men” were allowed to approach an elephant and they were told that it was an elephant, each of them touched the elephant only for a few seconds, then they were asked what an elephant was: one said it was a hard object such as marble, because he had only touched a tusk, another said it was like a very big snake capable of writhing in coils, because he had only touched the trunk, and another said it was a big paw.

According to the metaphor it’s obvious that each of the blind “wise men” realized that his point of view was relative and that to better understand what an elephant is it’s necessary to know and understand what others deduced from their own point of view. The truly wise men understand that relativism is not exceeded with the apodictic affirmation of a single point of view but only with a collaborative vision that enriches everyone and allows a better understanding of reality and at least a relative overcoming of the initial relativism. So far Max Scheler and I would say that it is already an illuminating metaphor.

Now let assume that among those blind wise men there was one that had got to stay a long time with other elephants, that certainly would have had a much better knowledge of what an elephant is, certainly a relative knowledge but much less relative than that of those who had could touch the elephant just for a minute, and the wise men, to understand what is really an elephant, would certainly be listening to those who had more experience about elephants.

Obviously if those same blind men were then taken next to a turtle and none of them had ever had contact with other turtles, none of them could have helped “a priori” to understand more and better than others what a turtle really is.

It wouldn’t certainly occur to me, since I’ve never ridden a horse, to explain to an experienced rider which positions are more “natural” to stay in the saddle, because talking about what you do not know means only show your ignorance of that topic, so anyone who is not gay, and does not live being gay from inside, should realize that he has a concept of being gay comparable with the idea of an elephant that can have a blind man who has approached an elephant only for a minute.

Mine is not a defense of relativism and I make explicit reference to Max Scheler if you want to get something serious about these topics.

Strongly assertive and dogmatic positions are supported not by their greater reliability derived from more experience or more rationality but only by a principle of authority. The concepts of “God’s law” or “natural law” are also presumptions, i.e. acts of faith, certainly respectable in themselves, but that in no case can be the basis of visions involving the devaluation of other points of view, or worse the restriction of the freedom of others. This would be like trying to impose the view that the elephant is a huge tusk because one of the blind men, particularly influential, has only touched the tusk (assuming that he has really touched it). If those blind men submit to the authority of one of them, they would not be wise because they would reject the idea of working for a better understanding of the things, that is not compatible with the idea that someone is right by definition. This is not like the Pope says “the dictatorship of relativism” but an elementary principle of common sense for which freedom is not compatible with any ideological dictatorship.

Gay men know the reality of their lives and yet have to see every day, imposed by the violent force of law, as is happening in Russia, or by the abuse of the name of God, as the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church usually do, the points of view of those who does not know what they are talking about.

It is not the relativism reductively understood, according to the words of the Pope, the basis of democracy that must form the foundation of the States, but the principle of mutual respect and collaboration, to guarantee the higher level of awareness for all, assuming that everyone is free to judge as he wants but if the judgment is not based on a real knowledge of the topics but on a mere prejudice, no one can claim in the name of that prejudice to limit the freedom or the rights of others.

_______

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:

http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=110