Is the cool communist Pope maybe not so cool?

Pope Francis has been a refreshing liberalizing force in global Catholicism and a welcome change from Benedict’s regressive ideology. This Pope is a certifiable communist and seems more concerned with the actual lives of humans in the world than the minutia of canon, which is a big change over most Popes in history. So why is the Vatican again condemning gay-marriage?

By Deisenbe, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=76694488

It is especially baffling that the church continues to pursue this condemnation of same-sex marriage in light of the overwhelming support for it. Vast majorities in the US and Western Europe support gay-marriage and have for a decade, and even South American countries are beginning to show majority support in polling. So just who is the Vatican appealing to by issuing these sort of statements? The articles on the decree interestingly point out that it isn’t clear who “asked the question” in the first place.

The stock answer would be that this is to shore up support in South America, but polling about homosexual acceptance in most South American countries shows the trend working against the Vatican on this topic. Perhaps it is meant as a play to appeal to African congregations, but Catholicism in Africa isn’t exactly thriving these days. At the very least, why not simply stay silent on the issue, so as not to alienate the growing numbers of people who believe in equal rights for all people?

Do Biblical contradictions make homosexuality ethical?

I was pulling up the old Biblical gem about rabbits chewing cud the other day and my search resulted in several pages defending Biblical literalism and “disproving” the error. The argument broadly goes that, although the Bible says unequivocally that rabbits chew cud, and although rabbits are not ruminants, that rabbits do re-digest their food through a process called cecotrophy. The word which we translate as “chew the cud” today would, when the document was written, have been meant to encompass a larger group of activities, and so although the rabbit doesn’t chew cud by our classification today, rabbits can be said to fall under the qualifications of the original term used.

GAY RABBIT

This is obviously quite a stretch, but it is this statement, shared by many pages making a similar argument, which really jumps out at me:

Simply stated, it is not reasonable to accuse a 3500-year-old document of error because it does not adhere to a modern man-made classification system.

Tommy Mitchell

We can extrapolate further; the condemnations against same-sex relationships and gender fluidity rely on a classification system 3,500 years old. Our current understanding of these things is significantly removed from the way the words are used in the Bible. Thus, just as the Bible is not in error regarding rabbits, the Bible also cannot be understood to make any statement about our modern conception of LGBTQIA rights.

You’d all agree, right fundamentalists and literalists?