The Pope, in his speech on Christmas day, again “defended the role of the family” invoking a strong political consensus against the recognition of LGBT rights. The speech, as usual, is presented as a principled defense of the family in which the word homosexual is never even mentioned, a matter of style: nothing is done against someone but it is made to the defense of the essential principles.

In fact, these iterated statements are a response to the progressive enlargement of GLBT rights towards complete equalization with the rights of anyone else, which in a secular state is a principle of civilization absolutely essential and poses no risk to the traditional family. Homosexuality, as I have said many times, is not a culture that we can preach or propagate: “you do not become homosexual, you are”.

The famous statement by Simone de Beauvoir: “you don’t are a women, you become it,” quoted by the Pope, has an obvious meaning for those who want to understand it, in that sense also “you don’t are a gay, you become it”. That does not mean that homosexuality is a culture that can be transmitted but that awareness of the dignity and morality of being gay, beyond any teaching that tends to repress homosexuality is the result of a long journey and painful that must lead to the emergence of human dignity against any attempt to suppress it in the name of alleged principles of natural or divine origin.

What escapes the Pope or who benefits from these statement is the fact that the Gays and Christian Gays in particular (I do not mean those Catholics), not only do not feel bearers of an inclination “intrinsically disordered” according to the expression used by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but feel bearers of a message of high morality, freedom, equality, which can only benefit the whole of society.

Accusing the GLBT population to put at risk the natural world is not only false but is an incitement to hatred (gay as a risk for family and society) and a legitimization of homophobia. It is a moral depth that brings the GLBT population to fight for a more just and more humane society. We must not forget the suicides of gay teens and we must ask whether the moral condemnation of homosexuality that the Catholic Church continually reiterates contributes to determine these things.

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:


  1. I agree the with Pope, an alternative lifestyle meaning GLBT that is (condoned, accepted, or sanctioned) by the Religious and Christian society or the government and is allowed to coexist by rights and privileges with the Natural society only validates its existence as being somehow natural . and it will only open up Pandora’s box to incest, pedophilia, and the state of [ sodom and gomorrah ] . Further more, those glbt advocates who for some warped, misguided, and confused reason attempt to align or contrast or compare their campaign, movement, or cause to that of the civil right movement is a travesty. Minorities were denied there rights as Natural men by other men of a different race who attempted to subjugate and enslave them and not because of some aberration of nature.

  2. I do not discuss religious beliefs. Anyone is free to believe what he wants as long as he does not pretend to constrain the freedom of others on the basis of his own belief. I’m not surprised that the religious community has its dictates that no serious layman would think to change because the base is an act of faith and who does it deserves respect even if his choices are questionable.
    What is intolerable is the restriction of the freedom of some people permitted by the State on the basis of moral convictions of others. My thoughts coincide perfectly with what the Supreme Court of the United States has solemnly enshrined in the judgment LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS (2003) with this judgment, the United States have proven to be a great country and a beacon of freedom. The Supreme Court has had the courage to overturn the judgment Bowers (1986) that had undermined for years the idea that the United States are the land of the freedom, allowing the criminalization of private conducts between consenting adults based on moral assessments. I invite you to read the judgment LAWRENCE et al. st. TEXAS because it’s a basic element of the legal culture of the United States:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s