Day 91

I was reading up on the Vatican's current 'official positions' on various social issues. My interest was motivated by a number of conversations with Jordan about the cohesiveness (or lack therof) of what we call "Christianity." It seems that more than a few people think the current pope is just a little bit too old school, even for Catholicism.

Anyway, on the issue of homosexuality, the Vatican has a very interesting position. It is staunchly against the persecution of homosexuals, and condemns hate speech and action against them. Instead, as it is said essentially that homosexual 'tendancies' aren't so much sinful as they are sickly; like a sort of psychological disorder. So this separation is made: homosexuality itself is sin, but the homosexual person is simply ill, stricken with the sinful sickness. It is concluded that gay people ought to receive the full outreach of the church in terms of 'getting help' to fend off their 'tendancies.'

Love the sinner, hate the sin... as they say.

It is a rather odd position in my mind. And as much as there appears to be a certain intent of compassion to the argument, I can't help but wonder if it isn't even more insulting! I mean, say you're lifestyle is objectionable to some people. If you had to choose, would you rather them consider you a morally bad person, or would you rather them consider you mentally ill and in need of help, on account of said lifestyle?

I would likely choose the former. To call someone morally evil, in spite of the negative connotations, does implicitly offer a measure of respect, in that a self-awareness and self-control are assumed in the remark. If I call someone bad, or place blame upon them for their actions, I am also respecting them to the extent that I believe they have made choices in a deliberate way.

It is the shadow of admiration. You only admire someone for what they have chosen to do, and not so much for the things they cannot help but do.

But to be called ill is the ultimate in disrespect, is it not? If I am to call someone ill, and tell them I can forgive their 'bad' actions because they are stricken with a sickness that compels them, I am also removing all shreds of humanity from my perception of their mind. I don't think anything would offend me more than to do something wrong, and for a reason like that not be held accountable.

There isn't anything wrong with being gay, in my opinion. And I do believe that the Vatican has masked its contempt in a weird kind of compassion, with respect to this issue.

On a totally unrelated note, I suggest that all future presidents of the USA must pass a series of basic standardized intelligence tests before gaining office. Perhaps SAT-like questions, or IQ style questions, plus grammar quizzes, to make sure that the prospective president knows how to properly use its and it's; their, there, and they're, and so forth.
Just, basic stuff, in order that the country doesn't get embarrassed over and over again by the clearly lacking intelligence of presidents past and present who shall not here be named.
It amazes me, how dumb heads of state can be in spite of having hired speech writers and teleprompters at their disposal!