Simmer down now

Yesterday I read an article published by Reuters which was picked up by the Huffington Post on the Pope's Christmas remarks to the Roman Curia.


Immediately I e-mailed my friend Gashwin saying that I seriously doubt what the Pope had to say could be appropriately boiled down to the byline they were shilling, and the snipits they were including without any context.


And sure enough I was right.


But what's the point of pushing a story, titled Pope likens"saving"gays to saving the Rain Forest. The only point is to push a narrative, as opposed to the facts (See The Historian's Craft). The consequence of which is to rile people up, get reactions which then cause counter reactions - is it productive? Hardly, but it pushes a preferred narrative, and it sells.


Like Dominos falling, the blogosphere was alight with reactions based soley off the reporting of Reuters, who as I stated had a sexy title and some soundbites. And while I can appreciate the righteous anger of folks like my friend Bilgrimage, who speak from an honest place and have prophetic things to say about the struggle for Gay Rights, I suppose my generation can't fully comprehend and appreciate the old culture warrior approach of our parents.


It doesn't mean we don't agree with them it's just not our style. I tend to think that my generation, while it can be reactionary, is a little more circumspect especially in which battles we choose to fight.


Reuters and others honed in on the word Gender: "He turned his attention to those people who call themselves in Italian “gender” or “transgender” — a broad term that includes anyone who doesn’t identify entirely with their assigned sex and can include homosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals and others."

What the Reuters writer is guilty of is creating a narrative where one simply does. not. exist.



So what did Benedict say? From Whispers in the Loggia,


Since faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian Credo, the Church cannot and should not confine itself to passing on the message of salvation alone. It has a responsibility for the created order and ought to make this responsibility prevail, even in public. And in so doing, it ought to safeguard not only the earth, water, and air as gifts of creation, belonging to everyone. It ought also to protect man against the destruction of himself. What is necessary is a kind of ecology of man, understood in the correct sense. When the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman and asks that this order of creation be respected, it is not the result of an outdated metaphysic. It is a question here of faith in the Creator and of listening to the language of creation, the devaluation of which leads to the self-destruction of man and therefore to the destruction of the same work of God. That which is often expressed and understood by the term “gender”, results finally in the self-emancipation of man from creation and from the Creator. Man wishes to act alone and to dispose ever and exclusively of that alone which concerns him. But in this way he is living contrary to the truth, he is living contrary to the Spirit Creator. The tropical forests are deserving, yes, of our protection, but man merits no less than the creature, in which there is written a message which does not mean a contradiction of our liberty, but its condition. The great Scholastic theologians have characterised matrimony, the life-long bond between man and woman, as a sacrament of creation, instituted by the Creator himself and which Christ – without modifying the message of creation – has incorporated into the history of his covenant with mankind. This forms part of the message that the Church must recover the witness in favour of the Spirit Creator present in nature in its entirety and in a particular way in the nature of man, created in the image of God. Beginning from this perspective, it would be beneficial to read again the Encyclical Humanae Vitae: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against sexuality as a consumer entity, the future as opposed to the exclusive pretext of the present, and the nature of man against its manipulation.



Wow that's a mouthful, but it's also called context, and yeah I emphasized what I picked out from context clues what the actual theses of this passage are.

"It is a question here of faith in the Creator and of listening to the language of creation, the devaluation of which leads to the self-destruction of man and therefore to the destruction of the same work of God"

The destruction of the same work of God here is speaking to the fact that from the foundation of the world he knew us and formed us individually, uniquely and yet in his image. To compromise the temple of our body in such a way as to fundamentally change or destroy the image of God is the problem.

"Man wishes to act alone and to dispose ever and exclusively of that alone which concerns him. But in this way he is living contrary to the truth, he is living contrary to the Spirit Creator"

We were given charge as stewards of creation and one another, as such we've embraced a culture that assumes absolute control over not only creation, but ourselves in totality unconsciously (or consciously) individually and corporately cuts us off from God on whom we depend, it is in this way that we hear but do not listen to the Word of God dwelling within us. This is speaking more to the notion of transgenderism as something recognized, not by the fully formed adult mind of the person who experiences it, but by folks in charge of minor persons who make decisions on behalf of those persons which could be taking advantage of them. It also speaks to postmodern concepts of gender theory which has as it object gender as a completly mutable expression completely independent of physicality and not limited to true transgendered persons. It reduces the complimentarity of the sexes and the natural roles (though not necessarily "traditional" roles for my feminist friends) to whimsy and conscious choice.

"This [marriage] forms part of the message that the Church must recover the witness in favour of the Spirit Creator present in nature in its entirety and in a particular way in the nature of man, created in the image of God"

The nature of sacramental and ontological marriage is one of equality, stewardardship, companionship and complimentarity between the sexes. It is the church's job to protect and uphold the institution between man and woman help them reclaim the ontological understanding of marriage as a reflection of the communion of the Godhead and to protect individuals from potential marital relationships that aren't oriented towards fulfilling those four qualities and embolden them to work towards it. As such as much as the LGBT community may find this offensive and exclusionary it probably serves more as a teaching moment for the heterosexual community against things like failing to exhibit or work towards those qualities in marriage and all those activities and personal qualities that lead to marital dissolution.

All three of the previous are best expressed in the "main idea" of the talk that the Church is to,

"defend love against sexuality as a consumer entity, the future as opposed to the exclusive pretext of the present, and the nature of man against its manipulation"

Again as much as the gay community thinks that the church is exclusively rejecting them at this time of year, she's sending out a message to the broader human family that we are not products on the shelf, we are not as humans a commodity to be exchanged to be torn down and built up in an image that is pleasing to the dominant capitalist, consumerist culture but are to be true to ourselves and our God and live relationally in that manner.

Sphere: Related Content