Pope says Christians should apologize for marginalization of gays

[Spartacus]

Note that I'm posting this in Christianity, not in Civics: this thread is for Christians only because I have questions to which I'm looking specifically for Christian responses.

http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/fr...inalizing-them

"The church must say it's sorry for not having comported itself well many times, many times."

"I believe that the church not only must say it's sorry ... to this person that is gay that it has offended," said the pope. "But it must say it's sorry to the poor, also, to mistreated women, to children forced to work."

One observation and two questions.

Observation: Although I think the obvious interpretation of the pope's statements-- that Christians should apologize for actively oppressing gay people-- holds, there's a more nuanced interpretation that bears examination. The Pope mentions gay people in the same breath as the poor, mistreated women, and child laborers. The Church hasn't really been known for perpetuating child labor, so this suggests that we don't necessarily have to read it as the Pope apologizing for active oppression: the Pope is not suggesting an apology for sins of commission, but of omission. As Francis seems to see it, the Church has an obligation to speak up for and serve those whom society has marginalized. The Church is obliged to speak up on behalf of the poor, of mistreated women, of child laborers, of people who are ignored or exploited or maltreated by society. Even if the Church hasn't been directly treating gay people unjustly, it hasn't been advocating for them, and in Pope Francis' eyes, this is a serious failure.

Question 1: Do you agree with the idea that the Church here on Earth has the obligation not only to serve, but to speak up on behalf of the poor and marginalized?

Question 2: Limiting ourselves to events within living memory (that is, anywhere in the world, but within the past century or so), have LGBT people been marginalized, either by the Church such that we might apologize, or by society such that the Church should have felt obligated to defend LGBT people? To put it another way, does hearing LGBT people discuss negative experiences connected to Christianity in any way prick at your conscience, and do you think it ought to?

[seanD]

Gays aren't being marginalized in society. You lost me at that point. Sure, many in society want to act like they're being marginalized. But, to the contrary, gay lifestyle is now chic in pop culture, and society has bent over backwards to accommodate their lifestyle in pretty much every aspect of it, even, in many cases, at the expense of religious freedom (i.e. lawsuits against Christian bakeries, et al).

[Sparko]

Should the church apologize for marginalizing adulterers? or pedophiles? or thieves? Or any other kind of sinner?

[Cow Poke]

...

Question 1: Do you agree with the idea that the Church here on Earth has the obligation not only to serve, but to speak up on behalf of the poor and marginalized?

Sure, and some local congregations do this better than others. Some churches (denominations) have global facilities/means for this.

Question 2: Limiting ourselves to events within living memory (that is, anywhere in the world, but within the past century or so), have LGBT people been marginalized, either by the Church such that we might apologize, or by society such that the Church should have felt obligated to defend LGBT people? To put it another way, does hearing LGBT people discuss negative experiences connected to Christianity in any way prick at your conscience, and do you think it ought to?

Preparing to get slammed, I'll venture in .... LBGT people are not in the same class as persons who, through no choice of their own, are poor or handicapped or marginalized because they weren't born white, etc....

So, let me ask another question -- while I believe it's proper to treat LBGT persons with dignity, should I be under any pressure whatsoever to put them in positions of leadership in my Church? deacons, assistant pastors, sunday school teachers, disciplers....?

[Cow Poke]

Just out of curiosity, what scripture would support the Church advocating on behalf of "the marginalized"? It's absolutely clear that we need to care for the widows and orphans, for example, but.... "the marginalized"?

[Obsidian]

This is what we should be doing to them.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

[Adrift]

Just out of curiosity, what scripture would support the Church advocating on behalf of "the marginalized"? It's absolutely clear that we need to care for the widows and orphans, for example, but.... "the marginalized"?

I think most people would consider the poor to be a marginalized group of people. Also those who are repented sinners are often marginalized. And Acts clarifies that widows were, indeed, a marginalized group at one point.



But, yeah, I agree with Sparko that the New Testament never has in mind unrepentant sinners when speaking of the marginalized. An unrepentant person may be marginalized simply in the hopes that the shame of their sin makes them aware of their sinfulness. That said, I think it's important that Christians also keep in mind Paul's words,

Scripture Verse: 1 Corinthians 5:9

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. 10 In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers and idolaters, since you would then have to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 But God will judge those outside. Remove the evil person from among you.

© Copyright Original Source

So yeah, I think there's a balancing act here of sorts. If the Pope is referring to active persecution of those with homosexual desires (whether in or out of the church), then I think he makes a good point. If he's spreading the net to include the simple separating of oneself from unrepentant sinners within the church proper, then I think he's definitely going too far.

[Sparko]

I think most people would consider the poor to be a marginalized group of people. Also those who are repented sinners are often marginalized. And Acts clarifies that widows were, indeed, a marginalized group at one point.



But, yeah, I agree with Sparko that the New Testament never has in mind unrepentant sinners when speaking of the marginalized. An unrepentant person may be marginalized simply in the hopes that the shame of their sin makes them aware of their sinfulness. That said, I think it's important that Christians also keep in mind Paul's words,

Scripture Verse: 1 Corinthians 5:9

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. 10 In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers and idolaters, since you would then have to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 But God will judge those outside. Remove the evil person from among you.

© Copyright Original Source

So yeah, I think there's a balancing act here of sorts. If the Pope is referring to active persecution of those with homosexual desires, then I think he makes a good point. If he's spreading the net to include the separating of oneself from unrepentant sinners within the church proper, then I think he's definitely going too far.

yeah. If he is merely talking about treating the unsaved, no matter who they are, with respect as human beings, then I am all for that. But if he is saying to condone their sins and embrace them as sinless, then no. We are to call sin "sin" and not call evil "good". I had a friend who was cheating on his wife once. He was still my friend but I told him that he was doing wrong and until he came clean and stopped what he was doing, I would not be able to hang around with him, especially in things that involved his wife or the other woman!

I have a friend who is gay also, I found out many years after we became friends. I am friendly with him, and occasionally visit and do some things with him, but I won't be around him when he is with his boyfriend, or go to any gay events with him. He knows how I feel and is fine with it.

[Cow Poke]

I think most people would consider the poor to be a marginalized group of people.

Yeah, I took that as a given - especially when it's through no fault of their own.

Also those who are repented sinners are often marginalized.

For example?

And Acts clarifies that widows were, indeed, a marginalized group at one point.

No argument there whatsoever - which is why I specifically named them, and orphans.

But, yeah, I agree with Sparko that the New Testament never has in mind unrepentant sinners when speaking of the marginalized.

An unrepentant person may be marginalized simply in the hopes that the shame of their sin makes them aware of their sinfulness. That said, I think it's important that Christians also keep in mind Paul's words,

Scripture Verse: 1 Corinthians 5:9

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. 10 In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers and idolaters, since you would then have to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 But God will judge those outside. Remove the evil person from among you.

© Copyright Original Source

So yeah, I think there's a balancing act here of sorts. If the Pope is referring to active persecution of those with homosexual desires (whether in or out of the church), then I think he makes a good point. If he's spreading the net to include the simple separating of oneself from unrepentant sinners within the church proper, then I think he's definitely going too far.

It just seems that there's a watering down of the Gospel in hopes of including more people in the Catholic Church.

[Cow Poke]

yeah. If he is merely talking about treating the unsaved, no matter who they are, with respect as human beings, then I am all for that. But if he is saying to condone their sins and embrace them as sinless, then no. We are to call sin "sin" and not call evil "good". I had a friend who was cheating on his wife once. He was still my friend but I told him that he was doing wrong and until he came clean and stopped what he was doing, I would not be able to hang around with him, especially in things that involved his wife or the other woman!

I have a friend who is gay also, I found out many years after we became friends. I am friendly with him, and occasionally visit and do some things with him, but I won't be around him when he is with his boyfriend, or go to any gay events with him. He knows how I feel and is fine with it.

Same with my liberal atheist Jewish lesbian exec admin - she knows how I feel about homosexuality, and, over the years, I have earned her respect and friendship.

[Adrift]

For example?

I'm thinking of the ex-prostitute, or an ex-drug abuser, or even a woman who aborted her child who later becomes aware of the evil of abortion and repents of it. These are people that much of highfalutin society and many Christians might look down upon as low life scum, untouchables, even though they have since cleaned up their act, and have legitimately committed themselves to Christ.

No argument there whatsoever - which is why I specifically named them, and orphans.

Ok, I guess I was confused because how you wrote that sentence, "It's absolutely clear that we need to care for the widows and orphans, for example, but.... 'the marginalized'?" it sounded like you were excluding widows and orphans from the list of those actually marginalized.

It just seems that there's a watering down of the Gospel in hopes of including more people in the Catholic Church.

Honestly, I'm not sure that evangelism is high in the Catholic Church's priority list. I hate to say it, but I think this current Pope may be more concerned with perception than with winning people to Christ. Not that I think that he's NOT concerned with winning people to Christ at all, but ever since the pedophile thing, the Church has been in desperate need of good PR.

[Cow Poke]

I'm thinking of the ex-prostitute, or an ex-drug abuser, or even a woman who aborted her child who later becomes aware of the evil of abortion and repents of it. These are people that much of highfalutin society and many Christians might look down upon as low life scum, untouchables, even though they have since cleaned up their act, and have legitimately committed themselves to Christ.

Yeah, none of the Churches I've attended or served in have been "highfalutin". But I know what you mean. I have, all my life, been exposed to the "hate the sin, love the sinner" mentality. My favorite "bad example" is the teen girl who gets pregnant out of wedlock -- at the point in her life when she needs the Church more than ever, she is often shunned or outcast.

Ok, I guess I was confused because how you wrote that sentence, "It's absolutely clear that we need to care for the widows and orphans, for example, but.... 'the marginalized'?" it sounded like you were excluding widows and orphans from the list of those actually marginalized.

No, I'm questioning the use of "the marginalized" as a class of persons we should treat a particular way.

Honestly, I'm not sure that evangelism is high in the Catholic Church's priority list. I hate to say it, but I think this current Pope may be more concerned with perception than with winning people to Christ. Not that I think that he's NOT concerned with winning people to Christ at all, but ever since the pedophile thing, the Church has been in desperate need of good PR.

I would tend to agree with that sentiment, but I'm an outsider looking in only superficially.

[Adrift]

Yeah, none of the Churches I've attended or served in have been "highfalutin". But I know what you mean. I have, all my life, been exposed to the "hate the sin, love the sinner" mentality. My favorite "bad example" is the teen girl who gets pregnant out of wedlock -- at the point in her life when she needs the Church more than ever, she is often shunned or outcast.

A long long time ago I used to collect a magazine called GLAD which was a Christian alternative to MAD. One of the strips that I thought was particularly astute showed two women talking, one an older matriarchal, stiff upper lip-looking woman sipping on a cup of tea with her pinky out, the other of a hip younger looking woman. The younger woman explains that before she came to Christ she used to be something like a pill popping, bisexual prostitute. At receiving this news, the older woman and her tea cup start cracking and then falls to pieces in a cloud of dust on the ground. The younger woman then exclaims "Well, God forgave me!"

No, I'm questioning the use of "the marginalized" as a class of persons we should treat a particular way.

Hmm. Ok. I still think I'm missing something then, because if you agree that both orphans and widows are marginalized and need to be treated a particular way, then why question whether there is such a class of persons?

[KingsGambit]

So yeah, I think there's a balancing act here of sorts. If the Pope is referring to active persecution of those with homosexual desires (whether in or out of the church), then I think he makes a good point. If he's spreading the net to include the simple separating of oneself from unrepentant sinners within the church proper, then I think he's definitely going too far.

It's possible the former is meant. In Africa in particular, there is a major problem with Christian leaders and their call for violent treatment of homosexuals. However, I doubt Francis's intentions were to limit it to this sort of thing.

[Adrift]

It's possible the former is meant. In Africa in particular, there is a major problem with Christian leaders and their call for violent treatment of homosexuals. However, I doubt Francis's intentions were to limit it to this sort of thing.

Yes, I'm aware. Very sad.