Thread: New Vatican document 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=030785
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
If this is actually different enough to move to Purgatory please do, but I figured it was still a DH topic, so...
Oh My God. A new document from the Vatican states that gay people “have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.”
Wow.
Thoughts, anyone?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
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.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
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.
Posted by Verdant Green (# 18246) on
:
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.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
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."
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
It sounds a bit too patronising to me - they have gifts we can use - organ playing, flower arranging - but we won't bless their relationships.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
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.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
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.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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]".
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
I've already addressed that.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
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.
So why is it that the Holy Spirit takes as longer time to be heard by the Church than by secular society?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
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.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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".
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
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.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
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.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
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.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
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?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
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.
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
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.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
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 ?
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
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.
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
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)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
So the RCC is going to take direction from a group of aged, celibate, straight men?
No change there then
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
A group of aged, ostensibly celibate, nominally straight men.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
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)
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
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.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Thank you.
Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on
:
Is this related or a separate development ?
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/oscarlopez/nigerian_archbishop_pro_gay
Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on
:
This sounds very thoughtful and significant from big Evangelical mega-church,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/megachurch-pastor-signals-shift-in-tone-on-gay-marriage.html?_r=0
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
It seems to me the real corruption is to turn the love between two people into a sin.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The correct attitude to homosexuality is "love the sinner but hate the sin."
I do not believe that in the case of homosexuality that it is possible to condemn the 'sin' without hurting the 'sinner'. So your statement becomes incoherent.
The "love the sinner but hate the sin" idea is incoherent in practice in cases where the supposed 'sin' is as important in people's lives as sexual orientation is. This is because gay people feel hurt and harmed by any negative statements, criticisms, discrimination, and political actions that the church undertakes. At a minimum, any kind of social condemnation of homosexuality can cause gay people chronic anxiety and stress, which have negative physiological consequences leading to various medical conditions. Even when the intention of the church is to be kind to the gay people but condemn their actions, in my observation this is almost always perceived by the gay people themselves as a personal attack and criticism of them, and usually the church involved doesn't realize that this is what is happening.
This is because, as humans, our love for another person and who it is that we love are very core aspects to us psychologically. Love is a basic part of our lives, and experience around the world shows that sexuality is almost entirely unchangeable. As a result I do not believe that in the case of homosexuality that it is possible to condemn the 'sin' without hurting the 'sinner'. I think most conservatives don't realize this, and they seem to think they can speak up against homosexuality without at all realizing that their words badly hurt people - to me this speaks volumes about their lack of empathy and how unloving they actually are that they are blind to the effect of their own words and actions on those they claim to 'love'.
In my observation, in the case of homosexuality, the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" has been a shield used by the church to justify its massively harmful attitude towards gay people. Using this phrase, Christians have felt justified in repeatedly denouncing homosexuality and campaigning politically to deny basic rights to gay people. In following gay rights closely around the world I have personally never seen a Christian who uses the phrase 'love the sinner hate the sin' with regard to homosexuality do anything whatsoever that I would describe as "loving" towards gay people, and always 100% of their words and actions are those I would describe as "condemning", "hating", and "harmful".
A rather horrifying number of Christians worldwide seem to have no actual clue whatsoever what the word 'love' even means. There is a disturbing tendency for them to label whatever they do as "loving" with the justification that they are 'Christian' and 'Christians are loving' and that therefore no matter how nasty and hate filled they are, that anything and everything they do is still 'loving'.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
in the end a document where even the watered-down paragraphs were not voted in.
There's some speculation that the liberals voted down the watered-down version in protest at it being watered-down.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
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.
Exactly. When your words and actions cause harm, it's absurd to claim to "love" the people you're harming.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I don't agree with the RCs, but as I understand it their official position is basically the same as I might take to someone being a heroin addict.
In that situation I wouldn't see withdrawal or constant craving as harm, but better than using - despite the suffering involved.
My desire to see someone come off heroin, might well be based on genuine concern and care for them - despite the suffering I was endorsing.
[ 19. October 2014, 20:42: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
Whichever way I look at it "love the sinner but hate the sin" has two very significant flaws.
1. It assumes people are basically heterosexual (I'm not) and just choosing a behaviour contrary to this supposed heterosexuality.
2. If it does allow people enough room to identify as gay it gives no indication how gay they can be. Is being camp sinning? Is hugging sinning? How much of a person's intrinsic and basic nature are they permitted before its mortal? What degree of gayness is acceptable to the Catholic church?
I mean seriously? Its a horrible unworkable mealy mouthed dodge ball of a principle.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I don't agree with the RCs, but as I understand it their official position is basically I might take to someone being a heroin addict.
In that situation I wouldn't see withdrawal or constant craving as harm, but better than using - despite the suffering involved.
My desire to see someone come off heroin, might well be based on genuine concern and care for them - despite the suffering I was endorsing.
Good analogy but again I think this assumes that someone has chosen a behaviour (homosexuality) over and above an innate characteristic (in this case heterosexuality). The human body does not need heroin, once addicted it can be difficult to withdraw as you know, but to me its more like the Catholuc church is suggesting that gay people reject and despise an innate part of their personhood, so its more like asking a person to come off insulin.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I agree with you. But if you accept that they have this misunderstanding, their position does make ethical sense. The problem is the premise is flawed.
But I think it is wrong to say, solely because someone holds that view, they can not genuinely care about gay people.
However, I do also think some people find it very convenient to hold that view, that it chimes comfortably with other prejudices they already hold.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
In that situation I wouldn't see withdrawal or constant craving as harm, but better than using - despite the suffering involved.
So given we observe the empirical facts that attempting to enforce or encourage celibacy is noticeably harmful to homosexual people but them having same sex relationships is noticeably beneficial to them, isn't that therefore empirical disproof of the R.C. position? I suspect the answer is "yes" and that delusion about reality is thus core to the R.C. position as they have to convince themselves in the face of the facts that same sex relationships are harmful to the participants in some way shape or form that they can neither prove nor quantify.
Taking a look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs is helpful to see that sexual intimacy and relationships are fairly basic and fundamental to humans (the yellow level in the wiki diagram). Whereas, obviously something like smoking heroin is not fundamental and is entirely unnecessary and optional (ie off the top of the pyramid in the diagram). Comparing the two is a bit ridiculous - one is a core human need and one is not. A more relevant comparison would be something else from the relationships level - let's take "friends" as an example: What are the comparative harms and benefits of encouraging a person to have no friends at all, versus encouraging them to be friendly and make friends? Having no friends genuinely does a person harm and I have seen a number of scientific studies that have looked at the negative social and health outcomes for people with fewer or no friends. So if someone came to me and said that they were genuinely concerned for me out of love because I had too many friends and that I should have no friends because it was better for me, then I would regard that person as delusional. In the same way, the R.C. position appears delusional about homosexuality.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
In so far as the concept that, same sex relationships corrupt your soul, is a religious belief - it can not be disprovend by empirical investigation, experimentation, deductive or abductive reasoning. It is a metaphysical rather than empirical claim.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
In so far as the concept that, same sex relationships corrupt your soul, is a religious belief - it can not be disprovend by empirical investigation, experimentation, deductive or abductive reasoning. It is a metaphysical rather than empirical claim.
And yet Roman Catholic theology claims that its moral teachings can be arrived at by reason - that is, as I understand it, the core of natural law theology.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
You, and it's just as ethical as the religious person who decides all sexuality is bad and loves the sinner but tries to cure their "disease" of having any inclination toward sexual activity.
For some reason, the same heterosexuals who spout the love the sinner, hate the sin tend to get upset when the cures are pointed at people like them.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Whichever way I look at it "love the sinner but hate the sin" has two very significant flaws.
...
2. If it does allow people enough room to identify as gay it gives no indication how gay they can be. Is being camp sinning? Is hugging sinning? How much of a person's intrinsic and basic nature are they permitted before its mortal? What degree of gayness is acceptable to the Catholic church?
And there is a huge flexibility in Christian thinking in terms of how serious any particular 'sin' is.
'Sin' at its most basic theological level tends to be taken to mean "things not the way God wants them to be", and indeed the created order itself is disordered as a result of the fall, and thus in some sense the entire world and everything in it is sinful. One of the biblical prophesies I've often heard quoted about the new creation is that "the lion will lie down with the lamb", which kindof seems to imply that carnivores won't be a thing anymore, which seems to imply that meat-eating as a whole is probably not the way God wanted the world to be and thus that meat-eating is perhaps sinful in the sense that it's not part of God's idealized order for the world.
If you said to me that God's originally planned, idealized order for the world, involved only heterosexual couples and involved them having families (and also involved all animals being herbivores etc), but that the Fall meant that this didn't come to pass, and that therefore there is a whole lot of 'sin' in the world in the sense that things have strayed massively from God's original idealized order for the world, and that therefore homosexuality is a 'sin' in the same kind of way as a lion killing a lamb and eating it is a 'sin'... then I actually have no problem with that. I am totally okay with homosexuality being labelled a sin if all that is meant by that labelling is that it's not what God originally intended for humans to be and do but that it's something that's happened as a result of the created world significantly departing from God's original plan for it.
According to most Christians there's lots of sin in the world, and it's happening all the time to all of us. Every single lustful thought, every word or thought that is not 100% loving, every moment where we lack some compassion. In the eyes of some Christians they themselves have sinned 100 times before they make it to church on Sunday morning, and they perceive this as being a basic part of being fallen human beings living in a fallen world, and to their minds these sort of sins are not particularly important - or insofar as they are important they can be rectified simply by regular basic and generic prayer for forgiveness. Little thought tends to be given to these 'background' sins that are simply assumed to occur as part of daily life - the Christian doesn't tend to feel particular bad about doing them because it is assumed that everyone else does them equally too.
So I could 100% understand if Christians were totally fine with homosexuality on a day to day basis, just as they are with eating meat, and if they said "well homosexuality wasn't part of God's original intentions, just as eating meat wasn't, but we live in a fallen world so both are now and thing and we live with having both, but neither will be part of the future re-created order, and in that sense both are technically 'sin' but they're nothing to particularly worry about in the present." And therefore I could totally understand it if Christian doctrine taught that in a technical sense homosexuality was a 'sin' but if in practice they welcomed gay people and performed gay weddings without a second thought, just as they eat meat without a second thought.
But imagine if Christians went out and bought lions and forced them to lie down in pens beside lambs and forced the lions to eat grass until the lions died. "It's God's will," they might say, "for lions to lie down with lambs and eat grass." And let's say that's true to the extent that it was originally God's will for lions to be like that. But, given the fallen world and that lions are not like that, is it God's will in the present for lions to be starved to death by being forced to try and adopt a role in the current fallen creation that they are totally unsuited for, and which will not become a practical reality for them until the creation is renewed? Christian efforts to make homosexuals refrain from homosexuality in the present creation due to the perceived 'distorted' nature of homosexuality strike me in the same way. It is jumping the gun to try and force-fit something from the idealized future and renewed created order onto beings in the current created order that are by nature ill suited for it, and such over-zealous enthusiasm causes very real harm to the targets.
In line with this, many Christians seem to emphasize homosexuality as a Sin of Personal Moral Failing far above the background level of the world simply not being the way God originally intended it. It is regarded as a Very Bad Sin and something that the person needs to make a Serious Effort Not To Do. The degree of seriousness with which being gay is regarded by Christians has always struck me as hugely out of proportion to the supposed justification for it as a sin - if being gay (or acting on it) is a sin because God originally intended everyone to be straight, but thanks to the fall the world isn't the way God intended and not everyone is straight, then why exactly is being gay or acting on it such a serious serious sin? There seems no justification for such emphasis.
quote:
If it does allow people enough room to identify as gay it gives no indication how gay they can be. Is being camp sinning? Is hugging sinning? How much of a person's intrinsic and basic nature are they permitted before its mortal? What degree of gayness is acceptable to the Catholic church?
This is a very interesting question, and one I've been thinking about myself lately. I've heard a couple of gay people recently remark to me that what they enjoy most about relationships is having someone to share their lives with and cuddle with, not the sex itself. I think that Christians as a whole tend to focus so obsessively on sex, and especially so with regard to homosexuality, that they don't actually realize how far down the priorities list sex is for many gay people. A bit of physical pleasure tends to be far less important than feeling genuinely loved and cared for by another human being. A lot of gay people would be genuinely interested to hear from their churches that they were allowed to love one another, spend their lives together, cuddle, kiss, hold each other at night, commit to a relationship with one another, etc. And if their church was going to say that gay sex was sinful and they should refrain from that and that alone, then I think a really clear definition of what counted as sex and what merely counted as a cuddling or kissing would be helpful.
But that raises the question of exactly what about gay people and their relationships does the church object to exactly? As far as I can tell, most churches aren't at all sure what it is exactly that they object to about gay relationships and so I think are frankly incapable of coming up with any criteria as to what is allowed and what is not. This is part and parcel of them having no fundamental underlying logic about what gay sex is supposedly so bad in the first place.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
In so far as the concept that, same sex relationships corrupt your soul, is a religious belief - it can not be disprovend by empirical investigation, experimentation, deductive or abductive reasoning. It is a metaphysical rather than empirical claim.
And yet Roman Catholic theology claims that its moral teachings can be arrived at by reason - that is, as I understand it, the core of natural law theology.
Yes, they claim that, but they are wrong.
Societies have arisen where they have not bothered to outlaw homicide. The taboo is not a given, and certainly couldn't be derived from observation of the animal condition.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Starlight, have you got a linkable source for that argument of yours about same-sex attraction being sinful but only in the same way as lions being carnivorous? I think it's a great point, and one that I've not come across before, so I'd like to share it. Facebook proselytising ahoy!
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
South Coast Kevin,
The source for the lion-lamb comparison is my own thoughts over the last couple of days, so no link sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
In so far as the concept that, same sex relationships corrupt your soul, is a religious belief - it can not be disprovend by empirical investigation, experimentation, deductive or abductive reasoning. It is a metaphysical rather than empirical claim.
In the past I've seen it expressed as a psychological claim (and thus implicitly empirical). The idea was that being gay or acting on it would hurt you psychologically, and cause great mental harm to you. Thus, loving Christians needed to rescue you from the psychological harm you were going to do to yourself.
The ironic reality of the situation has turned out to be that the psychological harms that came to gay people were primarily a result of Christian social stigma and prejudice against gay people.
In my observation, as psychologists around the world have increasingly through science made the position that 'being gay causes psychological harm' an untenable claim (and have instead been placing the blame square on Christians for promoting social stigma against gays), Christians have retreated from the claim that being gay causes psychological harm, and now have to assume that if being gay causes any harm at all then the harm that it causes is of an unobservable metaphysical harm.
But from a theological perspective such a claim of 'corrupting the soul' or 'metaphysical harm' seems stupid on face value, and my extensive imagination and theological learning is totally failing me to come up with any conceivable rationalization for that. I invite anyone to explain to me within the context of Christian theology any reasonable theory for how that might work.
I think the most coherent thing that could be said would be "God really hates gay relationships, for no particular reason, he just does. So when you have a gay relationship he gets really angry. That's bad. So don't anger God." But that only serves to push the non-answer back a step into the unanswered question of why God dislikes gay relationships.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
I'm not particularly interested in discussing homosexuality. I am rather interested in how this Synod played out. And the real battleground there wasn't homosexuality, but communion for the remarried. As it turned out, the attempt to sneak something on homosexuality into the document was a first and probably crucial step in letting the liberal agenda fail. It was a kind of "divide yourself and be conquered" moment, in retrospect.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
IngoB, this entire thread is specifically about the implications of the synod for gay people. You are free not to discuss this issue but it seems strange when there is a thread in purgatory about the synod sans this dead horse to come here and say you don't want to discuss what everyone else on the thread is discussing.
In response to your comment about dividing one-self I disagree. I think perhaps those advocating in favour of gay rights had tried to take the whole church with them too fast and misjudged what they were able to achieve. I could add a dose of snark and sarcasm in with that but I won't because this has depressed me a little too much.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
South Coast Kevin,
The source for the lion-lamb comparison is my own thoughts over the last couple of days, so no link sorry.
Cool, never mind - I've had a go at summarising and done my bit of Facebook evangelism. I'm not gay myself but I've felt for a long time that the state should be blind as to the gender of one's partner, and I'm increasingly coming round to the view that God is too.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
South Coast Kevin,
The source for the lion-lamb comparison is my own thoughts over the last couple of days, so no link sorry.
Cool, never mind - I've had a go at summarising and done my bit of Facebook evangelism. I'm not gay myself but I've felt for a long time that the state should be blind as to the gender of one's partner, and I'm increasingly coming round to the view that God is too.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
It's happening one person at a time. IngoB may be smug now but the Church is undergoing a slow revelation and change will come.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
I definitely believe in hate the sin, love the sinner--it's basic theology. The phrase is being misused by people (and, I note, mostly in regards to Teh Gey), but the principle remains. I can't love what my abusive parents did, but I should try to love and forgive and pray for them as much as possible. I find myself sometimes feeling loathing for one toxic politician or another when I think of them, and in that case I should fight against their sin but wish for their own healing.
If one believes that various kinds of sex are sinful, then of course they will believe that, but they should indeed try to love the people they don't agree with (which also means looking at how they express those beliefs and how they treat the people they don't agree with). That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Is the problem that they discuss the sex and forget about the love? I think it is. Should we expect more? Yes. But then look at the selection of people involved in the Vatican document. We have to bring expectations in line with the prejudices, preferences, ideology and idiocies of those involved.
On the other issue "love the sin and hate the sinner" or whatever it is. Please not that one!
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
IngoB, this entire thread is specifically about the implications of the synod for gay people. You are free not to discuss this issue but it seems strange when there is a thread in purgatory about the synod sans this dead horse to come here and say you don't want to discuss what everyone else on the thread is discussing.
Fair enough. I meant mostly that I did not want to discuss gay sex as such (whether it is right or wrong, etc.).
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
In response to your comment about dividing one-self I disagree. I think perhaps those advocating in favour of gay rights had tried to take the whole church with them too fast and misjudged what they were able to achieve.
So, in fact, you perhaps agree.
Anyway, it clearly was a stupid mistake to have something about gays ghostwritten by a well-known liberal into a document that was supposed to reflect the discussions of the bishops. If you write a summary document of a discussion, you don't add stuff that nobody remembers saying. Otherwise it doesn't really matter what you are adding, everybody will be upset with you for at best not doing your job and at worst trying to usurp the process.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
In so far as the concept that, same sex relationships corrupt your soul, is a religious belief - it can not be disprovend by empirical investigation, experimentation, deductive or abductive reasoning. It is a metaphysical rather than empirical claim.
And yet Roman Catholic theology claims that its moral teachings can be arrived at by reason - that is, as I understand it, the core of natural law theology.
Let's not confuse empirical fact with reason. The former requires something measurable or at least demonstrable; the latter is merely a process for getting from point A to point B.
Clearly there is no way to show to the satisfaction of the requirements of science that same-sex relationships corrupt the soul. So Doublethink is correct that such a claim is
metaphysical and not empirical.
If, however, you accept the proposition that sex is lawful only between a married man and woman, and that it must be open to procreation, then it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that sex in the context of a same-sex relationship is a sin. You may not accept the proposition, but that doesn't make the reasoning defective.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
If, however, you accept the proposition that sex is lawful only between a married man and woman, and that it must be open to procreation
So if you build the entire conclusion into your premise then you can claim to have used "reason"??
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
I elided a long argument into a short one for the purpose of illustration. If you want the whole argument from natural law, the Summa is available on the web.
Apologies for the hastiness and sloppiness of my summary, though I can't see what that has to do with the reasoning skills of Catholic theologians.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I am rather interested in how this Synod played out. And the real battleground there wasn't homosexuality, but communion for the remarried. As it turned out, the attempt to sneak something on homosexuality into the document was a first and probably crucial step in letting the liberal agenda fail. It was a kind of "divide yourself and be conquered" moment, in retrospect.
Er, are you hoping that the RC church will die out through the failure of any and all 'liberal' measures to make the church seem at all reasonable and relevant to people in the present day?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Er, are you hoping that the RC church will die out through the failure of any and all 'liberal' measures to make the church seem at all reasonable and relevant to people in the present day?
If a church cannot serve the Lord in truth, then indeed I hope that she dies. The faster, the better. The Church as such cannot die, and if she does, then properly speaking there never was a church and all was just pretentious illusion. I see no value in maintaining illusions.
There is a creative tension between accommodation of times and cultures and the need to lead people and indeed their cultures beyond themselves in Christ. All heresies originate in an attempt to relieve such tension by eliminating one of the opposing sides. The total denial of accommodation is also a heresy. But not one I see much evidence for in the Church at large, though certainly it is a danger in "rad trad" groups.
To state this more personally: If I ever wake up and find that I am comfortable in my religion, I will know that either I am wrong about my religion, or that my religion is wrong.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
The Catholic Church took about 200 years longer than secular Europe to stop saying Jews were evil doers who killed Christ.
It won't be surprising if there's a similar lag in reworking the attitudes toward same-sex marriage.
Clocking the lag toward the church acceptance of the remarriage of the divorced will be a useful data point.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The Catholic Church took about 200 years longer than secular Europe to stop saying Jews were evil doers who killed Christ.
It won't be surprising if there's a similar lag in reworking the attitudes toward same-sex marriage.
Clocking the lag toward the church acceptance of the remarriage of the divorced will be a useful data point.
Contraception to come first before remarriage of divorcees I would think.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The Catholic Church took about 200 years longer than secular Europe to stop saying Jews were evil doers who killed Christ.
It won't be surprising if there's a similar lag in reworking the attitudes toward same-sex marriage.
Clocking the lag toward the church acceptance of the remarriage of the divorced will be a useful data point.
I don't accept this parallel. Mildly put, the mistreatment of Jews, whether because they were considered Christ-killers or something else, accelerated in the 20th century. The bigoted attitudes in most of the conquered countries ensured their more efficient destruction. Plus homosexuals were also targetted themselves for destruction. The comparison, thus of ant-semitism to anti-gay. is inept at minimum.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The Catholic Church took about 200 years longer than secular Europe to stop saying Jews were evil doers who killed Christ.
It won't be surprising if there's a similar lag in reworking the attitudes toward same-sex marriage.
Clocking the lag toward the church acceptance of the remarriage of the divorced will be a useful data point.
I don't accept this parallel. Mildly put, the mistreatment of Jews, whether because they were considered Christ-killers or something else, accelerated in the 20th century. The bigoted attitudes in most of the conquered countries ensured their more efficient destruction. Plus homosexuals were also targetted themselves for destruction. The comparison, thus of ant-semitism to anti-gay. is inept at minimum.
Feel free not to accept this parallel. If you want, put your hands over your ear and shout "La La La, I can't hear you". It doesn't change the fact that the parallel exists.
Anti-Semitism in Europe changed from being part of the legal establishment to private animus in the 18th century and early 19th century. While the laws were changed, there was still a lot of private animus, often in conjunction with the parties which were allied with the Church in France and Germany, e.g. the anti-Dreyfus conservatives.
That's more or less the situation now with Gays in a lot of places. The legal rights are not complete but are rapidly becoming so over the last 50 years. Sodomy is now legal, and civil same sex marriage is becoming legal despite the Church in much of Europe and North America.
The attempt to destroy the Jews is what made anti-Semitism in the United States extremely unpopular. Just because there are setbacks doesn't mean there aren't high water marks as well. I'm sure that despite the steps forward, there will be persecution of gays in Uganda and Nigeria by politicians with the support of local Church leaders.
[ 21. October 2014, 17:25: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
In so far as the concept that, same sex relationships corrupt your soul, is a religious belief - it can not be disprovend by empirical investigation, experimentation, deductive or abductive reasoning. It is a metaphysical rather than empirical claim.
And yet Roman Catholic theology claims that its moral teachings can be arrived at by reason - that is, as I understand it, the core of natural law theology.
Let's not confuse empirical fact with reason. The former requires something measurable or at least demonstrable; the latter is merely a process for getting from point A to point B.
Clearly there is no way to show to the satisfaction of the requirements of science that same-sex relationships corrupt the soul. So Doublethink is correct that such a claim is
metaphysical and not empirical.
If, however, you accept the proposition that sex is lawful only between a married man and woman, and that it must be open to procreation, then it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that sex in the context of a same-sex relationship is a sin. You may not accept the proposition, but that doesn't make the reasoning defective.
Accept that the premises are deeply flawed, and to some extent a circular argument. It literally begs the question.
Posted by Planeta Plicata (# 17543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Anti-Semitism in Europe changed from being part of the legal establishment to private animus in the 18th century and early 19th century. While the laws were changed, there was still a lot of private animus, often in conjunction with the parties which were allied with the Church in France and Germany, e.g. the anti-Dreyfus conservatives.
You need a pretty creative definition of "Europe" to maintain this Whig history. Start by excluding Russia (the Beilis trial, the Doctors' plot, etc.) and work your way west.
Posted by Planeta Plicata (# 17543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Er, are you hoping that the RC church will die out through the failure of any and all 'liberal' measures to make the church seem at all reasonable and relevant to people in the present day?
This would be more convincing if the various other churches that have done their best to make themselves seem reasonable and relevant to people in the present day were growing like gangbusters compared to the RCC.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
You need a pretty creative definition of "Europe" to maintain this Whig history. Start by excluding Russia (the Beilis trial, the Doctors' plot, etc.) and work your way west.
It's hardly creative to exclude Russia from secular Europe. That's what the European Union does.
Posted by Planeta Plicata (# 17543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
You need a pretty creative definition of "Europe" to maintain this Whig history. Start by excluding Russia (the Beilis trial, the Doctors' plot, etc.) and work your way west.
It's hardly creative to exclude Russia from secular Europe. That's what the European Union does.
Placing them in the same category as other obviously non-European nations like Norway and Switzerland. (And of course, the Russian Empire did include parts of what are now the EU, like Congress Poland.)
Not that that's the only problem with the idea that it's some Eternal Rule of History that Europe will lead the world to Equality and Freedom (eventually dragging along even the Romish troglodytes). For one thing, there's something wrong with a potted history that notes that "Anti-Semitism in Europe changed from being part of the legal establishment to private animus in the 18th century and early 19th century" without even mentioning (for example) the appearance of the Nuremburg Laws in the 20th. For another, it's a pretty simplistic account of even the past couple of centuries (let alone the next couple): not for nothing did Hannah Arendt point out (in The Origins of Totalitarianism) that quote:
[t]he representatives of the Age of Enlightenment who prepared the French Revolution despised the Jews as a matter of course; they saw in them the backward remnants of the Dark Ages, and they hated them as the financial agents of the aristocracy. The only articulate friends of the Jews in France were conservative writers who denounced anti-Jewish attitudes as "one of the favorite theses of the eighteenth century."
(That last sentence cites arch-Catholic Joseph de Maistre, of course, whose views on Jewish people compare favorably with Voltaire.)
no prophet is quite right not to accept this purported parallel.
[ 23. October 2014, 01:49: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
So are you arguing either
a) anti-Semitism is widespread in secular Europe today including legal discrimination.
b) anti-Semitism was wide spread until very recently, and thus the difference between that happening and the apologies to the Jews by John Paul II was a very short period of decades?
If the latter, then you are saying the lag between secular progress and the church adopting it can be much shorter.
That's far more optimistic than I am but hey, you go for it.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0