From The Guardian newspaper in the UK:
The launch of an iphone app that guides Catholics through confession has prompted a furious response from gay rights groups, who accuse it of “promoting anti-gay spiritual abuse”.
Wayne Besen, executive director of Truth Wins Out, a group that campaigns on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people, accused the app of “helping to create neurotic individuals who are ashamed of who they are”.
“This is cyber spiritual abuse that promotes backward ideas in a modern package,” said Besen. “Gay Catholics don’t need to confess, they need to come out of the closet and challenge anti-gay dogma. The false idea that being gay is something to be ashamed of has destroyed too many lives. This iPhone app is facilitating and furthering the harm.”
Gay rights groups have become concerned at the use of technology to target minorities. Besen pointed to the Manhattan Declaration app, which was released last October on the back of a 5,000-word petition drawn up by several Christian groups, and opposed LGBT rights and gay marriage. A furore among liberal commentators prompted iTunes to pull the app from its store.
The R.C.C., Inc. needs to come out with an app that guides predatory priests through the process of turning themselves over to the police.
Wayne,
We sent out a press release in regards to this issue to the same news organizations. It states the follows:
There have been some questions lately over the use of “Have I been guilty of any homosexual activity?” within Confession: A Roman Catholic App. We realize the sensitivity of the subject matter and would like to point out that the aforementioned sexual act is deemed by the church to be sinful – not homosexuality or homosexuals. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuals, like all people, are to be treated with “…respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” For more on the Church’s teaching on the issue, please refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, specifically paragraphs 2357 through 2359. The placement, wording and presentation of the question is in the same style as all previously asked questions within the application – no one sin in the database, in which there are hundreds, is given any more emphasis or distinction than others.
We would also like to point out that there are several other sexual activity sins included in the program including masturbation, premarital sex, contraception, infidelity, impure thoughts… all of which are addressed in a similar style to help the pennant prepare for Catholic confession.
It is neither our intention nor belief that any group, no matter what their status in life, should ever be discriminated against.
Thanks!
Patrick
Little i Apps, LLC
If you have any further questions or comments, just let me know. Thanks!
[...] iPhone Catholic App Controversy Goes Global. Read more [...]
“We would also like to point out that there are several other sexual activity sins included in the program including masturbation, premarital sex, contraception, infidelity, impure thoughts… all of which are addressed in a similar style to help the pennant prepare for Catholic confession.”
What about raping children or aiding and abetting the rape of children and refusing to face the legal consequences for same? Maybe that’s a separate app.
“It is neither our intention nor belief that any group, no matter what their status in life, should ever be discriminated against.”
Tsk. Tsk. Lying is a big no-no. Better get to the confessional.
Patrick, if you are reading this, how is it possible that you are ignorant of the LGBT response to “love the sinner, hate the sin?” We are all too painfully aware of the nuance of your position – and of how (despite your feeble protestation to the contrary) EXACTLY it is used as the rationale to continue oppressing us. Your apology is meaningless and worthless.
And, for your information, Patrick, my life and love is NOT a sin.
“We realize the sensitivity of the subject matter and would like to point out that the aforementioned sexual act is deemed by the church to be sinful – not homosexuality or homosexuals.”
Um, i’m sorry partrick, but i don’t understand.
The church has already labelled us “instriinsically, morally disordered” with “an inherent tendency towards moral evil.”
Either you or His Popeness are lying through your chasuble.
Patrick, please submit concrete evidence of the existence of your deity. I want evidence that I can test myself, preferably a direct convo with said deity and the son and the holy ghost or holy spirit or whatever we’re supposed to call them now.
Patrick said “We realize the sensitivity of the subject matter and would like to point out that the aforementioned sexual act is deemed by the church to be sinful – not homosexuality or homosexuals.”.
Spare us the BS Patrick. People’s actions aren’t divorced from who they are, who we are leads directly to our actions. If you think gayness is sinful then it necessarily follows you think gays are sinful. There is no such thing as “hate the sin, love the sinner”. Gayness is a core aspect of gay people, if you hate gayness, you hate gays.
Thank you, Patrick for your excellent explanation. Homosexual activity IS a sin, and homosexuals sin when they commit homosexual sin, just like I commit many sins, and you, Patrick, commit sins, and we all commit sins. Ben in Oakland, reread the Catechism of the CC: the church has labeled the SIN “intrinsically, morally disordered…”, not “us” (referring to yourself).
You know, I have homosexual friends, and I love them. I hate their sin, so Priya Lynn, your last sentence is incorrect. I also have heterosexual single friends who commit fornication. I love them, but I hate their sin. I know of adults who have committed adultery. I still love them but hate their sin.
Now, how many of you hate me for writing this, raise your hand? Yes, that is what I thought. But I still love you. And so does Jesus.
Try http://www.couragerc.net/.
Bob, you don’t love your gay “friends”, you love an imaginary vision of who you’d like them to be. Gayness is a core feature of gay people, if you hate gayness you hate a key part of who your “friends” are. You can call gayness a sin if you want, but that which harms no one is not in any way a wrongdoing. Screw you Bob.
The truth is this: homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and evil. GOD loves you and does not will for you to act out on these desires.
I am so sick of this “love the sinner, hate the sin” crap. The only way you would love any of us is for us to become celibate and isolated. That is too high a price for us to pay. Gayness is a core part of who we are. Would you give up acting as a heterosexual for friendship’s sake? I think not.
Patrick:
You cannot separate the gay person from his natural desire to enjoy physical intimacy and romantic love. To do so is to strip the person of his or her basic humanity. It is nasty, cruel, harmful and destructive.
Continuing this theme, here is a reply to a woman named Elena on Facebook:
Elena Bird:
Do you not think before you write? Do you have so little concern or regard for the mental health and welfare of other people that you scribble thoughtless dogma without any consideration of the real life consequences?
In the real world, your point of view is wholly destructive. It causes suicide, severe depression and drug addiction. It causes horrible marriages between gay people and straight spouses that do not get the love they deserve. But, I guess these “statistics” are an afterthought when the “wisdom” of Rome must be mindlessly defended.
Because, historically on big issues the Pope is always right. Just like with the treatment of women, Jews, Africans, protecting pedophile priests, supporting dictators, and upholding the backward theory that the sun revolves around the earth.
Oh, wait, didn’t the Church apologize for committing such outrageous sins? Might the Church be just as wrong on the issue of gay relationships? Well, of course they are. It is time to admit that this policy does incredible harm, is an unrealistic, dismal failure, and helps no one.
In truth, you blindly support a system that is unfair to its core. In your universe, heterosexuals get to experience the wonderful joy of sex and transcendent emotions of romantic love.
Meanwhile, gay people can’t marry the person they love — so they essentially get nothing out of life. A big zero — as they are obviously not attracted to, nor do they fall in romantic love with the opposite sex. Any marriage where they qualify for your permission to join the circle of humanity is an emotional and physical fraud. Yet, you promote this lie or the delusion of celibacy for sexually healthy LGBT people.
In your narrow, selfish world millions of good people get to spend decade after decade sexually frustrated and crushingly lonely. Even worse, these gay individuals meet people that they could make happy and in turn be made happy by…yet they should reject such loving, caring and committed bonds to another human being to choose the awful road of despair.
Given this desolate reality, it is quite obvious why the vast majority of LGBT people choose love over loneliness. But, sadly, you’ve set up a false and destructive choice between happiness and holiness. Gay people can choose both by disregarding the dogma.
The victimizing vision you hold out for our lives is callous, cruel, self-serving, fundamentally unfair and sinful to the core.
Think about it.
Elena — the Catholic Church is homophobic. This is an accurate, fact-based statement based on its policies and double standards.
If the Church does not want to own this allegedly “degrading” label, perhaps it should overturn a mean-spirited, degrading policy that singles out a beleaguered minority and strips them of their very humanity.
Elena — how many people are you willing to see ruined and destroyed — particualrly LGBT teens — to support a hurtful policy that has failed on every level?
Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? How many wasted lives is too many?
Gay Catholics — Don’t Confess — Come Out!
Wayne Besen
Executive Director
Truth Wins out
Elena’s Comments:
The Catholic Church is not “homophobic.” The RCC condemns sex outside of marriage as a sin–whether or not it’s with a member of the same sex. The Church defines marriage as a union between a man and wife–as do most definitions of marriage… (which I understand you disagree with–and are totally entitled to disagree with). However, the Church says nothing about sexual orientation in and of itself. It would be wrong for the Church to hold one standard for heterosexuals, and another for homosexuals. Calling the church “homophobic” or other degrading names is just as demeaning to Catholics as it is when using them against any other group of people!
I would refer BiM to Matt 7:5, but I suspect he’s a troll and his friends are all figments of his imagination.
Priya Lynn – I see what you are saying, even though I do not agree. Also, I did not call gayness a sin. The act is the sin.
If you would like a deeper understanding of God’s plan for our sexual life, you might consider looking into “The Theology of the Body” as explained by Christopher West.
To everyone reading this, I am sorry for the pain and frustration you feel – I am sure it is very difficult for you at times. Remember, Jesus still loves us, no matter how broken we feel at times.
Merlyn, I can’t give up “acting” heterosexual. I “am” heterosexual.
Well, Bob, that’s exactly how it is with the rest of us — we don’t “act” gay or bisexual, we ARE gay or bisexual or straight or even asexual. It’s an inherent component of a person’s being, not something that can be changed or chosen short of completely destroying the whole person.
Guys, guys, where is ‘live and let live’, huh? If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. Frankly, it’s even more interesting that most of you here aren’t even believers/religious/whatever, then why do you care what is included in an application made specifically for Roman Catholics? It’s for them, not for you. Don’t tell them what they should think if you don’t want to be told what to do. It’s that simple.
Well, no, I’m not buying it. Neither am I buying their lie that they intend no harm or to promote discrimination. The message is PRECISELY the rationale used to harm and discriminate. It is exactly why they do not want us to marry, to have job security, safety in our own homes, or the ability to provide for our children or each other in old age. It is why they do not wish to protect our youth from harassment, physical abuse and suicide – even though they mouth words that say they don’t wish to see it happen.
It is HARDLY a matter of “live and let live” when at every turn they say “love you” with what they think are placating words and yet with their every action taken on every legal, civil front they appear to want us dead, repressed, invisible, isolated, ostracized.
…to say nothing of the psychological and spiritual damage done to gay Catholics, who DO exist despite hierarchical wishes to the contrary…
Brian, it’s not your but their (“gay” Catholics’) problem. I guess, if they wish, they can speak for themselves. Secondly, it’s a matter of perspective and both parties (gays and the Church) have them different so while you may feel discriminated against, they may see it differently. Thirdly, everything you described is a part of living in a society, specially very diverse society.
Pete, the impact of the Catholic Church’s denigration of gay people goes far beyond just gay Catholics. It impacts all gays – but you already know that. You’re just bowing to the traditional entitlement of religions to say/demand whatever they want while the responsibility of everyone else is to either submit or keep quiet about it.
Pete figures its okay for Catholics to tell gay people they’re wrondoers, but its not okay for enlightened people to tell gays they aren’t. Nice double standard you’ve got going there Pete.
Pete figures its OK for the Knights of Columbus and a plethora of bishops to actively promote state propositions to deny civil marriage to gay and lesbian citizens. I’d say that affects me and others pretty profoundly. The roman church is nothing but the misogynist last remnant of Constantine’s roman empire and I welcome its timely demise.
Richard, the same can be said about the other side as well. All actors of public life, more or less, impact other actors. What you wrote is only your opinion and that’s all I can say about that. Catholics and others also view gays as having entitlement to say/demand whatever they want while the responsibility of everyone else is to either submit or keep quiet about it. You’re just bowing to the gay side. ;)
Well, Priya Lynn, you’re wrong. This app is for Catholics. You’re not required to use it and if you use it, don’t complain that it’s offensive. It’s true that the Church and its teachings affect lives of non-Catholics as well. But the same can be said about the democracy or criminalization of thievery – non-democrats and thieves aren’t happy about the situation either. If you don’t like the situation, try to persuade the voters to change the law to suit your vision.
Paul, they push their agenda and you have a right to push your own agenda. It’s called ‘free market of idea’. Your fixation on marriage is troubling – hadn’t there been anything like a marriage, would you have campaigned for creating it? It’s no secret that the battle for same-sex marriage is, in fact, about social acceptance not about an institution. All I can say in this topic is this – if gays were allowed to enter civil partnerships (which are the same as marriages, except for the word ‘marriage’) before the law, then I see no reason to exclude gays from the institution of marriage.
Pete said “Well, Priya Lynn, you’re wrong. This app is for Catholics. You’re not required to use it and if you use it, don’t complain that it’s offensive.”.
That’s pretty dumb Pete. I never said the app wasn’t for Catholics, I never said I was required to use it and for you to question my concern for gay Catholics abused by it is absurd. I don’t use the Indian caste system either, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t complain that its offensive. No, Pete, I am not wrong, I am 100% right and there is no valid opposing view to that.
Pete said “It’s true that the Church and its teachings affect lives of non-Catholics as well…If you don’t like the situation, try to persuade the voters to change the law to suit your vision.”.
That’s quite a change from “most of you here aren’t even believers/religious/whatever, then why do you care what is included in an application made specifically for Roman Catholics? It’s for them, not for you”. I’ll consider that change your acceptance of the wisdom of what I told you in my comment #24. Its nice to see you reconsider and accept the only valid viewpoint.
Pete said “But the same can be said about the democracy or criminalization of thievery – non-democrats and thieves aren’t happy about the situation either.”.
Thievery and dictatorships are generally considered wrongdoings and for you to imply gayness is in the same category is pretty assholeish.
Pete said “Your fixation on marriage is troubling – hadn’t there been anything like a marriage, would you have campaigned for creating it?”.
Spoken like a true bigot. Marriage started as a community well-wishing when two lovers decided to share their lives together. Most LGBTs would want that regardless of whether or not there was a formal marriage contract. The form of marriage we have today is merely an evolution of this. Speculating about what we would want if there had never been anything like marriage is nonsensical, we have marriage and we worry about the situation as it is rather than worrying about the hypothetical past.
Pete said “It’s no secret that the battle for same-sex marriage is, in fact, about social acceptance not about an institution.”.
Its no secret that anti-gays promote that falsehood. Actual LGBTs that seek marriage don’t feel that way at all. We don’t give a damn whether you accept us or not, we just want the same rights you have.
Pete said “All I can say in this topic is this – if gays were allowed to enter civil partnerships (which are the same as marriages, except for the word ‘marriage’) before the law, then I see no reason to exclude gays from the institution of marriage.”.
Good, let that be all you say about this topic then. If civil partnerships were the same as marriage anti-gays like you wouldn’t mind calling them marriage. Its because they are not the same that you insist they be called something different.
Pete, we also have a right to point out the inaccuracy, hypocrisy and outright lies of the Catholic Church (and there is plenty) and the total B.S. that is the “being homoexual is not a sin but acting on it is”. So, all your “it’s true on both sides” is just and endless spiral and arguing it is just a continuous slide into the morass of dishonesty that is the religious attempt to be bigots while claiming they’re not.
Bob and others who *think* they know what God wants, expects, thinks, and his *plan* for us—STOP! You don’t know anymore than the rest of us, it’s pure guess work. I’m not an atheist, but as soon as someone says ‘God wants’ or ‘God’s plan is..’, I shut them right down. I think claiming to know the mind of the creator of the Multiverse is the ultimate in hubris! You and yours can no more know the mind of God than a fly can do quantum physics calculations. My position is, as long as one is kind, just, compassionate and INCLUSIVE of others, you have nothing to worry about with God, whatever He/She/It may be. And BTW, Jesus was pretty clear about NOT judging others, something YOU and most Christian churches have chosen to ignore–just like you ignore about 80% of everything else Christ taught!
Pete — are you brainwashed?
Catholics have gay kids. The dogma screws these poor young men and women up. It often ruins them. Thus, it is crucial to condemn a bigoted application that furthers this mental and spiritual abuse.
No one said that the Catholic Church does not have the right to say whatever it wants. No one said Catholics conservatives can’t have this app. Stop whining and playing the victim. You’re are not the victim. The children who hear their love is a sin are the victims. You are the victimizer by perpetuating this lie.
However, the time is over when such destructive dogma goes uncritically challenged. You don’t get special rights.
The bottom line is sin should be judged on whether it harms people. Your position is harmful, thus the sin.
Pete — how many human beings is acceptable to destroy to parrot the party line?
When we are denied food, our body will physically die. When we are denied sex and intimacy with the person we love, our mind will die emotionally.
Homosexuality has been with us from the beginning of time and exists in virtually all animal species.
When will the knuckleheads follow ALL rules in the Bible and not just pick their current favorites to hate?
JJ
Yes Pete I am fixated on marriage. For one thing I am being taxed by the federal government on ~$550 a month that I never see, because my husband of 10 years is on my health plan through my employer. That’s about $6600 a year attributed to me as income. If I were married to a woman, I wouldn’t be taxed at all. So yes Pete, I’m damn fixated on civil marriage right now and have little patience for the interference of the roman bishopricks trying to prevent it.
[...] week, my organization Truth Wins Out caused an international uproar by criticizing a new Catholic iphone confession app that asks users, “Have I been guilty of any [...]
I agree with you you should allowed tax breaks and every other convenience married people have, you can have a civil union but a man cannot marry a man and a woman connot marry another woman, sorry no matter how corny it may sound a marriage is between two people of the opposite sex :-)
Bruce, dearest, the use of a smiley does not make your post less offensive, in much the same way my use of the term “dearest” does not make this reply affectionate…
Bruce, just stating something doesn’t make it true. In Massachusetts and a few other states as well as Canada and some other countries a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman. You’re bias that it’s not a “marriage” doesn’t make it so.
Hey Bruce-I’m married to a woman. I have the marriage certificate and everything. Of course if we go to another state they don’t even have to recognize us–but I suppose it would be okay with you if they locked me out of my wife’s hospital room. I suppose it’s okay with you that I’m denied the same rights a heterosexual couple who got drunk in Las Vegas one night would have even though my wife and I have been together for 20 years–though only 5 of them married legally.
Oh, and Bruce, one more thing. :P
Bruce, why are you and many others so obsessed with penis/vagina duos? The much larger and more significant factors are the actual relationships between pairs of human beings which involve a huge array of emotions and other life-issues that make the focus on penis/vagina duos seem downright trivial. I should know: My same-sex partner and I will be celebrating our 30th anniversary this year in a state that does not allow us to be married – while so many penis/vagina couples have already moved on after ending their starter-marriages.