Religion
Related: About this forumYes the pope is Catholic. But he didn't say gay marriage threatens humanity
Pope Benedict XVI said a lot about environmentalism and economics in his speech, so why make up another story?
Posted by Andrew Brown
Wednesday 11 January 2012 06.32 EST
On Monday, Pope Benedict XVI gave a speech to the diplomatic corps at the Vatican at which he didn't say a single word about gay marriage. You can read the whole thing here. So why is it news? Because Reuters and, following them, many other people reported that he had denounced gay marriage as a threat to western civilisation. Philip Pullella, who is one of the very best and most experienced Vatican correspondents, led his story: "Pope Benedict said Monday that gay marriage was one of several threats to the traditional family that undermined 'the future of humanity itself'."
So far as I can see, Pope Benedict just didn't. He did speak in favour of the family "based on the marriage of a man and woman". He did say that "policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself". But there was no suggestion that gay marriage was the most important of these and he didn't mention it at all, whereas he did take up several other sexual issues.
He went out of his way to praise a recent European court ruling that outlawed patents based on human stem cells. He said that "legislative measures which not only permit but at times even promote abortion for reasons of convenience or for questionable medical motives compromise the education of young people and, as a result, the future of humanity". That may be right or wrong. But it's not an attack on gay marriage, or even on homosexuality.
Nor was it the main or the most important part of his retrospective. What he said was the most important event of last year was the global economic and financial crisis. So far as I know, he is the most significant European political figure to be saying things such as: "The crisis can and must be an incentive to reflect on human existence and on the importance of its ethical dimension, even before we consider the mechanisms governing economic life: not only in an effort to stem private losses or to shore up national economies, but to give ourselves new rules which ensure that all can lead a dignified life and develop their abilities for the benefit of the community as a whole."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2012/jan/11/pope-catholic-gay-marriage
But it makes good headlines.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
barbtries
(28,787 posts)the headline is pretty accurate imo.
rug
(82,333 posts)That headline?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)A = B
C = A
C = B
Yep, he said it.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)He said things which clearly imply it.
But "Pope says X" when the pope has not actually said X in is many words is undeniably sloppy reporting.
"Pope implies gay marriage threatens humanity" would be perfectly fair.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Here's the text from the Pope:
How are we supposed to read that?
The author is hanging his hat on the fact that the pope did not specifically mention any "policies which undermine the family." But it seems pretty obvious what the Pope is talkin about here.
rug
(82,333 posts)You can read it as his belief that the family unit is a fundamental cell of society and that the destruction of the family as a basic unit can lead to a destruction of society as it now exists. And although he defines family as that based on heterosexual marriage, the thrust of the comment is that the concept of family is under attack.
Or, you can read it as further proof that a pedophile coddling theocrat is blaming the end of the world on gay marriage.
I don't think that's hairsplitting. One goal of gay marriage is to give same-sex families the same acceptance and civil rights as heterosexual families. If that is achieved, the notion of the family, gay as well as straight, as a fundamental cell of society is not that much different from what he's saying here.
The fact that the Pope is wrong on gay marriage neither negates the rest of what he said nor invites the predictable reactions a misleading headline calls for.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)How does that meld with the "based on the marriage of a man and woman" part of his speech? He's making it pretty damn clear that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman and that any attack on that threatens humanity.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Disgusting.
rug
(82,333 posts)Or do you want to respond to me directly instead?
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)"Disgusting" was my attempt at brevity. You could say your statement was homophobic and appallingly similar to the sentiment found on far more conservative boards.
rug
(82,333 posts)Don't be afraid of using the first person.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)instead of clumsy innuendo.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
rexcat
(3,622 posts)I do not think there was any ambiguity on your part.
deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)I think you've been watching politics long enough to know the right-wing code words.
policies that threaten "the family"
is how they ALWAYS say "we hate queers, just let us legislate against them like we want to."
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Next you'll be telling us that he actually approves of condoms.
Or women.
Or sex with minors. Oh, wait...
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)This is too fucking funny. Did he say it in those exact words? Nope. However, most people with an education which includes "reading for comprehension" understand exactly what was implied. This article is nothing more than expanded version of "I didn't say "Black people," I said "those people" BS we get from right-wing conservatives. 
and very 
worthy!
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)He did more than imply it. Apparently the person quoted in the OP (not sure about rug), would make the same comment if the Pope had said, "Marriage is between a man and a woman. Any marriage not between a man and a woman is a threat to humanity." but, but, but he didn't say "gay marriage is a threat to humanity."
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Yes.
Because he clearly defines a family as a heterosexual one.
Even if you knew nothing about the Pope or religion, the definition is clear. And so are what he thinks the consequences of not following his definition.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Civil rights for gays, including marriage, are one of the many things the Pope opposes and his restriction of marriage as being only between one man and one woman is homophobic, period. Indeed, he's talking about a mythical family unit that in reality isn't the only type of family that exists.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)No reading between the lines, he said it plain as day.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Between this, and your OP about a bible verse allegedly"upsetting" some people when no one has even ever mentioned it, you seem to up to something, huh?
How about you go back to your OP and respond to the questions there? Let me make it easy for you...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12185830
Or did that not go quite the way you had hoped?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)He told diplomats from nearly 180 countries that the education of children needed proper "settings" and that "pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman."
"This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-pope-gay-idUSTRE8081RM20120109
Unless Reuters is making it up, thats his exact quote...
Epic
Apologetics
Fail
DawnBrooks
(4 posts)i take your point.
now the follow up is - does it really matter? he should keep his mouth shut about everything - literally everything - until he cleans his own house.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)The church cannot talk about human dignity and deny homosexuals their dignity.
edhopper
(33,570 posts)defend this horrible man.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Don't waste our time, please, let's not talk about incompetent religious leadership in the Catholic Church! We would be here for another 2000 years!
muriel_volestrangler
(101,307 posts)A note from the Reuters reporter seems to have persuaded Brown to change his mind. Pullella writes:
Regarding your entry about the coverage of the pope's speech to diplomats on Monday, please be aware that I wrote two separate stories on this. You obviously did not see the first one, which was all about the need for ethics in the economy, hopes for the Arab spring, etc.
...
If we agree with the premise that he firmly believes the family must be based on "the marriage between a man and a woman", and we know the church strongly opposes gay marriage, it is definitely journalistically legitimate to conclude that the pope believes that allowing families that are not based on heterosexual marriage is one of those policies "that undermine the family" and "threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself".
Was it a reference to the opposition to gay marriage? Absolutely. It was not the first, and certainly won't be the last.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2012/jan/15/pope-speech-gay-marriage-dissect
Brown just comments: "I would add that I didn't see his first story, and if I had done, I would not have been upset about the second one."
rug
(82,333 posts)You left out this paragraph:
"It is impossible to put everything into one story so, hours later, I dedicated another, secondary story to the comments on the family, which I thought were interesting enough – if not totally new – to merit a separate story."
The main thrust of the speech was about "the need for ethics in the economy, hopes for the Arab spring, etc.", which received much less coverage in comparison.
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)Is the Pope actually doing on those worldwide issues?
Other than lambasting the freedom of gays to marry as being "threatening to humanity"?
rug
(82,333 posts)MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)he's basically doing NOTHING!
Plantaganet
(241 posts)The Pope has weighed in again on this matter, clarified things, and eliminated the need for any interpretation:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101471487
There. That's better, eh?
deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)but I'll wait to see if this one also gets "interpreted"...
BTW I am loving the comments on that article, go go DU!
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Pity the apologists won't accept the truth even when it's staring them in the face.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Why anyone should care what some old bachelor says about same-sex marriage though, I can't say. The Pope is irrelevant to most of the world's population, as is the archaic and isolationist Roman Catholic Church.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)but like most right wing talking heads he has no qualifications for the topics he spouts off about
and like most right wing talking heads WAY too many people give him a platform to broadcast whatever pops into his crazy old head
and like most right wing talking heads WAY too many people actually seem to give a shit about what he says.
the difference between him and Rush:
Rush has sponsors that we can appeal to their sense of decency.
The pope is sponsored by every poor gullable SOB he can get his hands on, and there's really no talking to them. If their sense of decency hasn't driven them to abandon that church by now... don't hold your breath.