|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: New Vatican document
|
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The whole paper is worth reading. OK, it's a discussion paper not a final resolution, but the tenor is in accord with the teachings since ancient times of the entire Church.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I'm hopeful, but also fearful of a potential split that may result from Catholics who cannot accept a more welcoming and inclusive Church. I was right on the brink of entering RCIA before I was told by the priest I 'didn't need to live that lifestyle' anymore. I found myself wondering what lifestyle (I'm single and not really looking) he could possibly have meant and concluded if the Church had no clue about me they sure as heck have no clue about the rest of the rainbow tribe. I hope they can move forward gracefully.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
A new document from the Vatican states that gay people “have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.”
Wow.
Thoughts, anyone?
Morning, Chast. My question would be, "when has the Church ever denied that?"
A word of caution about the document, especially concerning the bit about "accepting and valuing [gay people's] sexual orientation" which seems to be causing the most fuss: not only is this document merely a mid-point "state of the debate" report, but several participating bishops have rejected these bits as not being representative and even the report's author, Peter Cardinal Erdo, seems to have distanced himself from this bit as being the composition of one individual, Abp Bruno Forte, by asking him to explain it at a press conference.
What nobody needs or wants is another Humanae vitae situation where the proponents of radical change are drip-feeding the press with suggestive statements that lead one to believe such change is on the cards - in an attempt to force the change by ratcheting up expectations - only for the final report and the Apostolic Exhortation to demonstrate that such change was never on the cards in the first place. Does anyone really think the Church is going to go back on the teaching that any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong? Really? To listen to some commentators, you'd think that was what could reasonably be expected. And theat helps no-one.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Verdant Green
Apprentice
# 18246
|
Posted
A 'new document from the Vatican' - well, yes, a very specific sort of document, and one without any real weight at all. It simply provides a summary to the Synod Fathers of where those who drafted the document think the Synod is going. Of course, it will be spun all sorts of ways by the press, who are obsessed with sex (as are many in the church, of course). That well known journal of record the Daily Mail was reporting that 'Rome' had basically given the green light for gay sex.
I think the real issue here is how polarised opinion is in the Catholic Church, at least in the English speaking world, on this subject (and it has been noted that no Africans were amongst the drafters of this document). I strongly suspect that when the dust has settled, nothing really will have changed, though that is not what people want to hear. They either want to see this Synod as a Breath of Fresh Air, or a Latrocinium of Rome.
Posts: 3 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
It might be the beginning of a watershed moment for the Catholic Church but, in the words of Chou En Lai, when asked to comment on whether he thought the French Revolution had been a success, "It's too early to tell."
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
A new document from the Vatican states that gay people “have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.”
Morning, Chast. My question would be, "when has the Church ever denied that?"
It wasn't that long ago the penalty for homosexuality was prison. Before that the penalty was death. And you know what was never heard during that time? The Church protesting those things as unjust. So so the answer to your question is "for most of its history".
And yes, it's true that the Church has often benefited from the "gifts and qualities" of gay people, but it's only been willing to do so if they maintain the pretense of being straight which seems like another form of denial.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It sounds a bit too patronising to me - they have gifts we can use - organ playing, flower arranging . . .
. . . painting the chapel . . .
[ 14. October 2014, 15:19: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[...] What nobody needs or wants is another Humanae vitae situation where the proponents of radical change are drip-feeding the press with suggestive statements that lead one to believe such change is on the cards - in an attempt to force the change by ratcheting up expectations - only for the final report and the Apostolic Exhortation to demonstrate that such change was never on the cards in the first place. Does anyone really think the Church is going to go back on the teaching that any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong? Really? To listen to some commentators, you'd think that was what could reasonably be expected. And theat helps no-one.
It shouldn't be given a choice. Humanae Vitae was, ultimately, about authority: panicked bishops scurried up to Paul VI and wailed that, if the church admitted that it'd been wrong about contraception, its magisterium would be fatally undermined.
Well yes, they were correct, but that's exactly what needs to happen. Ultimately, the dogma of papal infallibility, invented in the late 19th century, must go. The Church has put off its demise by focusing on the developing world, but it won't stay developing forever, and as poverty declines, so too will the Church's power.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
A new document from the Vatican states that gay people “have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.”
Morning, Chast. My question would be, "when has the Church ever denied that?"
It wasn't that long ago the penalty for homosexuality was prison. Before that the penalty was death. And you know what was never heard during that time? The Church protesting those things as unjust. So so the answer to your question is "for most of its history".
For starters, the concept of people having an identity by which they could be labelled gay or straight - rather than people engaging in certain sexual acts - is very new in the Church's thinking. If the Church hasn't always defended gay people it is in part because the concept of "gay people" - both in the Church and in society at large - didn't exist. What did exist was the concept of sodomy, and that act - whether between men or between women and men - has always been condemned by the Church.
But we're talking about people who are primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to other peole of the same sex, and since those have been the terms of the discussion the Church has drawn the distinction between orientation and action. It has never denied that those with the orientation (in itself "disordered") have valuable things as people to offer the Church.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
the concept of people having an identity by which they could be labelled gay or straight - rather than people engaging in certain sexual [i]
So the church is catching up at just the time when essentialism is going out of fashion.
Gay 'identity' goes back at least 100 years with people like Edward Carpenter.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[...] Does anyone really think the Church is going to go back on the teaching that any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong? Really? To listen to some commentators, you'd think that was what could reasonably be expected. And that helps no-one.
It shouldn't be given a choice.
What does that mean?
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Humanae Vitae was, ultimately, about authority: panicked bishops scurried up to Paul VI and wailed that, if the church admitted that it'd been wrong about contraception, its magisterium would be fatally undermined.
HV was "ultimately" about the sanctity of marriage. The bishops' "panic" (which I'm accepting just for the sake or argument) was ultimately about the teaching of the Lord, the consistency of the Church's claims about His teaching and about herself, and her credibilty as Christ's body. All thoroughly reasonable and in the absence of which she'd have been labelled hypocritical. If she claims that a particular teaching cannot change and then goes and changes it anyway, pretending that she hasn't, the game's up. And if she claims that she can get it wrong about which teachings are infallible and which aren't the game's up. I'd be off like a shot if she ever did either of those things, because then she would not be what she claims to be - and no other body is either. But I happen to believe that such an eventuality is literally impossible.
Sometimes consistency is not just a virtue (or a vice) but a necessary condition for coherence.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Ultimately, the dogma of papal infallibility, invented in the late 19th century, must go.
And you think that your imperative will be heeded? I wouldn't "invent" a breath-holding contest on that one if I were you.
[ 14. October 2014, 19:07: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
the concept of people having an identity by which they could be labelled gay or straight - rather than people engaging in certain sexual
So the church is catching up at just the time when essentialism is going out of fashion.
Actually, it is not committed to essentialism (if I understand correctly what you mean by that) at all.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Gay 'identity' goes back at least 100 years with people like Edward Carpenter.
Um, that is quite recent, you know.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[QB]
Sometimes consistency is not just a virtue (or a vice) but a necessary condition for coherence.
Perhaps necessary, but in the case of the RCC clearly not sufficient.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
For starters, the concept of people having an identity by which they could be labelled gay or straight - rather than people engaging in certain sexual acts - is very new in the Church's thinking. If the Church hasn't always defended gay people it is in part because the concept of "gay people" - both in the Church and in society at large - didn't exist. What did exist was the concept of sodomy, and that act - whether between men or between women and men - has always been condemned by the Church.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Um, that is quite recent, you know.
I'm trying to wade through all the waffle and rationalizations, but it seems like your answer to your own question of "when has the Church ever denied that [gay people have have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community]?" is "for most of its history until quite recent[ly]".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm trying to wade through all the waffle and rationalizations, but it seems like your answer to your own question of "when has the Church ever denied that [gay people have have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community]?" is "for most of its history until quite recent[ly]".
You're smarter than that, Crœsus. And so am I.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Leo, to be fair, Chesterbelloc's comment continued "very new in the Church's thinking" - and that thinking is rather longer than the 100 years to which you refer.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm trying to wade through all the waffle and rationalizations, but it seems like your answer to your own question of "when has the Church ever denied that [gay people have have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community]?" is "for most of its history until quite recent[ly]".
You're smarter than that, Crœsus. And so am I.
I'm not sure that I am. I'm still having trouble squaring the circle of executing people with the idea that those same people "have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community". Capital punishment seems to be the most definitive way of saying that someone has no value at all and that the community is better off without them.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
I've already addressed that.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I can't speak for Chesterbelloc, whose point this is, but 100 (and it's probably less than that, you are simply reporting on Carpenter's arguments rather than their acceptance by a wider society) years is not that much longer.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[...] Does anyone really think the Church is going to go back on the teaching that any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong? Really? To listen to some commentators, you'd think that was what could reasonably be expected. And that helps no-one.
It shouldn't be given a choice.
What does that mean?
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Humanae Vitae was, ultimately, about authority: panicked bishops scurried up to Paul VI and wailed that, if the church admitted that it'd been wrong about contraception, its magisterium would be fatally undermined.
HV was "ultimately" about the sanctity of marriage.
On the contrary. Humanae Vitae was ultimately about Magisterial Infallibility and whether, when presented with a case where the Catholic Church was so spectacularly in the wrong that over 90% of its own hand-picked commission after almost every bureaucratic trick to spike the results had been used recommended that it would change course, it would have the humility to do so or whether Magisterial Infallibility would force it to nail its colours to the mast.
The minority report literally says:
quote:
E. Why Cannot the Church Change Her Answer to This Central Question?
(1) The Church cannot change her answer because this answer is true. Whatever may pertain to a more perfect formulation of the teaching or its possible genuine development, the teaching itself cannot be substantially true. It is true because the Catholic Church, instituted by Christ to show men a secure way to eternal life, could not have so wrongly erred during all those centuries of its history. The Church cannot substantially err in teaching doctrine which is most serious in its import for faith and morals, throughout all centuries or even one century, if it has been constantly and forcefully proposed as necessarily to be followed in order to obtain eternal salvation. The Church could not have erred through so many centuries, even though one century, by imposing under serious obligation very grave burdens in the name of Jesus Christ, if Jesus Christ did not actually impose those burdens. The Catholic Church could not have furnished in the name of Jesus Christ to so many of the faithful everywhere in the world, throughout so many centuries, the occasion for formal sin and spiritual ruin, because of a false doctrine promulgated in the name of Jesus Christ.
If the Church could err in such a way, the authority of the ordinary magisterium in moral matters would be thrown into question. The faithful could not put their trust in the magisterium’s presentation of moral teaching, especially in sexual matters.
quote:
And back to Chesterbelloc:
The bishops' "panic" (which I'm accepting just for the sake or argument) was ultimately about the teaching of the Lord, the consistency of the Church's claims about His teaching and about herself, and her credibilty as Christ's body. All thoroughly reasonable and in the absence of which she'd have been labelled hypocritical. If she claims that a particular teaching cannot change and then goes and changes it anyway, pretending that she hasn't, the game's up. And if she claims that she can get it wrong about which teachings are infallible and which aren't the game's up.
Indeed. But the problem here is that The Roman Catholic Church has the sheer unmitigated arrogance to think that as a human institution it is infallible. It isn't. It's wrong on this point and over 90% of those on the commission handpicked by two successive Popes knew it (meaning they were hardly outsiders) - hence the majority report.
quote:
I'd be off like a shot if she ever did either of those things, because then she would not be what she claims to be - and no other body is either. But I happen to believe that such an eventuality is literally impossible.
It is literally impossible for the Roman Catholic Church to be infallible. It is also now at this point impossible for the Roman Catholic Church to back down. It's already lost those who put charity or humility first by the sheer wrongheaded arrogance of Humanae Vitae. Which means that those who stay are either (a) those who don't really care about the correctness of the teachings of the RCC for whatever reason (witness the fact that most Catholic women in America ignore the anti-contraception mandate) or (b) are more concerned by whether the teaching is consistent and you can claim infallibility than whether it is actually right. As you say, if it backed down it would lose block B - meaning that all it would have left are those who don't care what it says.
quote:
Sometimes consistency is not just a virtue (or a vice) but a necessary condition for coherence.
And at others it's merely a symptom of pride.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I can't speak for Chesterbelloc, whose point this is, but 100 (and it's probably less than that, you are simply reporting on Carpenter's arguments rather than their acceptance by a wider society) years is not that much longer.
I'm always skeptical of any situation involving humans where timespans somewhat longer than the average human lifespan is described as "not that long".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Well said, Justinian. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Chesterbelloc, by "[the Vatican] shouldn't be given a choice," I meant that Catholics ought to rebel against its authoritarianism, and force the abandonment of papal diktat. As Justinian so rightly says, when dissenting Catholics just ignore Vatican teaching, there's no pressure for change.
As you say yourself, "the game's up" if the Vatican admits that, yes, it's as fallible and human as the rest of us. The game should be up, as using authority to trump evidence leads to ruinous policy decisions. Institutional arrogance on birth control has done great harm around the globe, especially in combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
It's no surprise that one fallacy, authority, leads straight into another.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The minority report literally says:
quote:
E. Why Cannot the Church Change Her Answer to This Central Question?
(1) The Church cannot change her answer because this answer is true.
And there's your answer right there. Not "because we'd all lose face and control and our jobs and prestige". But, like I said, because of what is true (as far as the Church is concerned). That's the real reason, whether you can believe it or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But the problem here is that The Roman Catholic Church has the sheer unmitigated arrogance to think that as a human institution it is infallible. [...] It is literally impossible for the Roman Catholic Church to be infallible.
I don't give a tinker's stinker for what you think is arrogant or not - it's matter of faith for Catholics. And it's not as a human institution - which it is - that the Church claims infallibility, but as a divine on (which it also is). It certainly isn't impossible, no matter how much you want it not to be true. But look on the bright side: it'll give you all the more satisfaction when (which will be never, in my opinion) the Church does a complete and unambiguous 180 on a serious matter of faith or morals. Until then, the very limited infallibility the Church claims for herself is a live theological option. Deal.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Chesterbelloc, by "[the Vatican] shouldn't be given a choice," I meant that Catholics ought to rebel against its authoritarianism, and force the abandonment of papal diktat.
Well, I'll take your word for that, but what's with substituting your "Vatican" for my "Church"?
And since you admit that the game's up for the Church if she abandons even her very limited claim to infallibility and you want her to do precisely that, I hope you'll forgive my assumption that what you really want is the for the game to be up for Catholic Church full stop. You can expect Catholics to be pretty leery about that.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Institutional arrogance on birth control has done great harm around the globe, especially in combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
Because, as we all know, those who pay no attention to the Church about whom they can screw will nonetheless put their own and other people's lives at risk to stick scrupulously to the same Church's teaching about what they can stick on their cocks whilst they do so, right?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Institutional arrogance on birth control has done great harm around the globe, especially in combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
Because, as we all know, those who pay no attention to the Church about whom they can screw will nonetheless put their own and other people's lives at risk to stick scrupulously to the same Church's teaching about what they can stick on their cocks whilst they do so, right?
Come, come, Chesterbelloc - surely you know that there are places where the catholic church does its best to stop people from putting things on their cocks whether they agree with church teaching or not.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Institutional arrogance on birth control has done great harm around the globe, especially in combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
Because, as we all know, those who pay no attention to the Church about whom they can screw will nonetheless put their own and other people's lives at risk to stick scrupulously to the same Church's teaching about what they can stick on their cocks whilst they do so, right?
Given that representatives of the church are often the only providers of health services and have been complicit in spreading misinformation about condoms that is pretty much the case, yes. Also, no amount of faithfulness will protect someone whose spouse has contracted HIV while screwing around behind their back.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc, I want the game to be up for papal infallibility, not the Catholic Church, which got along without that dogma just fine until 1870.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Chesterbelloc, I want the game to be up for papal infallibility, not the Catholic Church, which got along without that dogma just fine until 1870.
As a minor detail, the issue is the infallibility of the magisterium, not the infallibility of the papacy. I believe that this idea predates 1870, but I really can't remember where I got that idea from.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
There has been a long belief in the 'infallibility' of the Church,whether this has been formally defined or not.Even if one accepts the validity of the declaration of papal infallibility,that 'infallibility' has only been used once - in 1950 for the definition of the Assumption of the Virgin.
Humanae Vitae and its arguments deserves a respectful reading by the faithful but it cannot be said to be an 'infallible' document.
It tries to put forward what pope Paul VI thought about the 'sanctity' of marriage in an ideal situation and what people should aim for if they are seeking perfection.
We know that in so many ways Christians fail to live up to the teachings of the 10 commandments and to the great summing up by Christ in the exhortation to 'love God and to love our neighbours as ourselves' Even those who are non Catholic Christians find it difficult sometimes to love their neighbour,even non-Catholic Christians sometimes oppress their neighbour,steal,cheat,commit adultery etc.Should we simply abolish all these cousels of perfection,just because we fail to live up to them ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I think what I personally find most frustrating about this debate is that gay people are portrayed by some conservatives as resembling sex mad hedonistic anarchists.
Where you hit a wall is when you try challenging them on this in any way. An attempt to explain the deep human need for intimacy is dismissed as 'wanting sex'. Gay people seeking to raise (sometimes their own biological) children are told they want to 'destroy the family' and when gay people try to explain that the present situation is not just or merciful in its treatment of them they are accused of wanting to tear down every aspect of the church.
I'm experiencing just that frustration now listening to and reading about the conservative Catholic response to any glimpse of hope for LGBT people. Their internal logic and the safety of its closed system is under threat and I am not sure that all will be capable of adjusting should there be a change.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
Forthview:
If it was true that all these teachings simply defined the ideal situation then there would be much more flexibility in how to deal with people who do not fulfill the ideal. The problem is not with the definition of the ideal, but is with the definition of ways of life that differ unacceptably (to the church) from that ideal. If something is a 'counsel of perfection' people should be able to be fully welcomed members of the church while they attempt to understand it and live by it.
(There are some teachings here which I think should simply be abolished, but creating a situation where they were counsels of perfection would be a far more radical step than proposed in the document)
And while Humanae Vitae is not an infallible document, it is very widely seen as a distillation of truths that the church does infallibly teach. (See the quotation from the minority report on its creation that Justinian quoted above)
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
So the RCC is going to take direction from a group of aged, celibate, straight men?
No change there then
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
A group of aged, ostensibly celibate, nominally straight men.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Chesterbelloc, I want the game to be up for papal infallibility, not the Catholic Church, which got along without that dogma just fine until 1870.
As a minor detail, the issue is the infallibility of the magisterium, not the infallibility of the papacy. I believe that this idea predates 1870, but I really can't remember where I got that idea from.
I thought that the infallibility of the magisterium applied to ecumenical councils.
Arguably, there haven't been any of those since the Great Schism.
But if it includes Vatican 2, then how is it that popes have sought to backtrack on it?
(I am basing my knowledge on
this.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Well, I'll take your word for that, but what's with substituting your "Vatican" for my "Church"?
It's like a theological Reese's Peanut Butter Cup!
Your Vatican is in my Church!
Your Church is in my Vatican!
I'll get me coat! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I thought that the infallibility of the magisterium applied to ecumenical councils.
[...]
(I am basing my knowledge on
this.
Read the 'Ordinary and Universal Magisterium' subsection towards the end of the 'Roman Catholic Church' section in that link, or google 'infallibility of the magisterium'.
I am not an expert, but as I understand it someone got concerned that most of the things that the church ought to know about are so uncontroversial that they've never been discussed at any ecumenical council. As a result, the idea has arisen that if all the bishops happen to agree about something then it's infallibly true (even if they don't actually all meet to ask the question at the same time).
This has some problems as an idea. Most obviously it's clearly impossible to work out when this has happened, or exactly what it is that's been agreed. Also, there doesn't seem to be a test for whether any inspiration has happened. If all bishops happen to believe some uncontroversial scientific idea, and draw an obvious moral inference from it, but this scientific idea were later to be disproved, it would seem that an infallible decision would have been made despite the fact that the people who made it would no longer agree with it.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
The Catholic draft document that was somewhat positive about gay people, which was the subject of the OP of this thread, has been rewritten and voted down.
I guess the Catholic church's own words and actions condemn them as per usual. Whether they be child-molesting, science-denying, condom-objecting or gay-persecuting, the Catholic church seems determined to continue itself as a major force for harm in the world. I take some solace in the fact that its immoral evil is no longer taken very seriously.
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I think what I personally find most frustrating about this debate is that gay people are portrayed by some conservatives as resembling sex mad hedonistic anarchists.
The way conservatives get away with stereotyping gay people at all is something I increasingly find frustrating. I think most conservatives would be in reality deeply deeply shocked to realize how normal the vast majority of gay people actually are.
I find that people who've never or rarely knowingly met gay people (ie most conservatives) seem to build in their imaginations certain stereotypes of what gay people are like. I find this both funny and bizarre, because in reality gay people are no different to straight people in almost every way and trying to tell if someone is gay just from meeting them is usually as impossible as telling whether they are left-handed. It can be entirely possible to know someone well for years without ever knowing whether they are gay. That's why the idea of "coming out" is a thing, because people can't tell if you're gay because there are no obvious differences between gay and straight people. Yet conservatives tend to create imaginary fantasies for themselves about how different gay people are. I guess this is why an emphasis on coming out has been so helpful worldwide - because when people actually meet gay people they realize "oh, you're perfectly normal, and not at all how I imagined gay people to be" and that more than anything is what combats the prejudiced imaginings of the ways gay people are assumed to be different.
The fevered imaginings of conservatives that gay people in general are any more or less sex-mad than straight people are one such amusing example. What I've come to realize is that it's the religious conservatives who are actually the sex-obsessed. They don't seem to ever stop talking about the importance of sex and the importance of the rules surrounding it. I've personally heard a whole lot more talk about sex from Christian sermons and bible studies than I ever have from gay people.
I was amused recently when a gay journalists covering the recent conservative "Family Research Council" conference in Aus reported on Twitter something to the effect of "I've never heard so much talk about gay sex, and I've worked for a gay news website for a decade."
quote:
when gay people try to explain that the present situation is not just or merciful in its treatment of them they are accused of wanting to tear down every aspect of the church.
To be fair, I do often now find myself wanting to tear down every aspect of the church because the church has been so nasty and horrible to gay people. That is partially also because I see the idea that the church is supposed to be loving and kind, particularly to the oppressed and downtrodden, as being the core of the church's primary mission... and the church's nastiness towards gay people and persecution of them instead of advocating for them and supporting them, represents a failure of the church's primary mission so complete and utter that to my mind if the church cannot even master the basics of loving others and instead embarks on campaigns of persecution then it is worthy only to be destroyed.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
The correct attitude to homosexuality is "love the sinner but hate the sin." Most liberals try to turn this into "love the sinner by denying the sin." Some conservatives try to turn it into "reject the sinner as sign of hating the sin." Both are corruptions.
What happened at the Synod was a classical case of hubris on the liberal side. They though that given the rather obvious support of the pope, including a completely one-sided stacking by Pope Francis of the commission writing the report, they could get away with murder (literally falsifying documents!). Instead, they got a Thursday rebellion from the episcopal floor and in the end a document where even the watered-down paragraphs were not voted in.
The liberals really only have themselves to blame here. And their main champion, Cardinal Kasper, leaves with ostrich egg on his face: not only did his revolution fail, he ended up being suspect of racism for disparaging the non-Western episcopate in an interview (and then pretending he never said what he said - unfortunately for his lies all was recorded...).
[ 19. October 2014, 11:26: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
It seems to me the real corruption is to turn the love between two people into a sin.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The correct attitude to homosexuality is "love the sinner but hate the sin." Most liberals try to turn this into "love the sinner by denying the sin." Some conservatives try to turn it into "reject the sinner as sign of hating the sin." Both are corruptions.
What happened at the Synod was a classical case of hubris on the liberal side. They though that given the rather obvious support of the pope, including a completely one-sided stacking by Pope Francis of the commission writing the report, they could get away with murder (literally falsifying documents!). Instead, they got a Thursday rebellion from the episcopal floor and in the end a document where even the watered-down paragraphs were not voted in.
The liberals really only have themselves to blame here. And their main champion, Cardinal Kasper, leaves with ostrich egg on his face: not only did his revolution fail, he ended up being suspect of racism for disparaging the non-Western episcopate in an interview (and then pretending he never said what he said - unfortunately for his lies all was recorded...).
If you reject who people are as 'sin' then you have no right to say that you love them. It's a lie. Bigotry doesn't become OK just because you pretend God approves of it.
'Hate the sin love the sinner' still kills people, like any homophobia, so you have no right to say that you love gay people.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Slight tangent but why does that trite expression "love the sinner, hate the sin" always remind me of that hoary old chestnut "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you"?
And as any schoolchild who ever received 'six' will remember, that was utter bullshit.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The correct attitude to homosexuality is "love the sinner but hate the sin." Most liberals try to turn this into "love the sinner by denying the sin." Some conservatives try to turn it into "reject the sinner as sign of hating the sin." Both are corruptions.
If it's the correct attitude in this instance to 'Love the sinner but hate the sin', this surely would endorse our identifying a sin in someone else simply because we have given them a label, and acting as judge and jury to decide that they are guilty of it.
I don't think that this demonstrates love of others as ourselves. First remove the plank from our own eyes, and all that.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
