Ship of Fools: Pope calls for new look at gay marriage?

Thread: Pope calls for new look at gay marriage? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030748

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

According to this article the Pope is going to be asking Bishops what the faithful actually think of gay marriage. However, it's hardly an unbiased source, and even the comments afterwards point out the situation is a lot more complicated than the headline suggests.

Anyway, I was wondering if the topic is at all likely to come up in next year's "extraordinary synod", and if there is likely to be any softening of the official line under Pope Francis?

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

The Extraordinary Synod will in all likelihood merely result in a change in tone. There will be some document issued on "pastoral guidelines" that liberals will point to as proof that change is in the air but that conservatives will reject by pointing to the fact that Church teaching on remarriage after divorce, same sex marriage, artificial birth control, etc., remains unchanged. It's all part of a big PR campaign and no about changing any of the things liberals want change. The only thing that is really change-able is allowing married priests, and even though that might be a reasonable idea I doubt the current system could stomach it.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

I wonder how many "surprises" will occur during this Extraordinary Synod: bishops asking for ordained women, married priests who aren't converts or Eastern Rite, calls for contraceptive reevaluation.

It's hard to fathom that a group of people who tend to perpetuate the succession of similar people with similar minds can actually produce surprises at all, but I have a feeling we are in for some shockers (even if it's a private event, mitres seem to loosen people's lips a bit).

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
According to this article the Pope is going to be asking Bishops what the faithful actually think of gay marriage. However, it's hardly an unbiased source, and even the comments afterwards point out the situation is a lot more complicated than the headline suggests.

Anyway, I was wondering if the topic is at all likely to come up in next year's "extraordinary synod", and if there is likely to be any softening of the official line under Pope Francis?

I hope that this works out better than Humanae Vitae did.

Posted by Waw consecutivum (# 18120) on :

This is striking:

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/martin-irlanda-ireland-31976/

And this - in its context, of course - is remarkable, and puzzling:

"...According to the Argentinean theologian “there also needs to be reference to a context close to home, that is always positive in light of what is being considered or proposed. For example, it is no good opposing same-sex marriage because people tend to see us as a group of resentful, cruel, insensitive, over-the-top even, individuals. It is an entirely different thing to talk about the beauty of marriage and the harmony of differences that form part of an alliance between a man and woman. This positive context speaks for itself when it comes to showing that the use of the same term “marriage” to describe same-sex unions, in unsuitable.”

Fernández believes some have taken non negotiable principles too far, “distorting Benedict XVI’s teaching.” “Some have even claimed that all Church teachings depend and are based on non negotiable principles. This certainly is heresy! To claim that Jesus Christ, his resurrection, fraternal love and all that the Gospel teaches us depends on ethical principles is a distortion of Christianity...” "

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/reviews/detail/articolo/francesco-francis-francisco-rodari-32436/

The theological question - or one of them - is, how, if gay unions were considered worthy of Christians, would such a recognition affect the rest of the Church's doctrine, and be compatible with the NT teaching on the calling of the Christian and the Church "to be holy, as He is Holy" ?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Perhaps Francis will repent of his anti British and pro Argentinian junta attitudes at the same time.

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Waw consecutivum:
The theological question - or one of them - is, how, if gay unions were considered worthy of Christians, would such a recognition affect the rest of the Church's doctrine, and be compatible with the NT teaching on the calling of the Christian and the Church "to be holy, as He is Holy" ?

Forgive me if I've misunderstood - are you saying it's not possible to be in a gay union and to be holy?

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Waw Consectivum:

quote:
"...it is no good opposing same-sex marriage because people tend to see us as a group of resentful, cruel, insensitive, over-the-top even, individuals. It is an entirely different thing to talk about the beauty of marriage and the harmony of differences that form part of an alliance between a man and woman. This positive context speaks for itself when it comes to showing that the use of the same term “marriage” to describe same-sex unions, in unsuitable.”

Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but this sounds like "We still think same-sex marriage is wrong but we're going to say so nicely."

As Justinian is so fond of saying, there isn't a nice way of telling two people in love that they can't get married.

[ 02. June 2014, 10:08: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Given the differences that there are been individuals of the same sex, even straight ones, surely there can be a harmony between people of the same sex? Not all women are the same. Not all men are the same. One of the reasons I am not married is the persistent occurrence of discord between the men who seemed interested and me. Especially as they didn't actually seem that interested in the me I knew I was, but wanted one whose harmonics lay in the "Oh my dear, how wonderful you are, here's a lovely meal," direction. (I thought the Dr Who episode with Headless Monks was very wrong - it should surely have been Headless Nuns.)

[ 02. June 2014, 16:05: Message edited by: Penny S ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0