Switch Theme:

Vatican proposes shift on Catholic view of homosexuality  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 whembly wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

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??"
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

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.

   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 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.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 16:41:31


   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

No true god?

   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

More like, atheists refuse to believe in the only God they are able to imagine. I'm glad they reject that idea of God; so do I.

   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




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.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 16:58:01


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 jasper76 wrote:
I've never seen a satisfactory answer to the problem, but as an atheist, for me it is a complete non-issue.
Isn't it entirely redundant -- and indeed purely rhetorical -- for an atheist to claim he has never been convinced by theodicy?

   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 17:08:59


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 jasper76 wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstood your point.
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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 17:12:39


   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




 Manchu wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstood your point.
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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 17:16:01


 
   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

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.

   
Made in us
Sniping Reverend Moira





Cincinnati, Ohio

 SilverMK2 wrote:


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.

 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

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.
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-retranslates-synod-document-muddles-openness-gays
This kind of revisionism and secrecy is completely typical of the curia.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/10/16 17:52:07


   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

 cincydooley wrote:
 SilverMK2 wrote:


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.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




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.
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

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.


   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




Do I understand, correctly then, Manchu, that the Pope gives guidelines, but not direct pronouncements?
   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

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.

   
Made in us
Sniping Reverend Moira





Cincinnati, Ohio

 SilverMK2 wrote:

A company expressimg the same views and actimg in the same ways as the rcc would not get very far.


Totally right.

Way too much charity involved.

 
   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

 cincydooley wrote:
 SilverMK2 wrote:

A company expressimg the same views and actimg in the same ways as the rcc would not get very far.


Totally right.

Way too much charity involved.


Iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg


   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 SilverMK2 wrote:
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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 18:38:27


 
   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

So a religious group that believes in mutilating the children of its members is ok?

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 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.
   
Made in us
Sniping Reverend Moira





Cincinnati, Ohio

Relapse wrote:
 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.

 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Relapse wrote:
Do I understand, correctly then, Manchu, that the Pope gives guidelines, but not direct pronouncements?
No. This is actually really complicated and I am not sure if the answer will help or really even be on topic.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 Manchu wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Do I understand, correctly then, Manchu, that the Pope gives guidelines, but not direct pronouncements?
No. This is actually really complicated and I am not sure if the answer will help or really even be on topic.


This might be something I'll sit down with a Priest about.
   
Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

I wasn't referencing it specifically, no (though I do not particularly agree with the practice for none medical reasoms).

   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Relapse wrote:
This might be something I'll sit down with a Priest about.
A priest won't help on this one unless he is also an ecclesiologist or a Medieval/Renaissance historian and has some knowledge of canon law.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/10/16 18:55:06


   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: