Vatican proposes 'stunning' shift on gays, lesbians
By Delia Gallagher, CNN
ROME (CNN) – Using strikingly open language, a new Vatican report says the church should welcome and appreciate gays, and offers a solution for divorced and remarried Catholics who want to receive Communion.
At a press conference on Monday to present the report, Cardinal Louis Antonio Tagle of the Philippines said the most-discussed topics at a meeting of Catholic clergy here has been the impact of poverty, war and immigration on families.
But the newly proposed language on gays and civil marriages represents a “pastoral earthquake,” said one veteran Vatican journalist.
“Regarding homosexuals, it went so far as to pose the question whether the church could accept and value their sexual orientation without compromising Catholic doctrine,” said John Thavis, a former Rome bureau chief for Catholic News Service.
The Rev. James Martin, an author and Jesuit priest, called the report's language on gays and lesbians "revolutionary."
“This is a stunning change in the way that the Catholic Church speaks about gay people.”
The Catholic Catechism calls homosexual acts “intrinsically disordered” and calls on gays and lesbians to live in chastity.
But Pope Francis, while hewing to Catholic teaching, has signaled a gentler tone, famously saying in 2013 "Who am I to judge?" gays and lesbians.
The synod report released Monday is a summary of a week of closed-door discussions of nearly 200 bishops, cardinals and priests, together with Pope Francis, on the topic of the family.
The discussions continue this week and a final report will be issued at the end of the week.
The goal of this meeting, officially called the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family, is to present working proposals for a larger meeting to be held next October 2015.
Here’s a summary of where the church may be heading on hot-button issues.
Gays and lesbians
The report firmly re-states the Catholic Church’s position that marriage is between a man and a woman and therefore, “unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between a man and a woman.”
However it notes that, there are examples of good gay relationships “in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of partners.”
The report states:
“Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community. Are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”
The report adds that the church should pay "special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.”
Finally, the report laments any outside pressure from “international bodies” that make “regulations inspired by gender ideology” a prerequisite of financial aid.
Communion
On the hotly debated question of Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, the synod’s report offers a solution of the “penitential path” or a period of reflection and penance which would allow the partners in a second marriage to receive communion.
This solution, it says, must not be a “general possibility” but one which could be applied in certain cases. It would be up to the local bishop to make the decision.
The document states that this was only one possible solution and that the problem requires further study.
Annulments
“The speeding up of the procedure” of granting annulments was requested by many, according to the report. Various ways to make annulments “more accessible and flexible” were suggested by the Synod.
Contraception
The synod discussions re-iterated the church’s “appropriate teaching regarding natural methods” of birth control.
Citing economic factors which sometimes contribute to the decision not to have children, the synod nonetheless states that “being open to life is an intrinsic requirement of married love.”
Cohabitation and civil marriage
The synod discussions emphasized the “positive reality” of civil weddings and cohabitation which, while not the ideal of Christian marriage, nonetheless contain “constructive elements.”
Many couples who choose to live together, according to the synod, do so for economic reasons.
“Simple cohabitation is often a choice inspired by a general attitude, which is opposed to institutions and definitive undertakings, but also while waiting for a secure existence (a steady job and income).”
“In other countries common-law marriages are very numerous…because getting married is a luxury, so that material poverty encourages people to live in common-law marriages.”
In these cases, the synod says, “The church is called on to be the house of the Fathers, with doors always wide open…where there is a place for everyone, with all their problems.”
The summed up version is that the Catholic church is now seemingly poised for a shift or adjustment to how it views gays. While it is not a fully revolution and complete acceptance, what it is is a new focus on recognizing the good in people and offering them a "welcoming home".
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing anything fundamentally different here. While it is admirable lip service, there is no actual change here: gay people would be committing a sin if they ever consummated a relationship, let alone get married. It's more "hate the sin, love the sinner", right?
My mom is always raving about how awesome the new Pope is but ultimately it seems to me to just be a new, friendly wrapper on the same package. Right? Or am I missing something?
Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?
Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.
Ouze wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing anything fundamentally different here. While it is admirable lip service, there is no actual change here: gay people would be committing a sin if they ever consummated a relationship, let alone get married. It's more "hate the sin, love the sinner", right?
My mom is always raving about how awesome the new Pope is but ultimately it seems to me to just be a new, friendly wrapper on the same package. Right? Or am I missing something?
From what I read, it seems like the Church may be shifting away from it's current stance of "being gay is inherantly sinful, so if you have to be gay, be celibate and never sex anyone up" to the slightly more tolerant "gays can be people too, sometimes, and if they are in a committed relationship, they can sex each other up, but no marriage for them because that's still for heteros only". To a liberal American, that may not seem like any kind of difference, but to a monolithic organization as resistant to change as the Catholic Church, it's a massive change.
Keep in mind, "being gay" is not inherently sinful. Homosexual acts are sinful. The Church has been making this distinction for a long time but you know in practice it doesn't do much to mitigate prejudice and the feeling of unwelcomeness that gay Catholics feel regarding their religion.
What we have here is the idea that non-ideal relationships (not limited to homosexual ones) have dimensions that are more than "non-sinful" but are actually good and commendable.
Also the Catholic Church is in no sense "monolithic."
Manchu wrote: Keep in mind, "being gay" is not inherently sinful. Homosexual acts are sinful. The Church has been making this distinction for a long time but you know in practice it doesn't do much to mitigate prejudice and the feeling of unwelcomeness that gay Catholics feel regarding their religion.
Watch all those facts, Manchu. You and I both know they have no place when it comes to begrudging the Holy See
Ouze wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing anything fundamentally different here. While it is admirable lip service, there is no actual change here: gay people would be committing a sin if they ever consummated a relationship, let alone get married. It's more "hate the sin, love the sinner", right?
My mom is always raving about how awesome the new Pope is but ultimately it seems to me to just be a new, friendly wrapper on the same package. Right? Or am I missing something?
From what I read, it seems like the Church may be shifting away from it's current stance of "being gay is inherantly sinful, so if you have to be gay, be celibate and never sex anyone up" to the slightly more tolerant "gays can be people too, sometimes, and if they are in a committed relationship, they can sex each other up, but no marriage for them because that's still for heteros only". To a liberal American, that may not seem like any kind of difference, but to a monolithic organization as resistant to change as the Catholic Church, it's a massive change.
Baby steps, people. Baby steps.
Change doesn't happen overnight. It is little by little. Until one day, you are so different, bUT you may not recognize it
But ultimately, yesterday, the Catholic Church decreed that actual homosexuality wasn't sinful, homosexual acts are, and the only marriage can be between a woman and a man.
Ouze wrote: But ultimately, yesterday, the Catholic Church decreed that actual homosexuality wasn't sinful, homosexual acts are, and the only marriage can be between a woman and a man.
Today, that's all still exactly the same, right?
Marriage in the Catholic church bears the responsibility of procreation. Gay couples can't fulfill that. So, in that regard, it will never change.
There is an intellectual realm of concepts and ideas where subtle distinctions make a big difference.
And then there is life, where people say one thing and do another. For example, they say "love the sinner, hate the sin" but in practice it seems just like hating the sinner.
So a lot of what Pope Francis has done is taking the discussion out of that hypothetical world of the intellect and putting Christian love into practice. Rather than give a complicated homily about the theological virtue of charity, Pope Francis showed the world a charitable act when he said "who am I to judge?"
Marriage in the Catholic church bears the responsibility of procreation. Gay couples can't fulfill that. So, in that regard, it will never change.
Oh, is that so? Does the church refuse to solemnize marriages between men who have had vasectomies or are impotent, or women who have had hysterectomies, or are simply barren?
Look, I get that the Catholic church is not going to do gay marriage anytime soon. That's sort of the brand, and that's where they draw the line, and that's OK. Free market and all that, as it were.
But why, you know, make the sympathetic noises instead of flat out doubling down? At best the message is confusing.
Oh, is that so? Does the church refuse to solemnize marriages between men who have had vasectomies or are impotent, or women who have had hysterectomies, or are simply barren?
Dogmatically? Yes, it does. Impotence is one of the canonical impediments that would prevent a couple from holding a catholic wedding.
It's also the most common granted a dispensation.
It's actually the "cleanest" path the Pope has to allowing homosexual marriages in the Catholic church, as well. Not saying that'll happen, of course.
So put your platonic thinking cap on, Ouze. You need to remember the concept of "form." The form is the idealized type. For Catholics, the form of marriage is the consummation of love in procreation. Not all actual marriages "live up" to this form but they are marriages nonetheless. Any relationship that inherently cannot participate in the form cannot be a marriage.
Cincy -- keep in mind that the prospective spouses being of the same sex is more than a mere impediment.
Cincy -- keep in mind that the prospective spouses being of the same sex is more than a mere impediment.
Well, you're right there.
I think what I'm trying to say that I do believe there is a path to acceptance by the Catholic church if they want it to be. Not an easy one, mind you, but I think you could argue it canonically, especially if science was to able to prove homosexuality was an evolutionary measure for population control.
So a lot of what Pope Francis has done is taking the discussion out of that hypothetical world of the intellect and putting Christian love into practice. Rather than give a complicated homily about the theological virtue of charity, Pope Francis showed the world a charitable act when he said "who am I to judge?"
I think that, IMO this is one of the biggest differences between this pope and previous ones. We have here a Man in a funny hat, we don't have an "infallible being" in a funny hat. For many, many years it's sort of been preached that the Pope is the ultimate example of Catholicism, and that, often times he was treated as though he had never, and was incapable of sinning.... Francis here is continually reminding people that he is simply a man. He came from sin, lived in sin, and through the "grace" of the sacrement and Christ, etc. is "Saved", but he is still ultimately a man.
It'll be interesting in the coming months and years of his pope-ship to see what changes, and how much, and what stays the "same"
The pope is not the church. And the church is very much a hypocritical institution who have less than zero moral integrity to tell people how to live their lives.
Manchu wrote: The Church is comprised of all the faithful. The moral depredations of priests does not invalidate the faith or the tradition.
All the faithful except all those people that the priests say are all bad and icky and everyone should shun them and please ignore the priest behind the curtain doing everything that we have told you is bad and then ignore the entire institution protect him and work to keep the victims silent so that we can contine taking your money, defiling your children in body and mind and pushing our dogma despite all the harm it does to the people we claim to love and claim that god loves (terms and conditions apply).
I'm sorry, but the catholic church has invalidated itself from the moral high ground through the actions of those who control it.
Manchu wrote: The Church is comprised of all the faithful. The moral depredations of priests does not invalidate the faith or the tradition.
All the faithful except all those people that the priests say are all bad and icky and everyone should shun them and please ignore the priest behind the curtain doing everything that we have told you is bad and then ignore the entire institution protect him and work to keep the victims silent so that we can contine taking your money, defiling your children in body and mind and pushing our dogma despite all the harm it does to the people we claim to love and claim that god loves (terms and conditions apply).
I'm sorry, but the catholic church has invalidated itself from the moral high ground through the actions of those who control it.
Manchu wrote: The Church is comprised of all the faithful. The moral depredations of priests does not invalidate the faith or the tradition.
All the faithful except all those people that the priests say are all bad and icky and everyone should shun them and please ignore the priest behind the curtain doing everything that we have told you is bad and then ignore the entire institution protect him and work to keep the victims silent so that we can contine taking your money, defiling your children in body and mind and pushing our dogma despite all the harm it does to the people we claim to love and claim that god loves (terms and conditions apply).
I'm sorry, but the catholic church has invalidated itself from the moral high ground through the actions of those who control it.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
If thats okay with you, we'll continue the discussion we were having.
SilverMK2 wrote: the catholic church has invalidated itself from the moral high ground through the actions of those who control it
As long as you go on about "high ground" you'll keep missing the point.
The point being one person in a fancy hat saying a few plattitudes while nothing actually changes either in the dogma or the rotten core of the priesthood? Yep, got that point.
Manchu wrote: The Church is comprised of all the faithful. The moral depredations of priests does not invalidate the faith or the tradition.
All the faithful except all those people that the priests say are all bad and icky and everyone should shun them and please ignore the priest behind the curtain doing everything that we have told you is bad and then ignore the entire institution protect him and work to keep the victims silent so that we can contine taking your money, defiling your children in body and mind and pushing our dogma despite all the harm it does to the people we claim to love and claim that god loves (terms and conditions apply).
I'm sorry, but the catholic church has invalidated itself from the moral high ground through the actions of those who control it.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
If thats okay with you, we'll continue the discussion we were having.
I don't recall attempting to stop you from talking about how it might be possible for the faithful to treat large groups of people it has persecuted throughout history as human beings, despite a lot of the people leading the crusade indulging in plenty of the same "sins" (and worse) as those they decry...
While I am getting what you're putting out initially it does seem a bit unreasonable to hold the modern church responsible for what happened, like, 600 years ago.
Manchu wrote: The Church is comprised of all the faithful. The moral depredations of priests does not invalidate the faith or the tradition.
All the faithful except all those people that the priests say are all bad and icky and everyone should shun them and please ignore the priest behind the curtain doing everything that we have told you is bad and then ignore the entire institution protect him and work to keep the victims silent so that we can contine taking your money, defiling your children in body and mind and pushing our dogma despite all the harm it does to the people we claim to love and claim that god loves (terms and conditions apply).
I'm sorry, but the catholic church has invalidated itself from the moral high ground through the actions of those who control it.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
If thats okay with you, we'll continue the discussion we were having.
I don't recall attempting to stop you from talking about how it might be possible for the faithful to treat large groups of people it has persecuted throughout history as human beings, despite a lot of the people leading the crusade indulging in plenty of the same "sins" (and worse) as those they decry...
Silver... do you feel bad for being a Brit? History shows that Britain isn't an angel... so, has Britain "lost the high ground" in your eyes?
Back on topic, is it also the case that the Church is currently re-examining its attitude to contraception having found out that very many Roman Catholics ignore the current teachings?
I don't want to derail the topic and it seems relevant being part of the teachings on sexuality.
"Hate the sin but love the sinner" is a nice thought exercise but in practical application doesn't work. You don't have to hate someone to actively marginalize them. Most things like DOMA aren't from a place of hate, though I'm sure some do, but from ignorance and platitudes like the one given don't really change that.
Silver... do you feel bad for being a Brit? History shows that Britain isn't an angel... so, has Britain "lost the high ground" in your eyes?
Trim down your brush size.
I don't feel particularly proud or bad or indeed anything for being a Brit. I freely admit to both the bad and good Britan has done in the past and continues to do now.
When the UK goes out on a moral crusade I certainly voice my displeasure. When it sticks its oar in where it is not wanted or needed, I voice my displeasure.
While it is not golden (or perhaps rainbow? ) in the UK for a lot of people or groups, the UK does not represent itself as a supreme moral authority...
Well, it seems like we've gone from "hating the sinner" to accepting the sinner, while acknowledging they will never be equals, and can never indulge in the basic biological drives they were born with.
If the church wants to maintain a stance opposing abortion, it's going to have to loosen up on contraception. Not getting pregnant in the first place means not having to get an abortion later on, thus reducing the need for a debate on when life exactly begins.
The Church will probably explain the shift in stance by saying "You know what? Sometimes married people like to have sex, and don't want another kid. And you know what else? The rythym method completely doesn't work, so let's not demonize condoms or the pill anymore. Because it's not just sinners and women of loose morals who use contraception; sometimes its married couples."
But hey, however they choose to rationalize it, it's all good if it helps bring the Church into the 20th Century.
Yeah, I know it's the 21st Century, but like I said: baby steps, people.
Well, facts or no facts, you've clearly already made up your mind.
My mind being made up or not has zero impact on the workings of the church. If the next pope is an openly gay man, and the one after a lesbian I will loudly applaud the progress the church has made... while still loudly calling for it to put all the priests responsible for, in some cases, decades of abuse and cover ups into the hands of the police and open up their organisation to a proper investigation to identify and help the survivors of the treatment they received at the hands of the church. As well as speaking out against all the other issues in the church.
Manchu wrote: squidhills: the teaching about contraception is for married people
I don't have time to read the entire original article! I've got stuff to do! I can't thoroughly read a new article that a poster links in a thread! I have to make posts in the OT, instead!
On a slightly less snarky note, I haven't been keeping up with my knowledge of current Catholic doctrine. Ever since I converted to atheism, I've just kind of assumed the Church hasn't changed much in the mean time. What I've observed from my extended family (mostly Submarine Catholics, but a few are more observant) seemed to back that up.
Well, facts or no facts, you've clearly already made up your mind.
My mind being made up or not has zero impact on the workings of the church. If the next pope is an openly gay man, and the one after a lesbian I will loudly applaud the progress the church has made... while still loudly calling for it to put all the priests responsible for, in some cases, decades of abuse and cover ups into the hands of the police and open up their organisation to a proper investigation to identify and help the survivors of the treatment they received at the hands of the church.
Why does a gay or lesbian need to be in position to show progress. It should be someone qualified for the job. If you vote on people purely based on their gender or sexual orientation that makes you a bad person. Since I am pretty sure equal rights doesnt mean selecting people because they are Gay or lesbian or women or whatever thing is in at the time.
If you hate the church for their past acts you should hate every single person on earth. Because if you trace peoples past back far enough we are all guilty of terrible things. Especially as far back as 600 years.
So by your logic, both you and I should be shunned because of the deeds as our forefathers. Im sure some of your ancestors aided in the brutality of the British Empire, for example, or celebrated the beggining of the first world war, do you love and cherish the idea of millions being cut down in warfare?. Somewhere down the line your past will contain many things you will not be proud of.
The first family member in my country back in the 1800s hunted whales in the very town I live in today. So is my view that whales need to be protected and preserved invalid because some guy I dont know but happened to have a relation to hunted whales?
You are probably very young and have really strong not well thought out opinions. But this will change as you age.
squidhills wrote: I don't have time to read the entire original article!
LOL my apologies!
In seriousness, this point isn't actually in the article. It's just something a lot of people miss.
The teaching about not using contraception is for married people. Unmarried people are not supposed to be having sex at all, and we all know how well that goes. The idea that unmarried people do not use condoms when they have sex because the Church says not to is pretty foolish. Unmarried people having sex are already violating Catholic teaching. It's not like they hold the teaching against married couples using contraception in such high esteem that they will honor that one, even though it does not apply to them, while disregarding the other.
In honesty, people often blame religion for their own failings. "I got this girl I don't even know pregnant because as a Catholic I am not supposed to use condoms." Well, as a Catholic you aren't supposed to be banging a girl who is not your wife.
Since apparently it would be unwise of me to continue discussing the church itself in this thread, if you particulaly want to discuss it, please feel free to take it to pm.
I would also be thankful to go without your assumptions on my age and the basis and validity of my position. In a thread on religion, casting the stones of "not very well thought out opinions" is never a good move
Oh dear god, NO, SERIOUSLY, this really creeps me out! The last barrier is about to fall, thanks to all those same-sex pro-voters. Thanks, Obama.
Haha, sorry, haters, not this time
If they changed their attitude, that'd be awesome. What's creepy about it is that...well...the same priests that told all gay couples to feck off before "because gay" would then suddenly say "Yo, no prob, next Wednesday guys?" just because of a decision made above. I don't really know why, but this irritates me a lot and makes me question whether those people actually believe in what they preach or if they just follow orders from above. If for the latter, well, that'd be a sad sign for religion.
This thread has strongly reinforced my belief that threads with religious discussion are dangerous to your ability to post on DakkaDakka if you're not on the right team. I generally avoid them and this thread quickly reminded me that is the best policy.
Ouze wrote: This thread has strongly reinforced my belief that threads with religious discussion are dangerous to your ability to post on DakkaDakka if you're not on the right team. I generally avoid them and this thread quickly reminded me that is the best policy.
Ouze wrote: This thread has strongly reinforced my belief that threads with religious discussion are dangerous to your ability to post on DakkaDakka if you're not on the right team. I generally avoid them and this thread quickly reminded me that is the best policy.
Really? I mean, nothing in this thread is really that groundshattering or that ridiculous.
Ahtman wrote: "Hate the sin but love the sinner" is a nice thought exercise but in practical application doesn't work.
I agree, as I already posted ITT, and that is why I think it is important to move away from that and why I am hopeful given that the Synod seems to be doing just that.
Ahtman wrote: "Hate the sin but love the sinner" is a nice thought exercise but in practical application doesn't work.
I agree, as I already posted ITT, and that is why I think it is important to move away from that and why I am hopeful given that the Synod seems to be doing just that.
What practical changes do you hope to see from a reinterpretation of the good book and do you feel it will make that much of a difference in the day to day of the church? As has been noted, the changes seem to be reasonably superficial. And as you yourself mentioned, people tend to do whatever they feel like doing regardless of what the official word in the pews is (unless they can use it to blame or excuse their behaviour ).
To me it seems very much a simple reskin of "HTSBLTS".
I think the "hate the sin" stuff has basically given bigoted Catholics institutional cover for their prejudices. If the Pope and the synod of bishops says that gay relationships can offer "precious support" and they are asking whether we can value gay people even as a matter (rather than in spite of) their sexuality, I think it will be much harder to get that cover.
In other words, it will be a lot harder to disguise homophobia as Christianity.
Thing is, no one feels unwelcome in church for having extramarital heterosexual intercourse even when people also at church know the couple is having sex.
We won't get there over night. But this is a significant step in the right direction to a point where gay Catholics can feel comfortable and welcome at mass.
I also don't think pretending gay people can be sacramentally married is necessary. It will be an obstacle to those committed first and foremost to non-religious ideology, on both sides, but nothing can be done about that.
Ahtman wrote: "Hate the sin but love the sinner" is a nice thought exercise but in practical application doesn't work. You don't have to hate someone to actively marginalize them. Most things like DOMA aren't from a place of hate, though I'm sure some do, but from ignorance and platitudes like the one given don't really change that.
We do need to remember that this isn't a formal Catholic teaching, either. It's from St. Augustine's Letters.
Not that I don't think it's applicable, as one of the most primary teaching of Catholicism is the forgiveness of sin.
Augustine is one of the church fathers and a doctor of the church. As an authority on authentic Christian theology, he's about as important as you can get outside of Paul (keeping in mind that Augustine's theology has its problems). Even the current edition of the Catechism adopts his formulation -- indeed, specifically regarding homosexuality, condemning prejudice against homosexual people while declaring that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.
Don't get me wrong -- I understand that is a meaningful distinction. But unfortunately it has allowed some people to disguise their bigotry against homosexual people as some kind of Christian teaching.
Ouze wrote: This thread has strongly reinforced my belief that threads with religious discussion are dangerous to your ability to post on DakkaDakka if you're not on the right team. I generally avoid them and this thread quickly reminded me that is the best policy.
It has nothing to do with that.
It has a whole lot to do with this thread going from an incredibly civil discourse to one bigoted poster bringing it down.
Wait, did I use bigot right there? I'm not sure. As a white male I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to use it...
Manchu wrote: homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.
Or is it intrinsically disordered to believe it is intrinsically disorder? Checkmate. Good day sir. *folds up newspaper, puts it under arm, and walks away*
Ahtman wrote: Most things like DOMA aren't from a place of hate, though I'm sure some do, but from ignorance and platitudes like the one given don't really change that.
Actually, I'd posit that DOMA came exactly from a place of hate, as it was the "moral traditionalist" conservatives that got that bill pushed through. Clinton himself has said he would never have signed it, if he could go back and have a mulligan on that one, but when you see the people vehemently fighting to KEEP it around, it really makes sense.
If nothing else, it came from a place of "hate" due to coming from a fear due to ignorance.
Ouze wrote: This thread has strongly reinforced my belief that threads with religious discussion are dangerous to your ability to post on DakkaDakka if you're not on the right team. I generally avoid them and this thread quickly reminded me that is the best policy.
It has nothing to do with that.
It has a whole lot to do with this thread going from an incredibly civil discourse to one bigoted poster bringing it down.
Wait, did I use bigot right there? I'm not sure. As a white male I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to use it...
A strong opinion was expressed regarding the moral authority of the RC church. That is absolutely fine. It was then repeated and looked set to be repeated again and again due to the strength of feeling.
This is a discussion forum. There is no point saying the same thing over and over again. It has the danger of dragging the topic off course and in some sense is a type of spam.
Manchu wrote: Keep in mind, "being gay" is not inherently sinful. Homosexual acts are sinful. The Church has been making this distinction for a long time but you know in practice it doesn't do much to mitigate prejudice and the feeling of unwelcomeness that gay Catholics feel regarding their religion.
What we have here is the idea that non-ideal relationships (not limited to homosexual ones) have dimensions that are more than "non-sinful" but are actually good and commendable.
Also the Catholic Church is in no sense "monolithic."
For the non-Catholic, can you put that in non-Catholic lingo? Sounds good, but what does that mean?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: The pope is not the church. And the church is very much a hypocritical institution who have less than zero moral integrity to tell people how to live their lives.
Can you go peddle your hostility somewhere else? You're just trolling the thread.
Ouze wrote: This thread has strongly reinforced my belief that threads with religious discussion are dangerous to your ability to post on DakkaDakka if you're not on the right team. I generally avoid them and this thread quickly reminded me that is the best policy.
It has nothing to do with that.
It has a whole lot to do with this thread going from an incredibly civil discourse to one bigoted poster bringing it down.
Wait, did I use bigot right there? I'm not sure. As a white male I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to use it...
Frazzled wrote: For the non-Catholic, can you put that in non-Catholic lingo? Sounds good, but what does that mean?
What I meant is, until this Synod report, most bishops talked about homosexuality in terms of (a) persons and (b) acts. Homosexual persons should be treated with the compassion and dignity due to every human being. BUT homosexual acts should be considered to be sinful and "disordered" (contrary to nature).
There are (at least) two big problems with this:
First, separating people from acts is not so easy. If you define X as bad and someone does X on a daily basis then you are likely to think of that person as bad, too. Right, so let's replace X with "lying" -- someone who lies all the time is a liar and is not only untrustworthy but also a bad person for constantly deceiving others. If you replace X with "being gay," however, it becomes more difficult for people (at least in contemporary times) to see how that comes out to being a bad person. IMO, homophobia does not come from Catholic teaching. But Catholic teaching has played a role in excusing and even justifying homophobia.
Second, this way of thinking emphasizes (a) persons and (b) acts but homosexuality nowadays is not just a matter of people committing sex acts. Any teaching on homosexuality should focus less on sex acts and more on personal relationships, which Rome has pretty much completely ignored until this Synod report. What two people, of the same sex or otherwise, are doing with their body parts is not the only relevant issue. What is also relevant, in terms of sin and grace, are relational aspects like compassion, solidarity, and affection. The Synod report, for example, speaks of homosexual relationships providing "precious support" for the couple.
So to restate for the neaderthal: 1. Quit hiding behind the Bible to be a bigot. 2. Its about the relationship, stupid. correct?
I can get behind both of those. Soon you will all fall to the Episcopal side muahaha, replete with really awesome cake! I wonder if St. Maichael's in Austin has started doing them yet. They had received official approval.
The Bible doesn't really come into it one way or another. But like I said, it is time for a teaching that makes it clear that Christianity is not the same thing as homophobia.
Frazzled wrote: Soon you will all fall to the Episcopal side
Manchu wrote: The Bible doesn't really come into it one way or another. But like I said, it is time for a teaching that makes it clear that Christianity is not the same thing as homophobia.
Sorry went back to my Baptist ways wherein the only thing that matters is the Bible. But we're syaing the same I think. You can't use Christianity as crutch for your bigotry.
Frazzled wrote: Soon you will all fall to the Episcopal side
Manchu wrote: Funny enough, the hard right in American Catholicism is fully mobilized in an effort to downplay this as misreporting by the liberal media.
It's not just the American hard right. Every time the Pope says something even vaguely forward-thinking, the conservative cardinals in the Church bust out the "What you think the Pope siad vs what the Pope 'actually' said" spin control machine. Fortunately, the Pope speaks plainly and bluntly and doesn't use too many weasal words, which makes it hard for the conservative cardinals to warp the message as much as they would like.
So, let me get this straight. His Popeness says " Gays are ok, they have skills and qualities that can add to the church" or something to that effect, and that's fine and dandy. But of course, Gays can't marry and I guess still feel ostracized by the Catholic Church as a whole. So, can someone explain, to an ardent non-believer, what possible difference this news will make to LGBT's around the world?
sarpedons-right-hand wrote: So, let me get this straight. His Popeness says " Gays are ok, they have skills and qualities that can add to the church" or something to that effect, and that's fine and dandy. But of course, Gays can't marry and I guess still feel ostracized by the Catholic Church as a whole. So, can someone explain, to an ardent non-believer, what possible difference this news will make to LGBT's around the world?
He basically said don't "be a bigot".
Manchu can elaborate (and has in this thread) more.
Perhaps stirring the pot, but what strikes me in this thread is the difference to how hostile opinions towards a christian denomination are treated compared to how hostile opinions towards a muslim denomination have been treated in previous threads. Disappointing.
I'm ambivalent about this. It's a good PR exercise in the attempt to win back lapsed catholics in the developed world, but I am extremely skeptical that it will lead to anything substantial any time soon.
I don't feel like applauding that organisation for such minute progress, when it's got so far to go still.
Then again, my feelings on the Catholic church are strong and bordering on irrational I reckon, to the point that I wouldn't raise my kids in Ireland until they are rooted out of the education and health systems entirely.
But when negative feeling to that extent exists, there is usually a reason for it.
Ahtman wrote: Rephrasing old ideas without changing the core issues doesn't make make that much of a difference.
I have explained what is new and significant about this several times ITT.
Da Boss wrote: but I am extremely skeptical that it will lead to anything substantial any time soon
It really depends on what you mean by "substantial" and "soon."
Da Boss wrote: But when negative feeling to that extent exists, there is usually a reason for it.
As I have in the past, I would ask you to consider Catholicism and Irish Catholicism, or what we might as well call modern Irish history, as separate things.
Da Boss wrote: Perhaps stirring the pot, but what strikes me in this thread is the difference to how hostile opinions towards a christian denomination are treated compared to how hostile opinions towards a muslim denomination have been treated in previous threads. Disappointing.
To be completely fair, there are some non-Christians in this thread as well. Personally, my opinion of Islam is very negative, and a good deal of that is down to life experiences in a desert environment. There are a great many aspects of Christianity that I take a negative view of.
In some cases, ITT, this can be put down to "banter" and not outright proselytizing of the various faiths.
Besides, Odin and Thor welcome all into the halls of Valhalla. All you have to do is be a good warrior
I think the Catholic Church essentially faces a marketing problem. It's core market is diminishing as the more liberal and individualistic approaches of Protestantism are becoming the "default" in many developed countries at the same time as increasing numbers of catholics simply lose all faith. So the church is left with the choice to liberalise, and therefore lose what keeps it distinct and special from it's competitors and try to catch some of that market (and accurately reflect the opinions and behaviours of a larger segment of society) or to double down on it's "special features" in the hopes of retaining it's core market and perhaps increasing it's appeal to certain niche groups.
I think the inherently conservative nature of the institution will mean that it will see saw between the two without really fully committing to either, and that the active population in the church will drip away as the priesthood slowly dwindles.
Edit: I was thinking of your post on that, and I have thought on it more than once since you made it. I guess I come down on the fact that Irish catholicism is still catholicism, and the hierarchy is still answerable for what was done in it's name. If it makes you feel any better, my anger at the failed political systems in the republic is even greater.
Ahtman wrote: Rephrasing old ideas without changing the core issues doesn't make make that much of a difference.
I have explained what is new and significant about this several times ITT
And none of that changed the core problems which is that homosexuality is still considered a sin and that gays still can't get married within the church. Just noting that they aren't horrible people outright doesn't get rid of the issues that many LGBT have with the Catholic Church. Note I'm not saying the church has to or should change its stance, but that the proclamation doesn't really change the issues that the gay community, Catholic or otherwise, has.
Ahtman wrote: Rephrasing old ideas without changing the core issues doesn't make make that much of a difference.
I have explained what is new and significant about this several times ITT
And none of that changed the core problems which is that homosexuality is still considered a sin and that gays still can't get married within the church. Just noting that they aren't horrible people outright doesn't get rid of the issues that many LGBT have with the Catholic Church. Note I'm not saying the church has to or should change its stance, but that the proclamation doesn't really change the issues that the gay community, Catholic or otherwise, has.
Divorce is also considered a sin. Many divorced people don't have a problem with the Catholic Church. This may be shifting into that category.
Da Boss wrote: I think the Catholic Church essentially faces a marketing problem.
Comparing the Church to a business is common but always does more to obscure than to facilitate understanding. The issue is not a "marketing" but rather "communication." The Church is not trying to sell anything, or should not be. Rather, the Church is about preserving and proclaiming the authentic message of Christ. The trouble with homophobia is not that it "doesn't sell too good anymore" but rather that it is contrary to Christianity.
Da Boss wrote: If it makes you feel any better, my anger at the failed political systems in the republic is even greater.
Well, my point is kind of that the whole thing is a single package. It's not a matter of picking and choosing, or shouldn't be in the interests of accuracy.
We'll derail the thread if we continue that discussion, though it's always a refreshing and interesting one, so I'll leave off here unless you want to PM me about it.
On the marketing thing though, whether it's marketing or communication is rather semantic, but fair enough- they are failing to communicate the message that being a Catholic is a good thing to be, and so they must adopt a new strategy to communicate, either by emphasising or dropping certain parts of the message.
I mean, as a lapsed catholic, I feel that the church is facing a crisis in the next decades especially with regard to the numbers in the priesthood. In my holidays I went back to my old University in Maynooth. The south campus there is one of the oldest educational institutions in the country, and it includes a seminary. The graduating class of each year are displayed on the walls of the corridors of the seminary in photographs, and it really is quite interesting and sobering to walk down those gorgeous hallways watching the class sizes dwindle away and the ethnic make up of the priests educated there change over time. The church is not recruiting enough priests to replace it's losses, and that is a big concern. I think it reflects a disconnect between the church's values, or how it communicates them, and the values of society in many countries.
Ahtman wrote: that the proclamation doesn't really change the issues that the gay community, Catholic or otherwise, has
I don't think the "gay community" (that is, a lobby demographic) is relevant. This is not a political matter, like state-recognized gay marriage. But I also disagree at a much deeper level for reasons I have already explained at length and which none of your posts deal with.
Da Boss wrote: whether it's marketing or communication is rather semantic
You know that's not true. Are you marketing something to me with your posts or just trying to make your feelings and thoughts clear?
As to the shortage of priests, that's really simple. Would you ever recommend to your son that he become a priest? I mean, obviously as a lapsed Catholic with all kinds of anger issues about our religion, you wouldn't. But I am on board and I still wouldn't. There are so many reasons why being a priest is a sad, lonely, thankless career. In the past, things were very different -- becoming a priest meant education, prestige, and not infrequently a comfortable living.
There is no real change here. Homosexuals are allowed in the church, and as long as they don't act on their homosexuality, they won't be considered as sinners. That has been the party line since way back when I was growing up in the Church.
Wake me up when the 'as long as they don't act on it' part changes. That is the real issue.
My contribution to thread: Are we more upset that the Church is "like this" or when someone justifies policy matters (ie, SSM) because of their religion?
@Manchu" Let me rephrase. A guy who doesn't commit a homosexual act and gives a good confession is not considered to be in a state of 'mortal sin'.
A guy who commits a homosexual act, gives a good confession except that he does not ask God for forgiveness for the homosexual act is considered to be in a state of 'mortal sin'.
If a Priest or any other Catholic is a practising homosexual, why not just lie about it? As long as they are considered chaste then it doesn't matter. Right? And please don't tell me that Catholics don't lie. That would just be embarrassing.
Manchu: I will take your point on the marketing thing, though I still feel it is a small jump between communicating and marketing, but I guess marketing has connotations which might be insulting in this context.
On the priesthood, I mean, yeah I agree. I knew some seminarians from University, and I always wondered at their motivations and so on.
But the core issue I think they face, and what makes the priesthood so lonely and isolating is precisely that the church is out of step with broader society in the developed world on so many issues.
Da Boss wrote: what makes the priesthood so lonely and isolating is precisely that the church is out of step with broader society in the developed world on so many issues
I disagree. I think it is partly a matter of a huge amount of ignorance and prejudice on the part of secular society, which we see some clear example even ITT. And I think the other part really comes down to terrible leadership by the bishops, who in the States are almost all canon lawyers/administrators rather than pastors.
By whom? There is no "confession punch card" you have to show before receiving. If your conscience is clean, there is no obstacle.
Well, what I am getting at is the guy who fully understands that the Church teaches that homosexual acts are mortal sins, doesn't agree, doesn't care, and does it anyway, and is not repentant.
Perhaps Catholicism has evolved to the point where said hypothetical homosexual is not considered to be in 'mortal sin', because he sincerely doesn't agree with the Church. I thought that was derided as 'Cafeteria Catholicism', but if there has been such an evolution, I view it as a positivie development.
P.S.I suppose I wouldn't be surprised, seeing as birth control is (or at least used to be) a mortal sin, but most Catholics view the position as laughable and practice birth control anyway, and there doesn't seem to be any major issue with this outisde the right wing of the Church.
"Many do"...But doesn't that make you sad? As a clearly passionate Catholic, aren't you a little upset that some of your churches figure heads have to lie to others and themselves to stay a part of that religion?
That's a genuine question by the way. I'm not trying to wind anyone up.
Does the prejudice from the public not stem from the church stance on homosexuality, contraception and women's issues in general though?
I will admit, there are lunatic hatemongers screaming that the pope is the antichrist and so on, but I think those people are a little easier for the priests to dismiss than half hearted catholics who feel like the church doesn't really match up with that they believe due to the liberalisation of society in recent years.
I guess the greatest shame about stuff like this is that it poisons the well for those activist priests (and nuns), people who have dedicated their entire lives to help the needy in a way that is rarely ever seen. Ireland's most tireless activist for the homeless is a catholic priest, and he is a great person who has completely given his life over to other people in a way that many in today's world find hard to comprehend. But the institution he belongs to sort of taints people's view on him, despite his work.
jasper76 wrote: what I am getting at is the guy who fully understands that the Church teaches that homosexual acts are mortal sins, doesn't agree, doesn't care, and does it anyway, and is not repentant
Sure that is very common. Replace "homosexual acts" with "use birth control" for example. As we learned in 2012, 90% of all Catholic women in the US use birth control.
It really does pain me, if you want to know the truth. It pains me to see friends who are gay feel unwelcome at the sacraments especially at times in their life, for example, when they are rejected by loved ones, when they need their faith the most.
That is exactly why I think this Synod report is so important.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: Does the prejudice from the public not stem from the church stance on homosexuality, contraception and women's issues in general though?
I don't think so. Like all prejudice, it stems from ignorance.
Da Boss wrote: But the institution he belongs to sort of taints people's view on him, despite his work.
It's on my to do list, and you just bumped it up several notches. I will see if I can find it anywhere in Dusseldorf. I was able to find the Guard, so perhaps I'll find Calvary too.
Rome (CNN) -- Under furious assault from conservative Catholics, the Vatican backtracked Tuesday on its surprisingly positive assessment of gays and same-sex relationships.
In a report Monday, the Vatican had said that gays and lesbians have "gifts to offer" the Christian community and acknowledged that same-sex couples can give "precious support" to one other.
The statement, an interim report from a closely watched meeting of Catholic clergy here, was widely praised by liberals. It is believed to be the first time the Vatican has said anything positive about gay relationships.
One longtime Vatican journalist called the statement a "pastoral earthquake."
But many conservatives complained that the statement watered down church teaching and did not accurately reflect their discussions here, where nearly 200 Catholic leaders are meeting to debate pastoral approaches to modern family life.
Pope Francis indicates talk of inclusion Vatican: Church should welcome gays Vatican changing tone on homosexuality
One South African cardinal called Monday's statement, which also included positive language about unmarried couples who cohabitate, "irredeemable."
"The message has gone out that this is what the synod is saying, this is what the Catholic Church is saying," said Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier, referring to the special meeting of Catholic clergy gathered here through Saturday.
"It's not what we're saying at all."
In response to such reactions, the Vatican backtracked a bit Tuesday. In a statement, it said the report on gays and lesbians was a "working document," not the final word from Rome.
The Vatican also said that it wanted to welcome gays and lesbians in the church, but not create "the impression of a positive evaluation" of same-sex relationships, or, for that matter, of unmarried couples who live together.
But gay rights groups say that's precisely the impression the Vatican gave Monday when it said:
"Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community. Are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?"
Such statements seem to be in line with the more merciful approach the church has taken toward gays and lesbians under Pope Francis. In 2013, Francis famously said, "Who am I to judge" gay people?
On Monday morning, just before the Vatican released its positive report on gays, Francis preached that laws that do not lead people to Jesus are "dead," and that Christ did "strange things" such as hanging out with sinners and tax collectors.
The goal of the meeting here, officially called the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family, is to present proposals for a larger meeting to be held in October 2015.
Which means there's a long road ahead before any doctrinal or pastoral changes happen in the church.
In the meantime, conservative and liberal bishops have been fiercely jousting in the court of public opinion.
Cardinal Raymond Burke, an American and head of the Vatican's supreme court, said the report "lacks a solid foundation in the sacred Scriptures." Other conservatives called it a "betrayal."
Opinion: 3 ways the Catholic church should embrace gay rights
Liberal Catholics and gay activists, on the other hand, heralded Monday's statement and said that some conservative pushback was probably inevitable, given how hostile some corners of the church are to change.
"I actually don't think this is as much of a backtrack as we usually see!" said Marianne Duddy-Burke, head of the gay rights group Dignity USA.
"I think that response to this report was swift and intense, and I'm sure many bishops want to be sure people aren't reading more into it than is there," she continued. "However, it is undeniable that there has never been any Vatican document that made positive, respectful statements about same-sex relationships, so that is an undeniable breakthrough."
Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, echoed that sentiment.
"Regardless of the fact that this is a working document, it is still significant in that it reveals a strong current of affirmative attitudes at high levels in the church towards lesbians and gay people," he said.
This is an excellent summary from a Protestant perspective:
A midpoint report from this month's Synod of Bishops reveals that Catholic leaders are considering more conciliatory language toward gays and lesbians, divorced and remarried Catholics, and couples who live together before getting married.
Meeting with nearly 200 senior prelates and several dozen lay experts and observers at the Vatican, Pope Francis has deliberately engineered a lively discussion of issues concerning marriage and family life. This assembly, and a follow-up summit in 2015, will help shape the pontiff's legacy.
Reporters and commentators are producing a flurry of analysis mostly centered on the question of whether the synod portends a change in substance or merely a change in tone. Such is the abiding question of Francis' papacy.
Yet through these lively debates in Catholic life runs a theme that is as old as the Reformation: the role of individual conscience.
The conflict between conscience and authority is the pre-eminent battle underlying the synod's debates. Even the dramatic turn from language such as "living in sin" and "intrinsically disordered" is a tacit nod to conscience over authority. If there is a common thread among issues as diverse as contraception, divorce, premarital sex and homosexuality, it may be the limits of the church's authority over Catholics' behavior and consciences.
Protestant denominations vary in how much they have abandoned traditional teaching on these matters. Evangelicals have mostly accommodated birth control and divorce, but not premarital or gay sex. Mainline Protestants rarely enforce what weak prohibitions on premarital sex remain, and are more rapidly accepting gays and lesbians in the life and ministry of their churches.
The Catholic church, of course, is against all these things. Built on a consistent ethic of life, strong demands for economic justice and a framework of natural law, the church's moral vision is, for many, more compelling than conservative Protestants' selective literalism. But even the church's significant authority is insufficient to bind its adherents' consciences to the fullness of its teaching.
This conflict manifests vividly in debates over worthiness to receive Communion, which, as certain pro-choice Catholic politicians will attest, can seem more like carrots and sticks than bread and wine.
The hallmark Protestant idea of priesthood of all believers allows the individual -- whose relationship with God is unmediated -- to determine his or her fitness to receive the sacrament. The Catholic church, meanwhile, retains a few layers of priestly and catechetical scrutiny.
Last week at the synod, Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois of Paris worried that couples "do not believe that the use of contraceptive methods is a sin and therefore they tend not to speak of them in confession and so they receive Communion untroubled." Perhaps because married women might think it inappropriate to be questioned about contraception by a cadre of celibate men.
Either way, confessors tend not to press the issue, and no one pulls married couples out of the Communion line. Few believe a solid majority of Catholic women or their husbands will burn in hell for using artificial contraceptives.
In the case of cohabitating couples, there is little the church can do. Marriage preparation classes acknowledge its sinfulness, but priests and bishops cannot afford to turn away half of what is already a declining number of couples seeking marriage in the church. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops advises that priests can point couples toward a holier union by "supporting the couple's plans for the future rather than chastising them for the past."
Yet even for Catholics whose relationships put them in a perpetual state of mortal sin, individual conscience and church authority are often in fierce tension. In practice, LGBT Catholics often rely on their own consciences in determining whether they will go forward for Communion. In some locales, it is common enough for partnered gays and lesbians to receive Communion that it only makes news when they are turned away.
Enforcement of sacramental exclusion tends to fall most frequently and publicly on divorced Catholics who have remarried without seeking an annulment.
It seems uneven that perpetrators of heinous crimes -- including Catholic inmates on death row -- may receive Communion in prison (so long as they are not divorced and remarried) while civilly remarried Catholics are deemed unworthy to receive Communion for the rest of their lives regardless of how decently and ethically they live.
While homosexuality and remarriage are grabbing headlines, it is actually contraception that may be most relevant. Acceptance of contraception was decisive, with most Catholics' attitudes barely running behind Protestants'. It largely explains the slow-but-sure Christian elevation of conscience over authority.
As a Protestant, I can live in the tension between wishing for compassion toward LGBT people and grace for remarried Catholics on the one hand, and an abiding sympathy for the Catholic church's comprehensive moral vision on the other.
The Catholic church is a humane bulwark against a destructively permissive and pornographic culture where everything is commodified and nothing is sacred. To that end, perhaps it would be better if more Catholics submitted to church teaching.
But on some level, I remain grateful that Rome has no authority over my conscience. The trouble for the church is that a lot of Catholics think like I do.
generalgrog wrote: I think they will say and do whatever they have to get more people in, whether they really believe it or not.
Ignorance and prejudice, as usual.
Religious institutions in the West have been suffering decline in membership (both active and passive) for quite some time now. There have been a number of splits of various religious groups for genuine differences in attitudes towards various groups and interpretations of the bible (and/or religious texts of choice).
Suggesting that some of these splits or changes in attitude had more to do with retaining membership numbers isn't exactly a stretch - especially when the noises coming from the group in question appear to be restatements of prior policy which have little to no practical (or indeed any) impact upon changing practice or core beliefs.
generalgrog wrote: I think they will say and do whatever they have to get more people in, whether they really believe it or not.
Ignorance and prejudice, as usual.
Religious institutions in the West have been suffering decline in membership (both active and passive) for quite some time now. There have been a number of splits of various religious groups for genuine differences in attitudes towards various groups and interpretations of the bible (and/or religious texts of choice).
Suggesting that some of these splits or changes in attitude had more to do with retaining membership numbers isn't exactly a stretch - especially when the noises coming from the group in question appear to be restatements of prior policy which have little to no practical (or indeed any) impact upon changing practice or core beliefs.
Fair point.
Except that the Roman Catholic Church has 1.2 billion members worldwide, so I don't think they are really hurting for members, especially considering that their numbers have grown at a steady pace in recent years.
Of which quite a number are passive members, and not in the West. And worldwide membership numbers will increase even if the proportion of religious people decreases so long as population growth is higher than the decline in people claiming membership. Numbers for membership to religious organisations are always prone to quite large errors and are often disputed, especially in countries with less than fantastic record keeping, such as the majority of South America, Africa and parts of Asia - all of which (apparently ) boast strong RC populations.
Membership is a tricky issue - I am a member of quite a few organisations that I signed up to at one time but never actually cancelled my membership. Some of them I signed up to when I was a teenager and I have not even thought of in 10-15 years. Even through census data, people will claim membership to a religious group even if they have not attended their place of worship for years.
Even putting aside the incredibly insulting idea that my religion teaches whatever is most appealing to the lowest common denominator as if they were selling a product -- you do understand that is insulting right? I really wonder -- the idea that the Church would issue this kind of statement to 'fill the pews' is particularly moronic. Not only are there many Catholics in the US and Europe who absolutely do NOT welcome this kind of language, but there is also deep and abiding opposition to the issues (all of them, not just the part about gays) in places like Africa and South America. You know, where most Catholics live.
Manchu wrote: Even putting aside the incredibly insulting idea that my religion teaches whatever is most appealing to the lowest common denominator as if they were selling a product -- you do understand that is insulting right?
As insulting as suggesting that a person is going to hell, is sinful, unnatural and is not loved by their god because of who they love?
I really wonder -- the idea that the Church would issue this kind of statement to 'fill the pews' is particularly moronic.
The West is fairly socially liberal, for the most part. Coupled with declining membership (either relative or absolute), it does make sense that a religious group may make the kind of noises the Catholic Church has been making recently. You yourself have noted that you are happy with the way things are heading, as are tens of thousands of otherwise progressive Catholics, people of associated faith, and the non-affiliated. Even those who are typically not on the side of religion are "down with the new pope".
Although I was pointing out potential arguments for the argument, rather than making it myself.
From a PR point of view in the West, the RCC are getting a lot of good press for what is, at most, (IMO), a very minor lip service to actually changing.
Not only are there many Catholics in the US and Europe who absolutely do NOT welcome this kind of language, but there is also deep and abiding opposition to the issues (all of them, not just the part about gays) in places like Africa and South America. You know, where most Catholics live.
And they will continue to carry on doing what they want to do, exactly as they have been doing, regardless of what is said. Again, as you yourself mentioned, people use religion as a tool to justify or lay blame for what has happened, while happily ignoring the part that tells them they should not have been doing the thing which caused that thing to happen.
And I believe you will recall me stating that I don't expect anything to change?
I guess first up, it really would help if you learned about the religion you are so passionate about hating. Knowledge does tend to get in the way of hatred, of course. And I'm kind of staggered by the logic of your rationalizations: something you don't know about and refuse to learn more about offends you so that makes it okay to post offensive things about it?
As to all this business about PR -- did you even bother to read my post? Most Catholics live in cultures where progressive attitudes toward every single one of these issues (divorce, cohabitation, civil union, and homosexual relationships) are very unpopular. Finally, church attendance in the US and Europe has not decline because the Church has not kept up with the sea change in attitudes toward homosexuals that has occurred in the last ten years. For one thing, the decline started more than a decade ago. For another thing, such a significant change in social behavior (1950s mass attendance compared to today) cannot be explained by ahistorical reference to a single political issue.
In short, this report is not going to make anyone who has stopped going to Sunday mass or who has never attended suddenly start going.
But how can I be surprised that all bets are off concerning logic and reason? I mean, here's the structure of the thread so far:
A: this is just lip service B: no it is not because X, Y, and Z reasons C: this is just lip service B: again, no, here are the reasons why it is not A: this is clearly just lip service
Manchu wrote: Even putting aside the incredibly insulting idea that my religion teaches whatever is most appealing to the lowest common denominator as if they were selling a product -- you do understand that is insulting right? I really wonder -- the idea that the Church would issue this kind of statement to 'fill the pews' is particularly moronic. Not only are there many Catholics in the US and Europe who absolutely do NOT welcome this kind of language, but there is also deep and abiding opposition to the issues (all of them, not just the part about gays) in places like Africa and South America. You know, where most Catholics live.
I have to agree here. It's quite insulting.
But its nothing I, sadly, haven't become accustomed to, particularly from aggressive areas of atheism (and yes, I know this doesn't account for all atheists).
jasper76 wrote: suggesting that homosexuals are incapable of falling in love with people of the same sex
No.
As explained ITT -- the present Catholic teaching about homosexuality focuses on sex acts. There is no consideration of love.
The midpoint report discussed ITT suggests a refocus on relationship. Indeed, there is some consideration paid to love in that langauge: the report acknowledges that a homosexual relationship can provide "precious support" to the partners.
Something similar happened to the way the Church talked about marriage in the 1960s. Before, the line was always that marriage was for procreation. But in the 60s, the Church started to talk about how marriage was also about loving companionship and support.
So we are actually talking about something pretty significant and not just lip service.
Some people view sex acts as the physical expression of love.
IIRC, most Catholics do.
I'm not sure its so easy to separate the state of loving someone romantically with the physical act of love. One kind of goes with the other.
That's why this seems like lip service to an outsider, at least to me. If I put myself in the shoes of a homosexual Catholic, I am still not allowed to marry my partner withing the Church, and the act of expressing love for my partner physically is still seen as sinful.
That's why this seems like lip service to an outsider, at least to me. If I put myself in the shoes of a homosexual Catholic, I am still not allowed to marry my partner withing the Church, and the act of expressing love for my partner physically is still seen as sinful.
One of the primary covenants of matrimony is procreation. Homosexuals cannot pro-create with one another.
Additionally, this was covered earlier in the thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Some people view sex acts as the physical expression of love.
IIRC, most Catholics do.
You're not quite right there. Sex to create new life is the physical expression of love in the Catholic Church. That's why it's against married couples using contraception.
That's why this seems like lip service to an outsider, at least to me. If I put myself in the shoes of a homosexual Catholic, I am still not allowed to marry my partner withing the Church, and the act of expressing love for my partner physically is still seen as sinful.
One of the primary covenants of matrimony is procreation. Homosexuals cannot pro-create with one another.
Additionally, this was covered earlier in the thread.
So when science is able to combine DNA of two same-sex partners, which seems likely to happen, will gay marriage be given the green light by the RCC?
So when science is able to splice and combine DNA of two same-sex partners (probably coming within the decade), will gay marriage be given the green light by the RCC?
Since the RC believes the most direct path to truth is via a marriage between science and faith, I guess it's hypothetically possible. But I Doubt it.
But then again, were my wife and not able to conceive naturally, we were going to adopt, because we both think if nature (not God) made it so one of us could bear children, then there's probably a reason. We never considered going through all the fertility treatments.
To elaborate on the previous: the potential for unhealthy babies or multiple babies is SIGNIFICANTLY higher due to fertility treatments/IVF.
So if its doubtful that the RCC will shift its position, even if it becomes possible for a same sex couple to procreate, is the issue here really about procreation, or something else?
jasper76 wrote: So if its doubtful that the RCC will shift its position, even if it becomes possible for a same sex couple to procreate, is the issue here really about procreation, or something else?
Same sex couples can't naturally procreate. I think it's as simple as that.
And yes, the issue is about procreation when it comes to sex in general. Which I answered before, and which was already discussed earlier in the thread.
And, as both Manchu and I have already explained, has NOTHING to do with love.
Manchu wrote: I guess first up, it really would help if you learned about the religion you are so passionate about hating. Knowledge does tend to get in the way of hatred, of course. And I'm kind of staggered by the logic of your rationalizations: something you don't know about and refuse to learn more about offends you so that makes it okay to post offensive things about it?
So, homosexal acts being sinful and "inherently disordered" doesn't more or less cover people being hated, unnatural and sinful because of their sexual orientation?
Not to mention the large groundswell to which you have noted of "conservative" Catholics and "most Catholics living in cultures where progressive attitudes... are very unpopular" being very much against any action which would in any way make being gay OK (either at all or within the RCC)?
As to all this business about PR -- did you even bother to read my post?
Did you read mine? The parts where I was specifically referencing the West? Where I mentioned your own comments about people carrying on with carrying on, using their religious beliefs to reinforce whatever it is they want to do while ignoring the bits that don't match up?
Finally, church attendance in the US and Europe has not decline because the Church has not kept up with the sea change in attitudes toward homosexuals that has occurred in the last ten years. For one thing, the decline started more than a decade ago. For another thing, such a significant change in social behavior (1950s mass attendance compared to today) cannot be explained by ahistorical reference to a single political issue.
Who mentioned a single political issue?
Society has, as you note, changed significantly in the last 100 years, even more so in the last 60 or so. For far more reasons than attitudes towards homosexuality. A larger proportion of people in the West are falling out of religion, or never getting started with it to begin with (amplified as this year's church missers bring up next year's church never visiters ).
In short, this report is not going to make anyone who has stopped going to Sunday mass or who has never attended suddenly start going.
Not suggesting it will.
But how can I be surprised that all bets are off concerning logic and reason? I mean, here's the structure of the thread so far:
A: this is just lip service B: no it is not because X, Y, and Z reasons C: this is just lip service B: again, no, here are the reasons why it is not A: this is clearly just lip service
More akin to:
A: So, nothing will actually change even if they change A, B, C? B: No, it is really big! They are saying X, Y, Z! A: Erm... but they will still be treating homosexuals exactly the same? B: X, Y, Z! Were you not listening! A: Yes, they are very nice platitudes, but saying X, Y, Z and then following through to change A, B, C will still mean 1, 2, 3 continue? And so therefore effectively nothing will have changed? B: XYZXYZXYZXYZXYZ! LEARN ABOUT RELIGION!
jasper76 wrote: So if its doubtful that the RCC will shift its position, even if it becomes possible for a same sex couple to procreate, is the issue here really about procreation, or something else?
Same sex couples can't naturally procreate. I think it's as simple as that.
And yes, the issue is about procreation when it comes to sex in general. Which I answered before, and which was already discussed earlier in the thread.
And, as both Manchu and I have already explained, has NOTHING to do with love.
jasper76 wrote: I'm not sure its so easy to separate the state of loving someone romantically with the physical act of love. One kind of goes with the other.
No they don't. You might want to read up on the experiences of asexual people.
jasper76 wrote: I'm not sure its so easy to separate the state of loving someone romantically with the physical act of love. One kind of goes with the other.
No they don't. You might want to read up on the experiences of asexual people.
Not only that, but I can pretty much guarantee you that there are plenty of people having sex out there where it has absolutely nothing to do with love.
jasper76 wrote: I'm not sure its so easy to separate the state of loving someone romantically with the physical act of love. One kind of goes with the other.
No they don't. You might want to read up on the experiences of asexual people.
I can tell you that with my wife, sex is a physical expression of love. I assume that homosexuals have the same or similar experience wih their partners, or are capable of having the same or similar experience with their partners.
If someone does not have sex, such as an 'asexual', obviously sex is not the physical expression of love, because they don't have sex.
SilverMK2 wrote: Did you read mine? The parts where I was specifically referencing the West?
Seriously? You even quoted my response to those parts:
Manchu wrote: Finally, church attendance in the US and Europe has not decline because the Church has not kept up with the sea change in attitudes toward homosexuals that has occurred in the last ten years. For one thing, the decline started more than a decade ago. For another thing, such a significant change in social behavior (1950s mass attendance compared to today) cannot be explained by ahistorical reference to a single political issue.
In short, this report is not going to make anyone who has stopped going to Sunday mass or who has never attended suddenly start going.
Although you show every sign of simply trolling the thread, I have made the effort to address your points. But I think I will just have to ignore you now, considering you accuse me of not reading your posts while also specifically quoting me responding to your posts. It is clear that you are here to advocate hate and that you have no interest in anything about Catholicism. As I posted yesterday, facts or no facts, you have already made up your mind. I guess you have proved me right in that instance and wrong as far as continuing to engage you.
jasper76 wrote: If someone does not have sex, such as an 'asexual', obviously sex is not the physical expression of love, because they don't have sex.
Yep that is exactly the point: sex acts and romantic love are not the same thing.
I mean, I think I've supplied pretty rational answers to everything you've asked.
Maybe I'm just confused at what you're looking for.
I'd asked if it became possible for homosexual couples to procreate, if that would cause the RCC to approve of gay marriages. You answered it was hypothetically possible, but probably not.
So if the opposition to gay marriage would not cease if and when it becomes possible for homosexuals to procreate, than lack of procreation cannot be the only reason for the opposition,a nd I wonder what the remaining reasons are.
I'm backing off, because none of us is fortune tellers. For all we know, the Pope could wake up tomorrow, and issue an infallible Chruch declaration that gay marriage is sanctioned and sanctified by the RCC.
jasper76 wrote: For all we know, the Pope could wake up tomorrow, and issue an infallible Chruch declaration that gay marriage is sanctioned and sanctified by the RCC.
jasper76 wrote: If someone does not have sex, such as an 'asexual', obviously sex is not the physical expression of love, because they don't have sex.
Yep that is exactly the point: sex acts and romantic love are not the same thing.
I didn't mean to imply that they are synonymous. I understand that both can exist without the other. However, for many people, sex acts are a form of physical expression of love.
I'd asked if it became possible for homosexual couples to procreate, if that would cause the RCC to approve of gay marriages. You answered it was hypothetically possible, but probably not.
So if the opposition to gay marriage would not cease if and when it becomes possible for homosexuals to procreate, than lack of procreation cannot be the only reason for the opposition,a nd I wonder what the remaining reasons are.
I'm backing off, because none of us is fortune tellers. For all we know, the Pope could wake up tomorrow, and issue an infallible Chruch declaration that gay marriage is sanctioned and sanctified by the RCC.
They're not going to change the sacrament of Matrimony. One of the primary covenants one embraces with matrimony is procreation. Homosexuals cannot procreate.
BUT, as I've already said in this thread, the Church could revise its stance on dispensations to include homosexuals. They already do for infertile couples and divorcees.
jasper76 wrote: However, for many people, sex acts are a form of physical expression of love.
Sure but so what? For some people, whipping is a physical expression of love. Just considered by itself, however, whipping someone is not the same thing as love. If you only focus on the act of whipping, you are only talking about violence. But if instead you take a look at the context -- the human relationship -- maybe you can begin to see that there is love there even if that kind of thing is not something you are into or totally understand.
cincydooley wrote: They're not going to change the sacrament of Matrimony.
And in honesty, there is no power on earth that can.
cincydooley wrote: as I've already said in this thread, the Church could revise its stance on dispensations to include homosexuals
I totally disagree. You cannot dispense with the sex of the spouses.
Manchu wrote: But if instead you take a look at the context -- the human relationship -- maybe you can begin to see that there is love there even if that kind of thing is not something you are into or totally understand.
I'm not confused about or questioning my own position. I believe homosexuals should be able to marry. I also believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with consensual homosexual sex, and that suggesting to homosexuals that homosexual sex acts are sinful is tantamount to psychological abuse.
This is at the core of why I, and perhaps others, believe this is little more than lip service.
Manchu 618863 7280657 7067bbd5e570bbad967a4dcda5a174a3.png]Seriously? You even quoted my response to those parts:
And you handily cut out my reply to the points you made.
Although you show every sign of simply trolling the thread, I have made the effort to address your points.
You have repeated the same things again and again, which do nothing to address what is being discussed.
I very much understand that there are some very technical doctrinal issues on the table for discussion, and I understand that the changes will have some impact on the way certain groups are treated by the rcc... my points have been that the changes being talked about possibly discussing at some point are, in practical terms, almost exactly the same as if no change had been made (assuming the changes go through - do not want to forget your point about the vast majority of rcs living in less progressive cultures!).
It is clear that you are here to advocate hate
Mkay...
and that you have no interest in anything about Catholicism. As I posted yesterday, facts or no facts, you have already made up your mind.
Because I said I expected little to change even if there is a positive outcome from the matters under discussion?
As you have repeatedly stated, a lot of catholics and priests, in all sorts of places around the world, are against any kind of this kind of change. And as I mentioned earlier (to which you replied that my point made no sense) - I have absolutely zero input in the discussion that the pope and selected others will have to decide the direction of the church. My lack of belief in the ability of the rcc to become more inclusive has no relation to whether change will occur.
And again, as I mentioned, if things do change, i will be happy to give the nod on a step down the path to loving ypur fellow man... while still hoping for bigger changes, as well as an opening of the church to outside investigation and punishment of those involved in the recent and not so recent abuses, as well as other issues that it is too tedious to type out on my phone.
jasper76 wrote: I believe homosexuals should be able to marry.
For equal protection under the law, right?
Right, for equal protection under the law. I also believe that if the RCC, or any church for that matter, doesn't want to officiate same-sex marriages, they should not be compelled to do so.
jasper76 wrote: I also believe that if the RCC, or any church for that matter, doesn't want to officiate same-sex marriages, they should not be compelled to do so.
So its not about love. Cool. Glad we got that straight. It's about equal protection under the law.
Right, my personal position is fundamentally about law and not love. Inasmuch as I think the Catholic Church should accept gay people for who they are AND what they tend to do, and add homosexual marriages in their 'circle of sanctification', or whatever, it is only because I feel sorry for and support those homosexuals who for whatever reason want to get married within the Catholic Church, and I feel sorry for the children of such people because they are taught that there is something wrong with their parents, when there is really nothing wrong with their parents.
Manchu wrote: So you think other people should change their religious tradition because you feel sorry about a hypothetical scenario?
Did it ever occur to you that this might be a bit presumptuous?
Yes to both, I suppose. I don't think religious traditions deserve any kind of exemption whatsoever from criticism, and if I see something I perceive to be unjust or abusive going on, I don't feel any need to stay quiet about it.
I also realize that many people believe their religious traditions should be free from criticism, and that such criticism may be considered by such people as presumptuous.
Yes to both, I suppose. I don't think religious traditions deserve any kind of exemption whatsoever from criticism, and if I see something I perceive to be unjust or abusive going on.
What's unjust or abusive about it? No one is forced to be Catholic.
Catholic doctrine has no bearing on their legal protection.
So, you are cool with people being able to sit wherever they like on the bus?
Don't you think it is a bit presumptuous that people can sit wherever they like despite why and what they are? What about tradition? And certain people being unnatural and bad? I mean, have you not seen this book I have explaining all this?
And all because of some hypothetical situation where someone, somewhere, might want to sit somewhere else?
jasper76 wrote: if I see something I perceive to be unjust or abusive going on, I don't feel any need to stay quiet about it
Perhaps you should feel the need to learn more about what you perceive to be unjust or abusive before going on the offensive.
jasper76 wrote: I also realize that many people believe their religious traditions should be free from criticism, and that such criticism may be considered by such people as presumptuous.
This is not really a matter of criticism. What we have here is someone who is not Catholic saying Catholicism should change to suit them. This is actually an example of cultural imperialism.
Yes to both, I suppose. I don't think religious traditions deserve any kind of exemption whatsoever from criticism, and if I see something I perceive to be unjust or abusive going on.
What's unjust or abusive about it? No one is forced to be Catholic.
Catholic doctrine has no bearing on their legal protection.
Actually, children are quite frequently forced to be Catholic. And sometimes, their indoctrination is so strong that they can't bring themselves to leave, but that is pretty off topic.
I believe that teaching homosexuals that homosexual sex is sinful is tantamount to psychological abuse. I believe that teaching the children of homosexual couples that there is something sinful about their parents sexual behavior is also physcological abuse.
SilverMK2 wrote: So, you are cool with people being able to sit wherever they like on the bus?
Don't you think it is a bit presumptuous that people can sit wherever they like despite why and what they are? What about tradition? And certain people being unnatural and bad? I mean, have you not seen this book I have explaining all this?
And all because of some hypothetical situation where someone, somewhere, might want to sit somewhere else?
I'm trying to decide if this is actually the most poorly constructed analogy I've ever read, or if it's only in the top 5.
Ouze wrote: But ultimately, yesterday, the Catholic Church decreed that actual homosexuality wasn't sinful, homosexual acts are, and the only marriage can be between a woman and a man.
Today, that's all still exactly the same, right?
Oh no.... The emprah does not approve of such pagan beliefs especially when it involves a religious cult!!
Dude get real I could care less if homosexuals get married. But just to appease people who are like you who are honestly a little demented I say we call Homosexual marriage "A sacred bound between two men or two women that is essentially marriage" does that work for you?
jasper76 wrote: if I see something I perceive to be unjust or abusive going on, I don't feel any need to stay quiet about it
Perhaps you should feel the need to learn more about what you perceive to be unjust or abusive before going on the offensive.
jasper76 wrote: I also realize that many people believe their religious traditions should be free from criticism, and that such criticism may be considered by such people as presumptuous.
This is not really a matter of criticism. What we have here is someone who is not Catholic saying Catholicism should change to suit them. This is actually an example of cultural imperialism.
I undertsand your opinion, and disagree with it. I don't think Catholicism should change to suit me. I think it should change to suit its own members.
SilverMK2 wrote: So, you are cool with people being able to sit wherever they like on the bus?
Don't you think it is a bit presumptuous that people can sit wherever they like despite why and what they are? What about tradition? And certain people being unnatural and bad? I mean, have you not seen this book I have explaining all this?
And all because of some hypothetical situation where someone, somewhere, might want to sit somewhere else?
I'm trying to decide if this is actually the most poorly constructed analogy I've ever read, or if it's only in the top 5.
It's close...
Wonder if if they'd let an American move in with one of the UK's royal family's residence. Ya know... reasons.
I believe that teaching homosexuals that homosexual sex is sinful is tantamount to psychological abuse. I believe that teaching the children of homosexual couples that their is something sinful about their parents sexual behavior is also physcological abuse.
Who is teaching them this? Your hypothetical homosexual Catholic couple sending their kids to Sunday school? Isn't that, then on that homosexual couple?
I believe that teaching homosexuals that homosexual sex is sinful is tantamount to psychological abuse. I believe that teaching the children of homosexual couples that their is something sinful about their parents sexual behavior is also physcological abuse.
Who is teaching them this? Your hypothetical homosexual Catholic couple sending their kids to Sunday school? Isn't that, then on that homosexual couple?
I think you're being intentionally obtuse at this point.
In order for the children of homosexuals to be taught that Catechism, those homosexuals have to send them to Sunday School or teach them the Catechism themselves.
So, it's on the parents, then, that they're being "abused." Not the Catholic Church.
cincydooley wrote: I think you're being intentionally obtuse at this point.
In order for the children of homosexuals to be taught that Catechism, those homosexuals have to send them to Sunday School or teach them the Catechism themselves.
So, it's on the parents, then, that they're being "abused." Not the Catholic Church.
I sincerely was not trying to be intentionally obtuse.
There are churches where the priests give sermons against homosexual activity. There is a English-language TV station that regularly sermons against homosexual activity. I agree with you, though, in that it is up to parents to protect their children from this stuff.
Manchu wrote: Do you think it is abusive to teach kids that sex outside of marriage is sinful?
In order to answer this question fully, which I'd be forced to answer in the affirmative, we'd have to broaden the discussion to include the entire concept of the doctrine of 'sin', and whether that does or does not do real psychological harm to children. Perhaps its better not to open that can of worms, or perhaps a new thread could be started on it.
Manchu wrote: Do you think it is abusive to teach kids that sex outside of marriage is sinful?
In order to answer this question fully, which I'd be forced to answer in the affirmative, we'd have to broaden the discussion to include the entire concept of the doctrine of 'sin', and whether that does or does not do real psychological harm to children. Perhaps its better not to open that can of worms, or perhaps a new thread could be started on it.
Manchu wrote: Do you think it is abusive to teach kids that sex outside of marriage is sinful?
In order to answer this question fully, which I'd be forced to answer in the affirmative, we'd have to broaden the discussion to include the entire concept of the doctrine of 'sin', and whether that does or does not do real psychological harm to children
Why would we have to go through all of that to answer a question about premarital sex but you don't have to take any of that into account when making a statement about homosexuality?
Manchu wrote: Do you think it is abusive to teach kids that sex outside of marriage is sinful?
In order to answer this question fully, which I'd be forced to answer in the affirmative, we'd have to broaden the discussion to include the entire concept of the doctrine of 'sin', and whether that does or does not do real psychological harm to children. Perhaps its better not to open that can of worms, or perhaps a new thread could be started on it.
Ahhh, so teaching sin in general is abuse.
Okay, well I think I'm done here.
Fair enough. I come from a point of view that people can hold different opinions, even about serious issues, with eachother and still be friendly. So in that spirit, cheers!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: So, we are right back to you wanting people to change their religion to suit you.
I think it's more correct to say that when I observe the internal conflict within the Catholic Church over same-sex marriage, I sympathize with the side that is pro-same sex marriage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Why would we have to go through all of that to answer a question about premarital sex but you don't have to take any of that into account when making a statement about homosexuality?
We wouldn't. We could stop at the word 'sin'. But that wouldn't allow us to have the interesting conversation about whether or not its abusive to teach a child that their parents are doing something morally wrong, when there is no good eveidence that what the child's parents are doing is something that is actually morally wrong.
Fair enough. I come from a point of view that people can hold different opinions, even about serious issues, with eachother and still be friendly. So in that spirit, cheers!
I agree, I just think that's a fundamental philosophical difference where any discourse isn't going to really further anything. That's all.
I think it's more correct to say that when I observe the internal conflict within the Catholic Church over same-sex marriage, I sympathize with the side that is pro-same sex marriage.
[
See, I think there's an important distinction to be made here. I'm incredibly pro homosexual equal rights. Nothing the Catholic Church can or will do will change their rights under the law. I also don't think the Catholic Church should change one of our most holy of sacraments to suit the desires of other people especially since it does not infringe on their rights.
We wouldn't. We could stop at the word 'sin'. But that wouldn't allow us to have the interesting conversation about whether or not its abusive to teach a child that their parents are doing something morally wrong, when there is no good eveidence that what the child's parents are actually doing something morally wrong.
I guess I've never heard anyone try and quantify morality before. That's a new one.
jasper76 wrote: I think it's more correct to say that when I observe the internal conflict within the Catholic Church over same-sex marriage, I sympathize with the side that is pro-same sex marriage.
Sure -- when looking into someone else's religion, you want things to change according to your sympathies, your values, your motivations and NOT those of the people you are presumptuously speaking for.
As to sin -- it is almost like you assume "sin" makes you an outsider. For Catholics, sin is the default. The sacraments exist for sinners; they are expressions of grace healing a world that never quite lives up to perfect. They are not rewards for people who don't sin.
I do have a good understanding of the RCC teachings on 'sin', 'original sin', 'mortal sin', 'venial sin', and the system of Sacraments.
As to the gay marriage thing, your point is taken. If I ever came across as trying to speak up for pro-gay marriage Catholics, I fully recognize they can speak for themselves, and I apologize.
As to sin -- it is almost like you assume "sin" makes you an outsider. For Catholics, sin is the default. The sacraments exist for sinners; they are expressions of grace healing a world that never quite lives up to perfect. They are not rewards for people who don't sin.
Yup. I get the impression this portion is misunderstood.....
jasper76 wrote: I do have a good understanding of the RCC teachings on 'sin', 'original sin', 'mortal sin', 'venial sin', and the system of Sacraments.
If so, you have not given any indication of that understanding ITT.
Why is it that people seem to have this odd idea that their ideals need to be first and foremost in everyone elses minds? that their religion is the true one, that their party is the correct one. I mean for things like gay marriage why does anyone have a say in it other then the men and men or women and women who want to get married? I know I'm probably preeching to the choir, but I just want to get that off of my chest.
jasper76 wrote: I do have a good understanding of the RCC teachings on 'sin', 'original sin', 'mortal sin', 'venial sin', and the system of Sacraments.
If so, you have not given any indication of that understanding ITT.
I understand it. I think the Christian (not just Catholic, but Christian in general) concept of 'sin' is itself immoral for many reasons, which I was hoping would be irrelevant to the conversation because it is a more fundamental disagreement.
Well alrighty then. You haven't stated anything about the Christian (or Catholic) concept of sin that I am not already familiar with. Do you care to point out in what respect I do not understand Christian sin?
Manchu wrote: You want me to guess what you don't know about the Catholic concept of sin?
You are suggesting that I don't know much about it. I have made a claim to the contrary. But if there's something I don't know, I'd like to know what it is.
If you were just stating your opinion and moving on, or if you're not inclinded to let me know what you think I don't know about Catholic sin, fair enough.
No, I did not write 'my answers are the correct ones' on tests in school. I didn't realize I was in a test-type environment at present.
When it comes to Catholic teaching, I take the Catholic Church at its word. Since the Catecism of the Catholic Church is the clearest, most definitive compilation of core Catholic teachings, I use it as my source of figuring out what Catholic teachings actually are. I opened it up, read it, and there is nothing in there, besides some of the source references, with which I am unfamiliar.
It's quite simple, and I know this is a fundamental disagreement at core that you and I will not overcome. Sin is said to be an offense against God. There is no good evidence that a God exists. If we assume there is a God, there is no good evidence that a human being has ever been on the face of the planet that has commincated with that God, so all we have is hearsay from questionable source material, along with the testimony of believers.
And on this basis, children (and receptive adults) are taught that there is an omniscient, omnipotent overseer completety aware of and taking into account everything they do right or wrong, for which they will ultimately be accountable at the risk of eternal damnation. I beleive this has the potential to cause a state of psychological terror in a child, or an adult who believes it, because they are led to believe they are under constant surveillance, and if they do something wrong, they could suffer eternal damnation (probably the cruelest punishment imagined by humanity) for it.
If I have stated anything incorrect about Catholic teaching here, break it down for me. I am completely open to the idea that I may be incorrect about things.
jasper76 wrote: It's quite simple, and I know this is a fundamental disagreement at core that you and I will not overcome. Sin is said to be an offense against God. There is no good evidence that a God exists. If we assume there is a God, there is no good evidence that a human being has ever been on the face of the planet that has commincated with that God, so all we have is hearsay from questionable source material, along with the testimony of believers.
And there is no good evidence that says otherwise.
And on this basis, children (and receptive adults) are taught that there is an omniscient, omnipotent overseer completety aware of and taking into account everything they do right or wrong, for which they will ultimately be accountable at the risk of eternal damnation. I beleive this has the potential to cause a state of psychological terror in a child, or an adult who believes it, because they are led to believe they are under constant surveillance, and if they do something wrong, they could suffer eternal damnation (probably the cruelest punishment imagined by humanity) for it.
This misses the pretty important part about Jesus dying for the sins of mankind, the fact that all of humankind are sinners, and the whole forgiveness of sins part. But those are little things...
In some respects, yes, in other respects, no. I believe deities are canvasses on which humans or groups of humans project themselves. And since humans are not entirely immoral or moral, its no surprise that their concept of deities reflect that.
Does that make any sense? Perhaps I am not answering your question.
Ouze wrote: This thread has strongly reinforced my belief that threads with religious discussion are dangerous to your ability to post on DakkaDakka if you're not on the right team.
To revisit this, after sleeping on it and reading the subsequent pages, this thread has clearly revealed that I showed poor judgement when I posted this. While religious threads often get acrimonious pretty quickly (and in this Dakka is no special case of course) I think this thread's evolution has shown that the specific concern I expressed was untrue, and I apologize for the insinuation.
jasper76 wrote: It's quite simple, and I know this is a fundamental disagreement at core that you and I will not overcome. Sin is said to be an offense against God. There is no good evidence that a God exists. If we assume there is a God, there is no good evidence that a human being has ever been on the face of the planet that has commincated with that God, so all we have is hearsay from questionable source material, along with the testimony of believers.
And there is no good evidence that says otherwise.
I unrepentantly fall on the 'extraoridanty claims require extraoridnary evidence' side of the fence (no pun intended).
jasper76 wrote: Does that make any sense? Perhaps I am not answering your question.
In sum, it appears that you don't know much about Catholicism (frex, the Catechism is actually a tool designed for bishops not Intro to Catholicism for non-Catholics) and you think Catholicism should change to be more like what you, a non-Catholic, find personally acceptable.
Ouze wrote: I think this thread's evolution has shown that the specific concern I expressed was untrue, and I apologize for the insinuation.
Manchu wrote: So really you believe the Christian concept of God is immoral?
To trot out the "standard" atheists argument... yes. How many people give "thanks" to god for their food on Thanksgiving, but bitch and moan about the gakky parking spot they get at work the next day? or when they are late for work/school? How many times do they pray for a promotion, which would make them more prosperous, and yet there are literally millions of starving children in Africa?
How is one individuals prosperity morally right, and yet the destitution of children halfway around the world is, ignored or waved away as "they're sinners, and god is punishing them" ?? From the atheist perspective, having a deity who "sees" this level of inequality, and yet supposedly "loves" everyone can't help but scoff. You claim that God IS justice and truth, and everything is good, and yet, if he has so much power, why does he/she allow so much "evil" and "bad" things to happen?
Christians claim that their holidays are "holy" and yet, if you ask almost any one of them where that holiday really, truly comes from (and I mean the traditions, why it's on the day it is on, etc) they are completely ignorant.
I don't say all this to bash on Catholics, as even though I don't follow it, or any Christian religion, I do respect him and the things that he has done since taking the mantle of Pope. These are just the most common things that I see from atheists and those who are vehemently anti-Christian. The holidays though, I've come across in my time studying the Norse peoples and other Pagan peoples histories and traditions, which I personally find amusing when people like my grandparents say junk like "Christ is the reason for Christmas" which is actually quite false.
jasper76 wrote: So the Catechism of the Catholic Church cannot be understood by non-bishops?
The text was prepared for use by people with doctoral degrees in theology and/or canon law. I'm sure there are people who are not bishops who can properly use the Catechism, just as there are people who are not university professors who can properly use advanced texts on theoretical physics.
jasper76 wrote: What would you consider to be a better source of info for non-Catholics on the subject of modern Catholic teachings?
Well, it depends on what you want to do. If you want to reaffirm your prexisting disagreement with the notion of Catholicism, then anything will do. If you actually want to learn about the Church, however, your best bet is to consult a wide array of sources including geographical diversity. For example, my experiences as an American Catholic are not the same as Da Boss's experiences as an Irish Catholic.
jasper76 wrote: So the Catechism of the Catholic Church cannot be understood by non-bishops?
The text was prepared for use by people with doctoral degrees in theology and/or canon law. I'm sure there are people who are not bishops who can properly use the Catechism, just as there are people who are not university professors who can properly use advanced texts on theoretical physics.
jasper76 wrote: What would you consider to be a better source of info for non-Catholics on the subject of modern Catholic teachings?
Well, it depends on what you want to do. If you want to reaffirm your prexisting disagreement with the notion of Catholicism, then anything will do. If you actually want to learn about the Church, however, your best bet is to consult a wide array of sources including geographical diversity. For example, my experience as an American Catholic are not the same as Da Boss's experiences as an Irish Catholic.
Nothing about the CCC seems advanced or doctorate-level to me, despite its intention. Pretty straight forward and easy to understand. I actually commend the author and translator on their clarity.
If I wanted to find out what the 'official Church position' is on this issue or that isseu, where would the best place to go to find out? I had assumed it is the CCC, but if there is something better out there, I'm certainly interested.
jasper76 wrote: Nothing about the CCC seems advanced or doctorate-level to me, despite its intention.
I would posit this is because you already do not respect Catholicism as a valid intellectual tradition and you pretty clearly are not aware of your own biases and how much you take for granted about the subject you are judging immoral.
The Catholic Church is not a corporation that hands down policy from the HR department. Every bishop is a successor to the apostles and is responsible for teaching the faith. But the faith is not just a set of rules or principles. It is a living world view. Magisterium, the authority to teach the faith, is only one part of how Catholicism is preserved and passed on; the faith is not just taught (much less "legislated") but is also received and lived.
The best you're going to get as far as some "official" stance is an understanding that has persisted from era to era over the millenia, promulgated and reiterated by councils and popes in a succession of formal documents of various character. The Catechism tries to be a kind of bibliography for that, it is a tool for bishops to use as they consider how best to teach the faith in their own place and time.
OK, so I take it there is not a better book at laying out modern Catholic teachings to a non-Catholic than the CCC?
That's all I'm after here. You have suggested that the CCC is not intended for me, and brought its reliability for non-Catholics, non-bishops, and non-theologians into question, so I just want to know if there's a more authoritative book I can buy to add to my library.
To trot out the "standard" atheists argument... yes. How many people give "thanks" to god for their food on Thanksgiving, but bitch and moan about the gakky parking spot they get at work the next day? or when they are late for work/school? How many times do they pray for a promotion, which would make them more prosperous, and yet there are literally millions of starving children in Africa?
How is one individuals prosperity morally right, and yet the destitution of children halfway around the world is, ignored or waved away as "they're sinners, and god is punishing them" ?? From the atheist perspective, having a deity who "sees" this level of inequality, and yet supposedly "loves" everyone can't help but scoff. You claim that God IS justice and truth, and everything is good, and yet, if he has so much power, why does he/she allow so much "evil" and "bad" things to happen?
~~~Semi Antagonistic, but meant in a playful way, reply incoming:~~~
Do you mean all those starting people in Africa that Catholics, more than anyone else, are trying to help through mission work and charity
To trot out the "standard" atheists argument... yes. How many people give "thanks" to god for their food on Thanksgiving, but bitch and moan about the gakky parking spot they get at work the next day? or when they are late for work/school? How many times do they pray for a promotion, which would make them more prosperous, and yet there are literally millions of starving children in Africa?
How is one individuals prosperity morally right, and yet the destitution of children halfway around the world is, ignored or waved away as "they're sinners, and god is punishing them" ?? From the atheist perspective, having a deity who "sees" this level of inequality, and yet supposedly "loves" everyone can't help but scoff. You claim that God IS justice and truth, and everything is good, and yet, if he has so much power, why does he/she allow so much "evil" and "bad" things to happen?
~~~Semi Antagonistic, but meant in a playful way, reply incoming:~~~
Do you mean all those starting people in Africa that Catholics, more than anyone else, are trying to help through mission work and charity
I thought they* were too busy lobbying for anti-homosexual legislation now it's starting to fail in the homeland?
Manchu wrote: The question is not of reliability but of intended audience.
As I already explained, there is no authoritative "rule book" of Catholicism.
If you want to understand something about Catholicism, try asking a few Catholics about that thing.
Actually, when reading the front material to the CCC, I find it suits my needs, such as they are, jusy fine.
VIII. The Aim and Intended Readership of the Catechism
11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries".15
12 This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful.
Odd that this book would only be useful to 'Christian faithful'. There is nothing about being non-Christian that forces me to forget the English language, and I don't care much that I wasn't in mind when this book was put together.
I have considered what you have stated about the CCC, but I don't agree, and I think its a very useful book at determining what the Catholic Church's position on various issues is. I would trust what this book says more than what a Catholic person says, because it is well known that Catholics do not agree with the Churches teachings on many issues (birth control comes to mind immediately). If a better book ever comes out aimed at 'non-Christians', I'll happily take a look. But I don't think there's anything magical in the CCC that would prevent a non-faithful reader from understanding what it says.
jasper76 wrote: Odd that this book would only be useful to 'Christian faithful'.
What is odd about that? Do you know what the word catechesis means? Failing that, did you bother to read (for comprehension) the statement you posted:
This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful.
Which is to say, this book is to support bishops as they teach the faith to the faithful.
I mean, I explained this to you above, before you even bothered to take a look at what the catechism itself says. But you have already decided you don't actually care what Catholics think about Catholicism and now you've even gone so far as to explicitly affirm that. This is a practical example of invincible ignorance.
jasper76 wrote: But I don't think there's anything magical in the CCC that would prevent a non-faithful reader from understanding what it says.
Agreed. There is nothing at all magical about assuming you can understand a complex document with no background in the material and outside of its intended context. That is the most mundane kind of arrogance.
Just so you know, because I can tell you don't know, I was born and raised Catholic up to Confirmation, and my family remains largely Catholic.
I don't mention this to claim expertise on the subject, but I do regularly interact and have these types of conversations with Catholics. And I had CCD or whatever all that time. I am not coming from a 'zero background' position
I reject the idea that (a) the CCC is a complex dodocument, because it's actually not very complex, and (b) that I don't have knowledge or background sufficient to make sense of it.
Anyway, enough about the CCC. Have the last word!
I still don't think the churches recent deliberations have changed much if anything in real terms for the status of homosexuals in the Catholic Church. It appears they are catching up to what my priest taught us in CCD in1982
jasper76 wrote: reject the idea that (a) the CCC is a complex dodocument, because it's actually not very complex
First - this is merely an opinion, not an argument. Second, it is evidence against your second assertion.
jasper76 wrote: and (b) that I don't have knowledge or background sufficient to make sense of it
A lot of what you posted, including your take on the catechism and your summary of sin and hell, argue directly against the notion that you have sufficient knowledge or background.
jasper76 wrote: I do regularly interact and have these types of conversations with Catholics
You mean, where you tell Catholics what they believe/should believe instead because you read (or will read or kinda skimmed once because of an argument on the internet) a book that wasn't intended to be used as a rule book of Catholicism but you think that it should be because ... reasons? That kind of conversation? Because that is the conversation we are having here.
jasper76 wrote: It appears they are catching up to what my priest taught us in CCD in 1982
Are you saying you weren't taught the faith in CCD? or that what you learned in CCD was the real faith and what came out of Rome in the 80s was inauthentic?
Or perhaps we are coming to a point I made a while back about how learning about Catholicism requires consulting diverse source including across various areas.
Right, but you wont tell me exactly what assertions I've made that are iincorrect, except that the Catethism was intended for bishops...in other words, pure trivia.
I don't have any reason to believe you know more about Catholic teaching than I do, beyond your blanket assertions that it is so.
jasper76 wrote: you wont tell me exactly what assertions I've made that are iincorrect, except that the Catethism was intended for bishops...in other words, pure trivia
The intended use of the catechism is not "pure trivia" especially when you claim it should be used in an unintended way. And you're not even using it. You just posted a link to it. Then you said a bunch of stuff about God damning people to hell but (as cincy pointed out) completely without reference the idea of God forgiving sinners even to the point of becoming man and being tortured and murdered.
This is called the goal post game. It's where you keep moving the goal posts. I don't really want to play.
So, I wasn't incorrect, you just don't like the fact that I mentioned hell and judgement without reference to salvation?
Fair enough. It's also there, I nebet intended to pretend it was not. We could have come to this quite awhile ago if instead of just saying, "you obviously don't know what you're talking about" and instead answering me directly a while back.
jasper76 wrote: I don't have any reason to believe you know more about Catholic teaching than I do, beyond your blanket assertions that it is so.
You've made one clear assertion ITT about how you think the catechism should be used. I told you that was incorrect and explained why. You went to the catechism and found the same explanation there as I already gave you.
You then said that you would use it the wrong way anyhow and that you think the book is more reliable than some Catholic telling you things but unfortunately here is an instance where what it says in the book and what the Catholic guy told you are the same thing. So the truth is that you don't care what I say, you don't care what the book says, you only care about what you thought before this conversation happened.
jasper76 wrote: So, I wasn't incorrect, you just don't like the fact that I mentioned hell and judgement without reference to salvation?
That's not the only thing I don't like (how could you think so, read any of my posts) but it is fair to that comment is a good example of your disregard of context in favor of your pre-committed position.
I understand your opinion that the Catecism should not be used as a reference for non-Christians. I just don't agree with it.
There is no better document available as a reference for Catholic teachings, end of story.
As I said, it I'd more reliable than Catholics in general, because Catholics in general reject many of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Damn dude....you asked me why I thought 'sin' was immoral, and I answered. I didn't leave out Jesus to be dishonest, I didn't mention him because he is not relevant to why I personally think 'sin' is an immoral concept.
jasper76 wrote: I understand your opinion that the Catecism should not be used as a reference for non-Christians.
First, that is not my opinion. It can be used as a reference by non-Christians. In that context, it can be used to reference the catechetical framework bishops may use when teaching the faith.
The catechism is NOT a rule book for Catholics. By the way, that is also not an opinion; it is a fact as disclosed by the document itself in words you have already quoted ITT.
jasper76 wrote: Damn dude....you asked me why I thought 'sin' was immoral, and I answered. I didn't leave out Jesus to be dishonest, I didn't mention him because he is not relevant to why I personally think 'sin' is an immoral concept.
You can't really leave out Jesus when you talk about the Christian concept of sin. I mean, you can -- and you did -- but it just amounts to showing your own bias/ignorance.
Well that's good. I'm not interested in a rulebook, I'm interested in a reference of Catholic teachings.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ok, except my opinion on why sin is an immoral concept really have nothing to do with Jesus at all. You asked for my opinion, remember?
jasper76 wrote: I'm not interested in a rulebook, I'm interested in a reference of Catholic teachings.
Great. When you reference those teachings, please keep in mind the bibliographical notes and then you can go learn about the relevant documents and the time periods they are from and what was going on in the world back then and so on. You still won't be using the catechism for its intended purpose but that's the closest you're going to get -- using it as a starting point for further research.
jasper76 wrote: Ok, except my opinion on why sin is an immoral concept really have nothing to do with Jesus at all. You asked for my opinion, remember?
Here's what I asked:
Manchu wrote: what specifically do you think is immoral about the Catholic understanding of sin and why?
The reason I asked is because you wanted me to tell you (by guessing) what you had wrong about Catholicism. You answered a question about the Catholic understanding of sin without reference to Jesus. Now you say that the answer has nothing to do with Jesus at all.
So is it clear to you yet that your opinion has nothing to with Catholicism at all?
Well, if you had ulterior motives for the question, perhaps it would have been better just to ask me what you really wanted to know.
In any case, I do find the doctrine of 'sin' to be immoral, both with and without regard to salvation. That is the only reason I did not mention Jesus...because he is irrelevant to why I think 'sin' is immoral. That may not be the question you wanted an answer for, but that is the question you asked.
jasper76 wrote: Well, if you had ulterior motives for the question, perhaps it would have been better just to ask me what you really wanted to know.
Again -- you asked me to tell you what you didn't know about Catholicsm. How was I supposed to do that considering you had not explained anything about Catholicism at that time? Now you have made some statements about sin and some statements about the catechism. It's all been incorrect so you are 0 for 2.
jasper76 wrote: That is the only reason I did not mention Jesus...because he is irrelevant to why I think 'sin' is immoral. That may not be the question you wanted an answer for, but that is the question you asked.
No it's not. I asked you what you thought was immoral about the Catholic understanding of sin and at the very center of that understanding is Jesus and the topic of salvation.
As to your question, no. My opinion is still relevant to Catholicism (and other Christian sects as well). I believe that introducing the very concept of eternal torture to children, and even to impressionable adults, is immoral. The reasons should be obvious. It is immoral if Jesus died for our 'sins'. It would be immoral if salavation did not even enter into the mythology.
jasper76 wrote: I believe that introducing the very concept of eternal torture to children, and even to impressionable adults, is immoral. The reasons should be obvious.
The reasons are not obvious. But that is the trouble with you, you are always assuming everything you believe is obvious.
I can agree that willfully upsetting children for its own sake is immoral. I mean, that's just torture. But teaching about hell is not that. Whatever the secular mythological image of hell might entail, the theological point of hell (taken strictly apart from salvation) is to communicate the idea that immoral actions can have permanent consequences.
But really hell is most important theologically because it is the answer to what we are saved from. Again, you can dress it up in pitchforks and lakes of lava but the theological point of hell is nothing to do with all that. Rather, hell is death -- the nonexistence of the person, infinite distance from God, the fear that suffering in life is meaningless, the anguish that there is no justice in the world. Sin and hell cannot really be understood outside of the context of salvation.
OK, I will spell it out. The threat of eternal torture is used in the indoctrination process as a method of psychological control, as is the concept of a constant overseer. A child is less likely to disbelieve something, even something they can't even see, if there is a horrible threat held over their head if they do not believe. Threats don't get more horrible than eternal
I don't believe parents who teach their kids about sin and hell are intentionally abusive, but I do believe it is abusive behavior.
I am not saying they are intentionally used that way.
I am saying the very concepts themselves are inherently pyschologically manipulative, and this is why I believe they are immoral. It's nothing to do with the people who believe them. It's the concepts themselves.
jasper76 wrote: I am saying the very concepts themselves are inherently pyschologically manipulative, and this is why I believe they are immoral.
They really are not. I mean -- your concept of God as a Peeping Tom keeping a record of everything you do to justify torturing you later -- yeah that is messed up. Fortunately, that has nothing to do with Catholicism.
It is not my concept. Hell as eternal punishment for 'sin' (offense to God). God as an omniscient overseer. These are mainstream Christian and Catholic concepts. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
I don't even think any of it's real for Pete's sake!
I'm very sorry if sin and hell were taught to you without the context of salvation and Jesus dying for the sins of the world and were instead used as a means to get you to behave. That sounds terrible. It's a shameful bastardization of scripture, too.
I wasn't raised that way. My Catholic experience occurred in the left wing of the US church. Hippies and so forth....it was all peace and love. Think Jesus Christ Superstar. I didn't really know what the Catholic Church taught on issues like hell (even abortion) until I was about 14 iirc, and I was already a non-believer well before that.
jasper76 wrote: It is not my concept. Hell as eternal punishment for 'sin' (offense to God). God as an omniscient overseer. These are mainstream Christian and Catholic concepts.
The omniscience of God is not the same as God recording everything you do to justify torturing you. The notions of hell and sin are not the same as psychologically conditioning people to obey religious authority. I can't see how you have the gall to talk about being disingenuous while making these kinds of false equivalencies.
jasper76 wrote: I wasn't raised that way. My Catholic experience occurred in the left wing of the US church. Hippies and so forth....it was all peace and love. Think Jesus Christ Superstar. I didn't really know what the Catholic Church taught on issues like hell (even abortion) until I was about 14 iirc, and I was already a non-believer well before that.
That..ehhh....that really doesnt sound like you were raised catholic at all then......
Cincy -- keep in mind that the prospective spouses being of the same sex is more than a mere impediment.
Well, you're right there.
I think what I'm trying to say that I do believe there is a path to acceptance by the Catholic church if they want it to be. Not an easy one, mind you, but I think you could argue it canonically, especially if science was to able to prove homosexuality was an evolutionary measure for population control.
Well, that will never happen because it isn't the way evolution works; evolution by natural selection has no "end game" and cannot make decisions.
But its nothing I, sadly, haven't become accustomed to, particularly from aggressive areas of atheism (and yes, I know this doesn't account for all atheists).
I know everyone likes to harp on the atheists, but I think it's fair to say the overwhelming majority of ant-Catholicism has come from other Christians.
As I said, I believe the concepts of he'll and omniscience are inherantly psychologically manipulative, and the institutions that espouse to them (obviously not just christianity) have survivded in no small part because they are so potently manipulative that they help the larger institution survive.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I know everyone likes to harp on the atheists, but I think it's fair to say the overwhelming majority of ant-Catholicism has come from other Christians.
100% correct. But to be fair, Protestants had quite a head start on the current generation of atheists.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I know everyone likes to harp on the atheists, but I think it's fair to say the overwhelming majority of ant-Catholicism has come from other Christians.
100% correct. But to be fair, Protestants had quite a head start on the current generation of atheists.
No doubt, and that's not to say that New Atheism especially isn't aggressive toward Catholicism, because it is.
But I'm of the opinion that criticism from atheists is less offensive than a lot of what is levied against the Church from other Christian denominations... But that is just me, so take it with a huge grain of salt.
I'd like to think things like "I happen to stridently disagree with your worldview about the Cosmos" is alot better than "Papists will burn in hell for all time for accepting a false messiah" and the like.
jasper76 wrote: I'd like to think things like "I happen to stridently disagree with your worldview about the Cosmos"
Actually what you gave said again and again ITT is we psychologically torture children to brainwash them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: But I'm of the opinion that criticism from atheists is less offensive than a lot of what is levied against the Church from other Christian denominations... But that is just me, so take it with a huge grain of salt.
jasper76 wrote: I wasn't raised that way. My Catholic experience occurred in the left wing of the US church. Hippies and so forth....it was all peace and love. Think Jesus Christ Superstar. I didn't really know what the Catholic Church taught on issues like hell (even abortion) until I was about 14 iirc, and I was already a non-believer well before that.
That..ehhh....that really doesnt sound like you were raised catholic at all then......
Haha....I missed this. I think you're right!
But it's a legit Parish (still). St John something or other in Columbia, MD. I bet things have changed. It was people who grew up in the 60s and 70s raising kids in the 80s amongst my age group. Everybody loved JPII and the Second Vatican Council, and Jesus Christ Superstar was always a big hit at the local theater.
~~~Semi Antagonistic, but meant in a playful way, reply incoming:~~~
Do you mean all those starting people in Africa that Catholics, more than anyone else, are trying to help through mission work and charity
Lol, again... not my argument... but the argument I hear most from the "militant atheist" is that God is immoral for even "allowing" that level of famine in the first place.
To put it another way: Why should there be a need for missionaries/volunteers to even go to Africa/elsewhere in the first place? I thought God is good and takes care of his people?
To put it another way: Why should there be a need for missionaries/volunteers to even go to Africa/elsewhere in the first place? I thought God is good and takes care of his people?
Erm... that's really an odd thought process.
God doesn't take care of your needs from cradle to grave...
We all have free will and it's up to us to live up to that.
To put it another way: Why should there be a need for missionaries/volunteers to even go to Africa/elsewhere in the first place? I thought God is good and takes care of his people?
Erm... that's really an odd thought process.
God doesn't take care of your needs from cradle to grave...
We all have free will and it's up to us to live up to that.
As I said, when dealing with a few of my more "militant" atheist friends, it is this sort of sentiment that comes out.... Generally, sort of a "where is the justice in how much stuff I have, and yet there are others who follow the same deity that have nothing" or the whole "if God really does love all those starving people in Africa, why doesn't he make it rain, or provide more food for them??"
It's probably not a good idea to propose arguments on behalf of other people, who might (in this case justly) object to them as being idiotic. Let the atheists post their own arguments.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: As I said, when dealing with a few of my more "militant" atheist friends, it is this sort of sentiment that comes out.... Generally, sort of a "where is the justice in how much stuff I have, and yet there are others who follow the same deity that have nothing" or the whole "if God really does love all those starving people in Africa, why doesn't he make it rain, or provide more food for them??"
You don't need to be a "militant" atheist to point this out. In fact, it's an argument that has been around about as long as religion has, and it's a very good one. It doesn't necessarily prove that god doesn't exist, but it does quite nicely prove that any god that does exist is a sadistic monster.
It proves nothing of the sort. It is a childish argument that begs the question by insisting that God be exactly what atheists correctly note is a magical fairy tale monster. Christians with any amount of brain power would of course agree and agree that belief in such a God is laughable and repulsive. But then again, this notion of God is not Christian. So the argument is also a straw man.
The 'problem of evil' (theodicy) dates back to the dawn of civilization, and is in no way an atheistic issue. It posits a God to being with, which atheists necessarily reject. It is a deep problem for any religion that posits a deity who is said to be simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibanevolent. Theologians of such religions, ihncluding Catholic theologians of great esteem, have wrestled with this issue from Mesopotamia up to the present day.
I've never seen a satisfactory answer to the problem, but as an atheist, for me it is a complete non-issue. Like asking why the Flying Spaghetti Monster allows insects to see in infrared.
Probably. You mentioned that "atheists refuse to believe in the only God they are able to imagine" as though theodicy were some kind of atheist cornerstone or something. Perhaps I misunderstood your point.
In any case, I do find intra-religious discussions interesting. I can suspend my disbelief enough to follow them. If anyone ever came up with a good answer, it would interest me.
You did. My point is, atheists assume God must be like X in order to be God. They reject that such a God can exist and they further argue that believing in such a God is foolish at best and evil at worst.
jasper76 wrote: I can suspend my disbelief enough to follow them.
I very seriously doubt that. EDIT: Well, I should clarify, I don't believe it is a question of suspending any disbelief but rather a question suspending things that you do believe.
You did. My point is, atheists assume God must be like X in order to be God. They reject that such a God can exist and they further argue that believing in such a God is foolish at best and evil at worst.
jasper76 wrote: I can suspend my disbelief enough to follow them.
I very seriously doubt that.
I'm afraid you're reading far too much into the word 'atheist'. They don't reject that "such a God can exist", they reject the probability that any god exists. Everything after that is just personal.
Believe it or not, I really can imagine a universe with a God, just like religious people can, because I have an imagination.
Indeed jasper - god is easy to imagine, after all, people have been coming up with gods since the dawn of time.
I don't make any specific claims as to what a god is or has to be - that is the job of religion. And once you make specific claims, it becomes a matter of investigation, observation and experimentation to determine if the claims made are reasonable.
I, to any realistic degree of certainty, do not believe god(s) exist, as described by any religion I have yet encountered (other than fictional gods who exist within their realm of fiction of course - such as the lords of law, etc...). If evidence came to light showing a reasonable possibility that a claim made by a religious group about their god(s) was bourne out by the scientific method then I would certainly keep an open mind as more investigation was done to confirm or deny the initial findings.
I, to any realistic degree of certainty, do not believe god(s) exist, as described by any religion I have yet encountered (other than fictional gods who exist within their realm of fiction of course - such as the lords of law, etc...). If evidence came to light showing a reasonable possibility that a claim made by a religious group about their god(s) was bourne out by the scientific method then I would certainly keep an open mind as more investigation was done to confirm or deny the initial findings.
I guess its serendipitous for everyone that none of us are asking you to.
Unexpectedly updating the English-language translation of a landmark document released by the group Monday, the Vatican on Thursday changed a section of the document from "welcoming homosexual persons" to "providing for homosexual persons."
But the Italian version of the document from the meeting, known as a synod, remains the same and does not reflect the changes in the English translation.
Pressed about who had asked for the change and why the English version no longer matches the Italian, Lombardi said the Vatican press office released the revision at the request of the Vatican's office for the Synod of Bishops and would not provide further details.
The only passages that seem to be changed in Thursday's revision of the English language translation of Monday's document come in the 50th paragraph of the document, which deals with the church's attitude and tone toward homosexuals.
Full text:
Spoiler:
Questions over the tone presented by the global meeting of Catholic bishops toward gay people dominated conversations surrounding the event Thursday, after the Vatican seemingly tried to water down its message of openness and welcoming to homosexuals. Unexpectedly updating the English-language translation of a landmark document released by the group Monday, the Vatican on Thursday changed a section of the document from "welcoming homosexual persons" to "providing for homosexual persons."
But the Italian version of the document from the meeting, known as a synod, remains the same and does not reflect the changes in the English translation.
Responding to questions from reporters about the change at a briefing Thursday, Vatican spokesman Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi emphasized that the official language of the synod is Italian and "we have said always that the text to refer to is the Italian."
Pressed about who had asked for the change and why the English version no longer matches the Italian, Lombardi said the Vatican press office released the revision at the request of the Vatican's office for the Synod of Bishops and would not provide further details.
Monday's document, which calls for the church to listen more and to apply mercy much more widely, was released as a summary of the synod's discussions so far and is known officially as a relatio post disceptationem.
The document was created after the some 190 prelates attending the Oct. 5-19 synod met last week in general assemblies. The prelates then met in small groups, divided by language, this week to come up with revisions to the document. Those revisions were submitted Thursday morning and are to be used in drafting a final document for the synod for submission to Pope Francis by Sunday.
The only passages that seem to be changed in Thursday's revision of the English language translation of Monday's document come in the 50th paragraph of the document, which deals with the church's attitude and tone toward homosexuals.
While the subheading on the Italian version of those paragraphs remains "Accogliere le persone omosessuali" -- literally, "to welcome homosexual persons" -- the English version now reads, "Providing for homosexual persons."
Likewise, one of the sentences in the paragraphs in that section of the new English version has been changed to remove several words while the Italian version has not.
The Italian version asks the question: "Siamo in grado di accogliere queste persone, garantendo loro uno spazio di fraternità nelle nostre comunità?" -- roughly: "Are we capable of welcoming these persons, guaranteeing them a space of fraternity in our community?"
The new English version reads, with the ellipses in the original: "Are we capable of providing for these people, guaranteeing [...] them [...] a place of fellowship in our communities?"
While Lombardi would not provide further details regarding the changes to the synod document, they seem to reflect a sense of fear among prelates about what appears to be a decidedly new tone toward gay people from the synod.
Although Monday's document re-emphasizes church teaching against same-sex marriage, it also asks blunt questions about how the wider church treats gay people and if it is offering space for them in the community.
Asked about that change during the Vatican press briefing Thursday -- specifically if it meant the church no longer holds that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered" -- Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schönborn said, "The basic principle is that we first look at the person and not the sexual orientation."
"Every human person has a dignity beyond any other question," said Schönborn, who is representing the Austrian bishops at the synod. "This does not mean and certainly will not mean that the church can say the respect for every human person means the respect for every human behavior."
He said he thinks "the church will ... always maintain that the fundamental gift of God's creation is difference and relation between man and woman," the cardinal also said he knows a same-sex couple in Austria that "are marvelous human persons."
One of the partners in the couple, he said, became severely ill, and the other partner cared for them. The care, Schönborn said, "was saintly. Full stop."
Some prelates have publicly criticized Monday's working document, with South African Cardinal Wilfrid Napier saying on Tuesday that its message of openness had put the prelates in "a position that is virtually irredeemable."
But Lombardi on Thursday also a made a short statement on behalf of Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who had been quoted in the Italian daily La Repubblica as saying that Monday's working document from the synod was "undignified" and "shameful."
Müller said that report "is not true" and that he did not make those remarks, Lombardi said.
The Vatican spokesman also announced Thursday that new members had been appointed to the group drafting a final version of Monday's synod document. The synod, Lombardi said, has added two members to that group: Napier and Australian Archbishop Denis Hart.
Schönborn spoke Thursday at the briefing alongside Italian professors and married couple Francesco Miano and Pina De Simone. While there are 13 couples attending the synod in different roles, Miano and De Simone are the only couple who are full participants and able to vote on the documents along with the prelates.
Touching on a tone Schönborn mentioned, Miano said one key value of the October synod is in its desire to accompany married people.
"The strength of the synod is the strength of accompanying," he said.
Schönborn said the strength of the teachings of the church is not from them being imposed on people but in them being proposed as a "walk together, or a way of life."
"We cannot forget the doctrine," the cardinal said. "But the other part ... is also the need to accompany [people] in the many situations that which the pope speaks of a field hospital."
"The pope said to accompany people where they live," he continued later. "There's an ideal we want to reach, but we do it with time, with patience."
Approximately 190 prelates are at the synod and are able to vote in the discussions. Some 60 others, mainly non-prelates, have been selected in other roles and are able to contribute to discussions but not to vote.
The Vatican made summaries of the suggested revisions to Monday's document made by the synod's small groups public Thursday, written in the group's various languages.
Lombardi stressed at the briefing that the summaries from the small groups are "working documents" and that you "can't interpret them as definitive judgments of the synod, but inside the path of the synod that continues."
On the subject of homosexuality, one of the English language groups suggests that the church "must continue to promote the revealed nature of marriage as always between one man and one woman united in life-long, life-giving, and faithful communion."
The synod's final document is expected to be released to the public and to be used as the blueprint of sorts for the next synod, to be held in 2015.
I, to any realistic degree of certainty, do not believe god(s) exist, as described by any religion I have yet encountered (other than fictional gods who exist within their realm of fiction of course - such as the lords of law, etc...). If evidence came to light showing a reasonable possibility that a claim made by a religious group about their god(s) was bourne out by the scientific method then I would certainly keep an open mind as more investigation was done to confirm or deny the initial findings.
I guess its serendipitous for everyone that none of us are asking you to.
Are asking me to what?
And again, my belief or lack of it has absolutely zero impact on the running of the rcc (or any other group, other than the general concern they may have for the growing number of people who are not following their teachings and filling their bank accounts and giving them the leverage to control secular legislation).
Nor does my belief or lack of it impact on my ability to look at evidence dispassionately or accept new data.
A question that comes to my mind is if homosexuals and those on their side are offended by the Catholic Churches stand and beliefs on homosexuality, why not just leave it and call it a day?
I am not a subscriber to Catholic beliefs, but if someone the Catholic church holds as the supreme authority and God's spokesman on earth pronounces homosexuality as a sin, shouldn't those who claim to be good Catholics believe then they are arguing against God?
It came out as a mish mash, apologies, had a late night with work, but it is something I am trying to understand here, and perhaps I have everything wrong from the get go.
Relapse wrote: A question that comes to my mind is if homosexuals and those on their side are offended by the Catholic Churches stand and beliefs on homosexuality, why not just leave it and call it a day?
That is actually a great question because it gets to the heart of a lot of problematic assumptions about the Church.
People tend to assume the Catholic Church is like an international corporation or political party. In Rome, you have HQ where the CEO sends down all the order. And then there are local branches, which receive the orders. People also assume religious faith is like an opinion. The popular conception of Catholicism is the pope dictates all these opinions and sends them down the line for us to believe. All of this is completely false.
Faith is not an opinion. It is a living point of view. It doesn't have an on/off switch.
Gay Catholics do not believe Catholic Christianity is wrong or false. Many of them, however, do believe that the current way most bishops talk about homosexuality is out of touch with both the current realities of what it is like to be a gay person and with the authentic Christian virtues of solidarity and compassion.
Relapse wrote: A question that comes to my mind is if homosexuals and those on their side are offended by the Catholic Churches stand and beliefs on homosexuality, why not just leave it and call it a day?
I am not a subscriber to Catholic beliefs, but if someone the Catholic church holds as the supreme authority and God's spokesman on earth pronounces homosexuality as a sin, shouldn't those who claim to be good Catholics believe then they are arguing against God?
It came out as a mish mash, apologies, had a late night with work, but it is something I am trying to understand here, and perhaps I have everything wrong from the get go.
I personally cannot comment on the reasons that a religious person would go against the teaching of their head priest... but perhaps they don't view their faith in the same way, or they disagree on the interpretations being used, or any one of a hundred other reasons.
You can still be a believer in x while thinking that aspect y of x is not right.
As for those on the outside... if you see an act you think is wrong, why should you not get involved? A company expressimg the same views and actimg in the same ways as the rcc would not get very far.
Relapse wrote: A question that comes to my mind is if homosexuals and those on their side are offended by the Catholic Churches stand and beliefs on homosexuality, why not just leave it and call it a day?
I am not a subscriber to Catholic beliefs, but if someone the Catholic church holds as the supreme authority and God's spokesman on earth pronounces homosexuality as a sin, shouldn't those who claim to be good Catholics believe then they are arguing against God?
It came out as a mish mash, apologies, had a late night with work, but it is something I am trying to understand here, and perhaps I have everything wrong from the get go.
I personally cannot comment on the reasons that a religious person would go against the teaching of their head priest... but perhaps they don't view their faith in the same way, or they disagree on the interpretations being used, or any one of a hundred other reasons.
You can still be a believer in x while thinking that aspect y of x is not right.
As for those on the outside... if you see an act you think is wrong, why should you not get involved? A company expressimg the same views and actimg in the same ways as the rcc would not get very far.
As far as it's belief goes inside an institution I would say, let them have it without harrasment and trying to interfere with the religion. When it comes out in the general public or political forums, then I would fully expect opposition. It's every individual's right to stand for their beliefs, but they should be prepared for what the consequences of that stand are.
That being said, I think it wrong for members to try to pressure their ultimate authority. Either you have faith, or you don't. People should be reflective of their reasons for being part of a religion.i
SilverMK2 wrote: So a religious group that believes in mutilating the children of its members is ok?
I wasn't really thinking along the lines of physical harm to members, and I assume you are not referring to circumsisiom.
Oh no, he is.
We went around this loop already once in this thread.
As the person who wrote it, oh no, he's not. I was actually thinking of tribes scarring themselves, stretching body parts with rocks etc. Circumsision was not on my mind when I wrote the post. It is not really culturally a thing in the UK
Relapse wrote: Is this the reason for some of the disagreements I read of?
Yes it is an extraordinarily complicated concept but fun to learn about and you will basically learn most of Western European history at the same time.
Relapse wrote: Is this the reason for some of the disagreements I read of?
Yes it is an extraordinarily complicated concept but fun to learn about and you will basically learn most of Western European history at the same time.
It sounds like a reading list is in order then. Any suggestions?
That's pretty poor justification for cutting off a part of the genitalia of a child without their permission. Last I checked most babies weren't at a particularly high risk for penile cancer or prostate cancer. And is not getting a treatable, non-permanent urinary tract infection really worth permanently cutting off part of the penis? You know what else helps prevent STDs even better than not being circumcised? Wearing condoms.
Most of those justifications are weak as feth. If you want to be circumcised or like being circumcised, that's cool, but don't act like any of those things are really a good justification for performing an unnecessary surgery on a baby.
It's really kind of freaky how circumcision has become such a thing in the US. It isn't that way in Europe at all, and they don't seem to have any problems.
While it is somewhat off topic, I deal with patients who are incapable of giving consent on a daily basis either through physical or mental disability or age or emotional state, etc. There are very clear guidelines in place for acting on a person's behalf and respecting a person's decision (or an appointed maker of decisions, etc) if it is deemed that the decision was made in an appropriate way, even if you do not agree with it.
As Hordini mentions, for me, given the relatively little reading I have done into the matter, the rather minor risks associated with remaining "as god built you" do not justify, in most cases, speculative surgery. I've worked in plastic surgery where such surgery is performed for medical reasons and, in the cases I saw, I would have no hesitation in referring them for surgery because they had a medical issue that would be treated quite handily by surgery.
This is a good move forward towards changing the stance of the rCC towards iclusivity for certain groups, no doubt. That does not change that the current changes in wording that are being looked at will, as far as it appears, have very little practical impact on the treatment of certain groups by the rCC.
) in the 
