![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sophia-sadek.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsLiberals who have been oohing and aahing over the new vicar of Caesar Jesus, the Ignatian Pontifex Maximus named after the monk of Assisi, now have reason to check their emotional optimism at the cathedral vestibule. Frank encouraged a Maltese prelate to speak out on his own opposition to adoptions by same-sex couples. Is this based on a sociological study of adoption outcomes depending on parent gender, or is it based on the medieval custom of clerical despotism and the perception of homosexual activity as the moral equivalent of the rapists of Sodom? For some reason the former seems unlikely.
The reactionary cleric, Auxiliary Bishop Charles Scicluna, made the dangerous connection to the family status of the prophet from Nazareth. If we are to take that as a pattern of family life for the entire planet, everyone would need to be raised by a biological mother and an adoptive father. That is as practical as the ban on contraceptives. The important aspect of this drama is the way that sacred texts are abused in order to rationalize vicious and brutal policy positions that are more in the spirit of a Kaiser or a Czar than that of an ancient sage.
An advocate of Rome's position might point out that the Roman clergy know more about homosexual relations than anyone else. The priesthood and the monastery were traditional sanctuaries for men and women who felt attraction for their own gender rather than for the opposite gender. They know the absurdity of the medieval practice of referring to a priest as a "father" when he is actually more like a tax collector or a pharisee. We should trust the opinion of Roman clerics on such matters just as we trusted them when they insisted that there could not possibly be people on the other side of the Earth. (On a more serious note, conservative innovators have now come up with a new right for a child to have a parent of each gender.)
In response to such sympathy we need only point to the predatory practices of the corrupt and despotic clerics as an example of what to avoid. Rather than channeling sexuality into a priesthood of political domination, same sex marriage and parenting channels it into a more natural condition, despite what the material Creator of the flat and immobile Earth might think.
Do you suppose that Frank agrees with Scicluna's position on adoption, or do you suspect that by encouraging him to speak out he was throwing the poor guy under the bus? What is your take on the conservative effort to deny rights to adults by creating new rights for children?
Links: Ariadne Massa on the meeting between the pope and Scicluna. A conservative Catholic, Nick Donnelly, advocates protecting the "right" of children to a parent of each gender by opposing same-sex adoption.
The reactionary cleric, Auxiliary Bishop Charles Scicluna, made the dangerous connection to the family status of the prophet from Nazareth. If we are to take that as a pattern of family life for the entire planet, everyone would need to be raised by a biological mother and an adoptive father. That is as practical as the ban on contraceptives. The important aspect of this drama is the way that sacred texts are abused in order to rationalize vicious and brutal policy positions that are more in the spirit of a Kaiser or a Czar than that of an ancient sage.
An advocate of Rome's position might point out that the Roman clergy know more about homosexual relations than anyone else. The priesthood and the monastery were traditional sanctuaries for men and women who felt attraction for their own gender rather than for the opposite gender. They know the absurdity of the medieval practice of referring to a priest as a "father" when he is actually more like a tax collector or a pharisee. We should trust the opinion of Roman clerics on such matters just as we trusted them when they insisted that there could not possibly be people on the other side of the Earth. (On a more serious note, conservative innovators have now come up with a new right for a child to have a parent of each gender.)
In response to such sympathy we need only point to the predatory practices of the corrupt and despotic clerics as an example of what to avoid. Rather than channeling sexuality into a priesthood of political domination, same sex marriage and parenting channels it into a more natural condition, despite what the material Creator of the flat and immobile Earth might think.
Do you suppose that Frank agrees with Scicluna's position on adoption, or do you suspect that by encouraging him to speak out he was throwing the poor guy under the bus? What is your take on the conservative effort to deny rights to adults by creating new rights for children?
Links: Ariadne Massa on the meeting between the pope and Scicluna. A conservative Catholic, Nick Donnelly, advocates protecting the "right" of children to a parent of each gender by opposing same-sex adoption.
