Why Are We Celebrating? The Catholic Church Still Hates Trans People

[trotsky]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/10/15/the_catholic_church_still_hates_trans_people_so_why_is_lgbtq_media_praising.html

Since his papacy began in March of 2013, Pope Francis has been lauded by moderate Catholics, liberal-minded religionists, and even the occasional non-believer as a breath of (77-year-old) fresh air. At the time of his election, the Catholic Church was just beginning to pick up the pieces after its decades-long child abuse scandal had been exposed, and religious identity and church attendance among American Catholics was at a record low. Here was someone exciting, someone (supposedly) different—a smooth-talking Cardinal from Buenos Aires with a more politically polished style than his by-the-book predecessor.

But style is not policy, and in that regard, Francis has actually done little to distinguish himself from Benedict. Like past Catholic leadership, this pope opposes abortion and believes marriage is strictly between a man and a woman; and, for good measure, Francis even excommunicated an Australian priest who happened to support women's ordination and marriage equality. Meet the new boss … who is basically the same as the old boss.

Still, a large number of Catholics have strained to hear a new “tone” in Francis’ various pronouncements. They hoped he would be a moderate, someone who could bring change to the Church. For example, whereas Pope Benedict would have angrily condemned gay people, Pope Francis' slick new approach was to gently prevaricate, saying things like, "Who am I to judge?" while totally upholding the anti-LGBTQ teachings of the Church.

...

The words regarding LGB people and their families were at best neutral in nature, but many acted as if they were major step forward for LGB and T Catholics. The Human Rights Campaign went so far as to declare this milquetoast news a "seismic shift in Rome," and saying that this new document "praises committed gay and lesbian 'partnerships.'" "Praises?" That's certainly a bit strong, especially considering that the document also threw trans people under the bus. Before we laud the Church for kind of, sort of, maybe coming slightly closer to being cool with some gay couples, can we ask them to please reconsider their sub-human, demonic view of trans individuals? If “LGBTQ” is to have any meaning as a solidarity movement, (snail-like) progress for some letters cannot be had at the expense of others.

Nice to hear from multiple perspectives on this issue.

[merrily]

1. Not celebrating anything.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014918252

[trotsky]

2. Indeed!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218157093

[merrily]

9. LOL! Dueling links.

I imagine both threads contain some pretty good replies. Too bad we can't combine them. (FWIW, I didn't see yours before I posted mine.)

[trotsky]

16. No problem, different groups, different audiences! n/t

[trotsky]

4. Oh yeah.

It's the old "love the sinner, hate the sin" gambit, right?

Tell it to the author. And to the millions of LGBTers who have suffered due to the church's official teaching that homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered."

[edhopper]

6. The south didn't hate black people

slavery and Jim Crow was just their doctrine.

I see.

[edhopper]

12. so religious tenets

get special exemptions from criticism, no matter how sinister.

[edhopper]

15. It is not hate as a doctrine, okay

would you agree many Church officials do hate Gay people?

And also that the doctrine is harmful to Gay people.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. What do you call it when someone throws their own child out of their home and never speaks to him

again?

"Hate" isn't a strong enough word, methinks.

[rug]

45. Pain.

There's plenty of it to go around.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. For the victim sure.

For the perpetrator was well. Not so much for the faith/leaders that led the perp to it.

[rug]

47. For both.

Have you ever talked to a parent who, for whatever reason, does not see his or her child?

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Yep.

Sure have.

Not sure where you're going with this.

[rug]

49. Nowhere. Usually when I encounter pain I just stop.

Judgments aside, this family is hurting.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Yes it is.

And when someone is hurting, I tend to look to the cause. One, to stop the pain if it is still being inflicted (it is), and to prevent it from happening to anyone else, if possible.

Whose doctrine, would you say, is the proximate cause here?

I'll give you three whole guesses.

[rug]

58. The doctrine at issue here is conditional love.

It's not a doctrine any parent should hold.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Take another guess.

Two left.

[rug]

60. I don't guess.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. You don't know either, so what does that leave us with?

[rug]

62. I do know what I said.

I don't know where that leaves you.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Unimpressed, mostly.

Said people in question got an overriding idea that trumped love, somewhere.


I had a similar problem, but the other way, with my father. But for me, the idea was basic survival, fear, and disgust at the wife beating, abusive, hateful monster he became over time. I didn't get my defensive posture from a book, it's an instinct.

There's no such instinct to abuse people for having various types of sexuality.

[rug]

64. I'll try harder.

Sorry about your experiences.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. As much as we may disagree,

Thank you.

I hope you and yours never experienced similar behavior. I don't wish it on anyone.

[rug]

66. So do I.

A friend of mine is involved with child protective services right now. Her granddaughter was removed almost three months ago because of the condition of the house. She's moved to a much better place but now her granddaughter, who's 12, is refusing to go back.

Not the same thing but it's a different branch from the same tree. There's heartbreak and horror whichever way you turn.

[Kelvin Mace]

27. Not doctrine?

It is "Holy Writ"

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Collossians 3:22

[trotsky]

17. So I can consider someone "intrinsically disordered"...

but as long as I say that's my religious doctrine, it's OK? Wow.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. That's the sort of shit I would say about my garage.

Not a human being.

[Goblinmonger]

7. They sure act funny if the don't hate.

But fine. Don't use "hate" if you don't want to. Denying rights and doing other horrible things is enough description. Saying gay marriage is "from Satan" is a funny way to not show hate, though.

[edhopper]

11. You deny

the Catholic Church has played an active roll in denying the right of Gays to marry?

You deny the Catholic Bishops had a roll in the Ugandan anti-Gay laws?

Are you that naive?

[Warren Stupidity]

21. well at least they haven't burned anyone for the last 1000 years

or so I've been told right here on DU.

[Goblinmonger]

13. You do know they lobbied hard for gay marriage bans

and spent a lot of money in that effort?

You do know about their efforts to stop access to abortions, right?

You do know about their horrible efforts in Africa that have resulted in many, many deaths?

You do know that they consistently and systematically make it so that women cannot hold positions of power?

I find it hard to believe that you are being serious in not knowing these things.

[theHandpuppet]

57. Here's the scorecard

http://www.becketfund.org/hhsinformationcentral/#BackToTop1

And that's the lawsuits filed against HHS contraception mandate alone.

I've stayed out of this discussion until now but be warned -- those of you who would deny the political machinations of the church with regard to LGBT rights (globally), non-discrimination laws (such as the lobbying against ENDA), reproductive rights, not to mention the outright firings of gay people from their jobs -- if you don't stop this ridiculous denial I will burn you a new one with a list of links and sources so long that your eyeballs will melt before you can even get through it.

JUST STOP IT before you force me to make you look ridiculous.

[trotsky]

18. Did you hear about a recent Supreme Court case?

It was called Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

[skepticscott]

20. Nice try, but deeply dishonest

You know perfectly well that the real question is "what rights has the Catholic sought to have them deprived of?" And that question has already been answered for you here.

You remind me of people who try to excuse the Inquisition by arguing that the RCC never tortured or murdered anyone, when they simply turned them over to civil authorities with the full understanding and expectation that THEY would do the dirty work, and let the church keep their hands nominally clean.

[rug]

23. So, the answer to her actual question is none.

[edhopper]

25. Just like the Republican Party hasn't denied any one of their rights here

Republican politicians have, the party has spent time and money campaigning and lobbying for those laws.
But the Party hasn't enacted any laws.
I am sure you realize how evasive and down right stupid that argument is.

But nice try.

Now I am sure you will double down and try to defend it with some semantic gymnastics.

[rug]

29. The republicans hold actual political power throughout the country.

I am sure you realize how evasive and down right stupid that statement was.

[edhopper]

30. Catholics also hold power

Thought you knew that.

[rug]

31. Of course! Vatican City! How could I forget!

Try to buy a condom there.

[edhopper]

32. Scalia, Alito

Most Italian politicians, most Irish politicians

Like I said, doubling down on the Church having no influence and doing nothing harmful.

No hand in denying people rights, yeah, you stick with that, guess it makes you feel better.

[rug]

33. . . . . were appointed by the POTUS not the College of Cardinals.

They must have been napping when Kagan and Ginsberg slipped in.

[edhopper]

34. Like I said

Nighty night.

[rug]

35. Maybe by the am you'll figure the difference between political influence and actual plitical power.

[edhopper]

40. Tell me what laws

Reince Priebus has enacted and what political power he controls.

Tell how little power the Mormon Church has in Utah.


Or don't, I'm out of here.

[rug]

41. Guess not.

Bye.

[rug]

19. Molloy is hardly bringing a "multiple perspective" to this.

On March 18, 2014, Molloy wrote an article titled "RuPaul Stokes Anger With Use of Transphobic Slur" at The Advocate. The article angered a number of members of the LGBT community, and Molloy was criticized by the likes of Calpernia Addams, Justin Vivian Bond, Andrea James, Our Lady J, and RuPaul.

In August 2014 Molloy faced a backlash from members of the trans community after telling another transgender person to drink bleach, cut herself, and die in a fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Marie_Molloy

http://www.queerty.com/trans-violence-watchdogs-issue-advisory-warning-against-advocate-writer-and-trans-activist-parker-molloy-20140903

[beam me up scottie]

22. Bigotry, broad brushing, fodder for your anti-theist propaganda

Did I miss anything?

At the time of his election, the Catholic Church was just beginning to pick up the pieces after its decades-long child abuse scandal had been exposed, and religious identity and church attendance among American Catholics was at a record low. Here was someone exciting, someone (supposedly) different—a smooth-talking Cardinal from Buenos Aires with a more politically polished style than his by-the-book predecessor.

Nailed it.

[rug]

24. Looks like you missed the whole thing.

[beam me up scottie]

26. No, I'm just early.

Thought I'd get ahead of the accusations that trotsky is an anti-theist who attacks believers for their beliefs because he criticizes the Vatican's policies.

[rug]

28. No, that's old news.

The news here is Molloy's attempt to pit T against LBG.

[goldent]

36. I like celebrating!

and progress is progress.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Is this funny to you?

The Vatican's bigoted policies and hate speech hurt many Duers and their families.

If the unimaginable suffering caused by the RCC because of its continuing persecution of LGBT people doesn't bother you at all, by all means, party on dude.

Selfish much?

[mr blur]

38. "Progress is progress"?

And ignorance and bigotry are ignorance and bigotry.

[goldent]

42. Yep. I celebrate progress.

[trotsky]

39. Uh, what progress has been made?

Can you point to a single change? Even the modest change in attitude (just attitude - any deviance from the heterosexual norm was still condemned) was walked back.

[goldent]

43. The public discussion that occurred represents progress.

You may be unaware of how slow progress was in the political world. It took many many decades, and before that is was not an issue for discussion.

[okasha]

50. I remember the Anita Bryant witch-hunts.

Now we have equal marriage in 60% of the states, including f'r godssake Utah, and adverse rulings falling like the trees at Tunguska.

None of that was accomplished by giving up the fight and moving to a "friendlier" state. No one who advocates that liberal believers give up on the RCC has the interests LGBT persons at heart. The change has to come from within.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Yeah, because the UNITED STATES COURT SYSTEM is 'within' the catholic church.

What the fuck are you even on about?

[AtheistCrusader]

53. "Progress" for a homophobic, sexist, moneygrubbing, anti-birth control, anti-abortion,

anti-physician assisted suicide... You fucking name it. They lobby against it, or sue over it.


And at the end of the day, it's a useless org. You don't need it. It's 'coming around' bit by bit as progress? That's like having some useless elective class in high school, in which only 9% of the students get burned for no reason at all. But hey, they're zeroing in on 8%, so that's fucking progress, right? Yippee.

[goldent]

55. I take it you don't care for the Catholic Church

Your use of the word "fucking" as an adjective* gave it away. But at least we agree on the existence of progress, which was my point.

* Back in the day, we would have called it a "verbal" adjective, or simply a "verbal."

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Acutally, at the moment, the 'progress' would be cooking the books and SAYING the burn

rate has dropped when it in fact, has not.

There MIGHT be progress at some point in the future. Maybe. We shall see.

[trotsky]

67. Hey, thanks for the condescending attitude.

"You may be unaware of how slow progress was in the political world."

Compared to the archaic institution known as the Catholic church, the political world moves at light speed. Look at how many states have marriage equality today versus just 6 years ago.

Tell you what though, explain that to the author of this article. Explain it to the millions of homosexual Catholics who are still officially banned from having a full relationship with the person they love. Just tell them that we've made amazing "progress" because even though not a damn thing has changed w.r.t. their role in the church, some people on a message board had a discussion about it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

68. Minimizing regret of irrevocable choices

That's what we're seeing here. Everyone who has thrown their lot behind this pope is expecting the church to shift leftward. Whenever there is the slightest indication this isn't going to happen, they become "cautiously optimistic". Whenever the church makes a superficial shift in language, it is "an earthquake" or a "leap forward". Whenever it becomes obvious change is nowhere on the radar whatsoever, the refrain becomes, "Well, progress is slow."

The lengths to which people go to avoid admitting they backed the wrong horse...

[trotsky]

69. I think you've precisely described the issue here.

Add on a layer about taking out your frustrations by attacking those who are pointing out the new leader isn't what you expected, and you've got it.

[goldent]

70. 6 years?

You are measuring the speed of progress in the political world by going back 6 years? What about the hundreds and thousands of years of political institutions before that? I'm trying not to sound condescending, but come on!

[trotsky]

71. Yes, 6 years.

From DOMA being the law of the land to 31 states where marriage equality rules, that's pretty damn impressive. If you want to go back "hundreds and thousands of years" I would then point out to you just how many of those years had a religious institution serving AS the political institution. Still feel like doubling down?

Human rights proceed without (and usually in opposition to) the church.