Vatican Proposes Stunning Reforms

[Guest]

I mean, I agree it's important to not sanctify sin, but this is the absolute top of your list??? For real?

Yes, or I wouldn't have said it. Any other questions?

 

[phgreek]

I would bet a substantial amount of money that before I'm gone from this earth that the church will soften its stance on birth control. Remember, even Mormons allow the use of birth control...

...Yea well no one is saying it very loud...this place is the land of the child....they can't build schools and churches fast enough out here...it is CRAZY.

In terms of Catholicism changing in some big way...mmmmm, Naaaaa.

I think there is, in any faith, room for discussion regarding how leadership and practitioners live among those around them who do not share their faith. I think any organization needs to make sure its message is "relateable"...and you can do that w/o changing much beyond attitudes and approaches.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Obviously there needs to be changes because most young people won't want to practice an organized religion that is openly homophobic.

 

[IrishMoore1]

The Church isn't changing its teachings. There are some pastors who wished it would, and they are going to try to see how far they can manipulate the "rules" implementing the teachings, without actually changing the teaching.

The problem for them is the Bible is a hard thing to explain away while maintaining credibility. Why believe the Church is an authority empowered by Jesus if it contradicts the Bible on an issue that is so clearly set forth?

As far as Catholic intolerance towards homosexuals, the number of gay clergy should dispel that myth. The differnece now is the push to conflate condemning homosexual ACTS with condemning people who have homosexual attractions. Is that concept really so difficult to understand? For example, is condemning an alcoholic's drinking really the same as condemning him as a person?



Add China, India, and Russia... The vast majority of the world. The rich kids and their IMF vassals are the only ones doing the changing.





So the idea is that pro-traditional marriage folks assert that society was immediately going to crumble as soon as they legalized gay marriage? I doubt very many people at all ever argued that. Wouldn't most assume that the effects of undermining traditional, sexual morality would be gradual, not immediate?

Even if they did, why would that nonsense be your basis for judging whether it was harmful or not? The utilitarian, non-religious perspective the idea is not difficult to understand. The family unit represents the "natural" foundational building block of society, with a complimentary relationship beween a man and a woman dedicated to making sacrifices to raise their own offspring. You undermine such foundational institutions at your own peril. The burden of proof is on the person wishing to fundamentally overturn things to prove its harmless before he makes the change. I don't knock out a wall on the first floor of my house with out making darn sure I know exactly what its holding up. Just inisisting on the rigteousness of your own position with the support of the popular culture and insisting that nothing will happen is not sufficient.

Nearly 70% of black children are raised in single parent households. For whites, it's around 25%. What foundational institution are you talking about?

The divorce rate in this country is 50%! Would allowing two people of the same sex to raise children together produce a worse result than the current state of affairs? I don't think anything is being fundamentally overturned here. In what other way does gay marriage affect me or my freedoms?

 

[greyhammer90]

What a sensationalist non-story.

 

[pkt77242]

The Church isn't changing its teachings. There are some pastors who wished it would, and they are going to try to see how far they can manipulate the "rules" implementing the teachings, without actually changing the teaching.

The problem for them is the Bible is a hard thing to explain away while maintaining credibility. Why believe the Church is an authority empowered by Jesus if it contradicts the Bible on an issue that is so clearly set forth?

As far as Catholic intolerance towards homosexuals, the number of gay clergy should dispel that myth. The differnece now is the push to conflate condemning homosexual ACTS with condemning people who have homosexual attractions. Is that concept really so difficult to understand? For example, is condemning an alcoholic's drinking really the same as condemning him as a person?



Add China, India, and Russia... The vast majority of the world. The rich kids and their IMF vassals are the only ones doing the changing.





So the idea is that pro-traditional marriage folks assert that society was immediately going to crumble as soon as they legalized gay marriage? I doubt very many people at all ever argued that. Wouldn't most assume that the effects of undermining traditional, sexual morality would be gradual, not immediate?

Even if they did, why would that nonsense be your basis for judging whether it was harmful or not? The utilitarian, non-religious perspective the idea is not difficult to understand. The family unit represents the "natural" foundational building block of society, with a complimentary relationship beween a man and a woman dedicated to making sacrifices to raise their own offspring. You undermine such foundational institutions at your own peril. The burden of proof is on the person wishing to fundamentally overturn things to prove its harmless before he makes the change. I don't knock out a wall on the first floor of my house with out making darn sure I know exactly what its holding up. Just inisisting on the rigteousness of your own position with the support of the popular culture and insisting that nothing will happen is not sufficient.

There is a very vocal minority that argues stuff like that (Bill O'reilly and a few of the Christian Conservatives like Pat Roberston and Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc) have definitely said things like "it will lead to people marring donkeys (Dobson), you will be allowed to marry a goat in 10 years (O'Rielly in 2005) and Robertson and Falwell partially blamed 9/11 on homosexuality. There are many more examples but those are some of the best ones.

I would also point out that as far as society goes (not the Church who I don't expect to change their teaching within my lifetime) just because it has been a certain way for 2000 years means jack shit. We have done many things for 1000's of years, it doesn't mean that it is the right way to do them. That shows a lack of an argument.

I think that children do best in a two parent household but it really doesn't matter if it is 1M/1F, 2F, or 2M. Studies are starting to bear this out. This link has a study in Australia (which has some flaws which are discussed) and at the bottom of the story is some info from the American Academy of Pediatrics which analyzed 30 years worth of data. The real interesting part about the Australian study is that one of the biggest issues that children of same sex marriage face is how other children treat them (basically bully them).
Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers, research shows - The Washington Post

Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian

 

[Rack Em]

Obviously there needs to be changes because most young people won't want to practice an organized religion that is openly homophobic.

This is borderline neg rep worthy. If you don't like Catholicism, why open this thread? Just to troll?

Young people don't want to practice any organized religion because the importance isn't stressed in family life.

Next time make a constructive argument if you want to baselessly bash someone or something.

 

[BobD]

I like everyone.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

This is borderline neg rep worthy. If you don't like Catholicism, why open this thread? Just to troll?

Young people don't want to practice any organized religion because the importance isn't stressed in family life.

Next time make a constructive argument if you want to baseless bash someone or something.

The fact that the Church is on the wrong side of history when it comes to homosexuality definitely steers people away from the Church. It shows that they are out-of-touch, and Pope Francis realizes the perception and is doing things and saying things to fix that.

 

[irishog77]

Whose history? Your's?

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Whose history? Your's?

Soon-to-be the world's history, just how the South was on the wrong side of history during the Civil War and during Jim Crow. Just like how anyone who has committed genocide is on the wrong side of history. Just like how anyone who has openly and actively discriminated has eventually ended up on the wrong side of history. In a generation the disallowance of gay marriage will look ridiculous, and the anti-gay faction will be judged as being on the wrong side of history. What, are people going to suddenly outlaw gay marriage again for no reason? Because a bunch of out-of-touch people don't like it? Because people pick and choose what they want from something written thousands of years ago? Because people think it's icky? No, gay marriage will be established in the western world in the same way interracial marriage was established and slavery was abolished from law and all of these injustices have been righted.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Remember, the Mormon Church is only 184 years old. Centuries of belief don't change overnight.

Exactly. The LDS Church has never put much stock in theological consistency, so it's not very relevant comparison.

I do believe that the Church's doctrine on human sexuality is mistaken, but the adoption of gay marriage in other countries does not prove that. This fact only counters the arguments of others who say that gay marriage will destroy society, ruin families, etc.

Sounds like a strawman to me. I read quite a bit on this subject, and I've never seen a credible author suggest that gay marriage will "destroy society, ruin families, etc." I'm curious how you'd change the Church's doctrine in a way that would remain coherent. Rome's opposition to homosexual acts, birth control, extra-marital affairs, etc. all flows from the same set of sexual ethics, which is based on the Church's understanding of what a human being is. You can't simply discard bits of it because they're no longer en vogue. The whole things unravels.

I recently coached track and field at a Jesuit high school, from which I graduated in 2007. Non-catholics and even Catholics don't always agree with the stances of the Church. Topics such as gay marriage and birth control are especially noticeable, so I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion.

Catholics are of course allowed to dissent from Church teaching. But I'm not comfortable with Catholic teachers at a Catholic school doing so; at least not in an outspoken fashion. As a Catholic parent, it's hard enough raising kids in this culture without having to combat it in our own schools.

Your beliefs are up to you so long as they don't infringe on others rights to the same (separation of church and state, in other words).

So any religious belief that doesn't conform to political liberalism is beyond the pale? There's some serious philosophical baggage baked into that litmus test already. And it's not like Establishment Clause is cut and dry either, as evidenced by the recent lawsuits between Catholic institutions (including ND) and Obamacare.

 

[pkt77242]

Exactly. The LDS Church has never put much stock in theological consistency, so it's not very relevant comparison.



Sounds like a strawman to me. I read quite a bit on this subject, and I've never seen a credible author suggest that gay marriage will "destroy society, ruin families, etc."



Catholics are of course allowed to dissent from Church teaching. But I'm not comfortable with Catholic teachers at a Catholic school doing so; at least not in an outspoken fashion. As a Catholic parent, it's hard enough raising kids in this culture without having to combat it in our own schools.



So any religious belief that doesn't conform to political liberalism is beyond the pale? There's some serious philosophical baggage baked into that litmus test already. And it's not like Establishment Clause is cut and dry either, as evidenced by the recent lawsuits between Catholic institutions (including ND) and Obamacare.

I agree that credible authors (the Church, etc) stay away from that but most people aren't reading credible authors. Fox News has had many, many segments stating that and unfortunately many people get their news from places like Fox News (or for that matter CNN or MSNBC). So what many people are hearing in reality is that gay marriage will ruin the world, or lead to people marrying donkeys, etc.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Y'all can get upset or whatever about what 2114 is saying, but he's right about young people. A majority of generation Xers and millennials see the church's stance on a couple of key issues, especially homosexuality, as antiquated and bigoted. This perception is a problem for the church.

 

[irishog77]

Soon-to-be the world's history, just how the South was on the wrong side of history during the Civil War and during Jim Crow. Just like how anyone who has committed genocide is on the wrong side of history. Just like how anyone who has openly and actively discriminated has eventually ended up on the wrong side of history. In a generation the disallowance of gay marriage will look ridiculous, and the anti-gay faction will be judged as being on the wrong side of history. What, are people going to suddenly outlaw gay marriage again for no reason? Because a bunch of out-of-touch people don't like it? Because people pick and choose what they want from something written thousands of years ago? Because people think it's icky? No, gay marriage will be established in the western world in the same way interracial marriage was established and slavery was abolished from law and all of these injustices have been righted.

I believe Rack Em was correct in calling you out for trollish behavior.

 

[pkt77242]

Y'all can get upset or whatever about what 2114 is saying, but he's right about young people. A majority of generation Xers and millennials see the church's stance on a couple of key issues, especially homosexuality, as antiquated and bigoted. This perception is a problem for the church.

Millennials Leaving Religion over LGBT Issues | Leadership Journal

A Shifting Landscape: A Decade of Change in American Attitudes about Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Issues

 

[pkt77242]

I believe Rack Em was correct in calling you out for trollish behavior.

I get why his first post was trollish, but why was that post trollish?

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

I believe Rack Em was correct in calling you out for trollish behavior.

Okay you can call me out but that doesn't make me wrong. Gay marriage is legal in most of the United States and will soon be legal in all of it. It won't go back to being banned, just like how Jim Crow laws won't come back. People see the injustice of treating people like second class citizens, and people correct it and then they see another injustice. It takes too long.

Young people today are motivated when they see injustice. Baby Boomers and the older generation tries to resist any change, just like every older generation has. They see injustice with how homosexuals are treated, how minorities are treated, how the poor are treated. Many young people work to correct it, as young people always have. Young people in the 60s were instrumental in changing racist laws, just like these young people are instrumental in legalizing gay marriage.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

I get why his first post was trollish, but why was that post trollish?

That wasn't trollish, it was just brief. I didn't know if this thread was going to be worth discussing much about, other than the fact that the Catholic church is going to lose followers if they don't adjust to the times.

 

[irishog77]

That wasn't trollish, it was just brief. I didn't know if this thread was going to be worth discussing much about, other than the fact that the Catholic church is going to lose followers if they don't adjust to the times.

This probably isn't even worth discussing. You believe the Church needs to "get with the times." Essentially, you then believe the Church should be susceptible to constantly changing human emotions, actions, and beliefs. The newest flavor of the month (or year, or decade), if you will.

The Church will never change in an effort to "get with the times." That's not how Truth works.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I think the most interesting thing about all of this is how many people I see on Facebook incorrectly posting about these "awesome" changes in Church doctrine. It's not changing (or so I believe Whiskey and others on here), but they think it is and they're talking about how it's strengthening their Catholicism. That says something.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

The "Truth" was used to support slavery in the 1800s. It was used to promote feudalism and authoratarianism in the past. People will use whatever they want to promote their worldviews and force their morals onto others. Gay marriage literally affects nothing for straight Christian people, but there are still people who want it banned because of what they believe. That's not how the world works anymore. It's not a new flavor of the month. Homophobia has always been wrong and will continue to always be wrong. People are just more accepting now because people are more enlightened and caring than ever now. There are still violent homophobes who gaybash and harm gays, but most young people can accept others now.

 

[irishog77]

Can the Church do a better job of recognizing the loving relationships that exist between same-sex couples? Sure.

The Church believes sex should be between a man and woman, inside the Covenant of marriage, with the openness to pro-creration. That isn't going to change.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Soon-to-be the world's history, just how the South was on the wrong side of history during the Civil War and during Jim Crow. Just like how anyone who has committed genocide is on the wrong side of history. Just like how anyone who has openly and actively discriminated has eventually ended up on the wrong side of history. In a generation the disallowance of gay marriage will look ridiculous, and the anti-gay faction will be judged as being on the wrong side of history. What, are people going to suddenly outlaw gay marriage again for no reason? Because a bunch of out-of-touch people don't like it? Because people pick and choose what they want from something written thousands of years ago? Because people think it's icky? No, gay marriage will be established in the western world in the same way interracial marriage was established and slavery was abolished from law and all of these injustices have been righted.

"Progressivism is good. Conservatism is evil. Because reasons." Very compelling argument, 2114.

I agree that credible authors (the Church, etc) stay away from that but most people aren't reading credible authors. Fox News has had many, many segments stating that and unfortunately many people get their news from places like Fox News (or for that matter CNN or MSNBC). So what many people are hearing in reality is that gay marriage will ruin the world, or lead to people marrying donkeys, etc.

I've seen some of that on Fox, but it's usually just a hyperbolic way of pointing out that abolishing norms in favor of sexual complementarity produces a very slippery slope. Since gay marriage is now mainstream, what's the justification for maintaining the norm against polyamory? Or incest? The beastiality example is a hyperbolic example of the above. Where do the draw the line once the MF norm has been erased? It's a valid argument.

And despite protestations that such slippery slopes are nonexistant, we're now seeing public defenses of polyamory.

Y'all can get upset or whatever about what 2114 is saying, but he's right about young people. A majority of generation Xers and millennials see the church's stance on a couple of key issues, especially homosexuality, as antiquated and bigoted. This perception is a problem for the church.

Virtually all churches are declining in the West. The mainline protestant denominations, which are among the most sexually liberal in US, are collapsing much faster than conservative denominations that insist on the traditional definition of marriage. So no, the evidence pretty emphatically proves that embracing SSM is a cultural death sentence, not a quick fix for renewed relevance.

 

[irishog77]

Right, people who don't believe in gay marriage are homophobic. Gotcha.

You're inability to understand this, or your purposeful attempt to argue this, are why 2 people have called you out for trollish behavior.

 

[IrishMoore1]

Exactly. The LDS Church has never put much stock in theological consistency, so it's not very relevant comparison.



Sounds like a strawman to me. I read quite a bit on this subject, and I've never seen a credible author suggest that gay marriage will "destroy society, ruin families, etc." I'm curious how you'd change the Church's doctrine in a way that would remain coherent. Rome's opposition to homosexual acts, birth control, extra-marital affairs, etc. all flows from the same set of sexual ethics, which is based on the Church's understanding of what a human being is. You can't simply discard bits of it because they're no longer en vogue. The whole things unravels.


Catholics are of course allowed to dissent from Church teaching. But I'm not comfortable with Catholic teachers at a Catholic school doing so; at least not in an outspoken fashion. As a Catholic parent, it's hard enough raising kids in this culture without having to combat it in our own schools.

I never referred to any credible authors. This is what people in the media and even the Pope (I'm referring to Pope Benedict) has said.

In regard to Catholic schools, the students are encouraged to discuss these topics and critically think for themselves. Students of other faiths are encouraged to contribute their own beliefs to the discussion. The same can be said for students at Notre Dame. You can teach young people Catholic doctrines and rules all you want, but the core of an education is to critically think and not accept everything as it is. The dissent comes form discussion and actually thinking about this stuff. It doesn't come from the teachers.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

The fact that the Church is on the wrong side of history when it comes to homosexuality definitely steers people away from the Church. It shows that they are out-of-touch, and Pope Francis realizes the perception and is doing things and saying things to fix that.

Which side is the wrong side? Out of touch with what? Does the Church promulgate specific views to steer people towards itself (outside of claiming it's link to ultimate Truth)?

 

[pkt77242]

"Progressivism is good. Conservatism is evil. Because reasons." Very compelling argument, 2114.



I've seen some of that on Fox, but it's usually just a hyperbolic way of pointing out that abolishing norms in favor of sexual complementarity produces a very slippery slope. Since gay marriage is now mainstream, what's the justification for maintaining the norm against polyamory? Or incest? The beastiality example is a hyperbolic example of the above. Where do the draw the line once the MF norm has been erased? It's a valid argument.

And despite protestations that such slippery slopes are nonexistant, we're now seeing public defenses of polyamory.



Virtually all churches are declining in the West. The mainline protestant denominations, which are among the most sexually liberal in US, are collapsing much faster than conservative denominations that insist on the traditional definition of marriage. So no, the evidence pretty emphatically proves that embracing SSM is a cultural death sentence, not a quick fix for renewed relevance.

Whiskey I respect you but you might be understating it a little. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson partially blamed 9/11 on gays and lesbians, and there have been many other mind boggling statements made like that about gay people and the LGBT movement in general.

As to the rest of your post in regards to mine bringing up animals as slippery slope is ridiculous and you know it. Bringing up Polyamory is fine but no one is going to legalize marrying donkeys or children which often gets brought up as part of the slippery slope argument which will never happen and is fear mongering at its best. Animals and children can not give consent and that is why they can't marry. The real slippery slope arguments are Polyamory but Polyamory doesn't create enough fear so it isn't used.

My question to you is does the government have a good reason to ban polyamory? Is someone being hurt by it? Does it cause harm to others who aren't part of the marriage?

I personally find it troublesome and I can't fathom it (Hell it is hard enough to handle one woman) but I am not sure what legal ground it really stands on.

 

[Cackalacky]

I have weighed in before but the socially accepted and codified legality of marriage cannot be ignored. issues regarding spouses, children, dependents, inheritances, or other property are covered by laws impacted by marriage.

I will also add that marriage, matrimony, wedlock etc has a much longer history and scope than just Catholic Orthodxy. The church can maintain its practices but I don't think from a legal standpoint Catholic, Muslim, Bhuddists, or a pagan ceremonies have any more of a right to define the circumstance than any other.

Further I think the significance of matrimony has been lost and a little Orthodxy would reap many benefits for society.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Whiskey I respect you but you might be understating it a little. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson partially blamed 9/11 on gays and lesbians, and there have been many other mind boggling statements made like that about gay people and the LGBT movement in general.

And the American political left has it's own version of these idiots-- 9/11 "Truthers", etc. That's why I said I haven't read a credible source making that argument.

As to the rest of your post in regards to mine bringing up animals as slippery slope is ridiculous and you know it. Bringing up Polyamory is fine but no one is going to legalize marrying donkeys or children which often gets brought up as part of the slippery slope argument which will never happen and is fear mongering at its best. Animals and children can not give consent and that is why they can't marry. The real slippery slope arguments are Polyamory but Polyamory doesn't create enough fear so it isn't used.

The arguments in favor of SSM can also be used to justify polyamory and incest. Are you cool with both of those, too? If not, that significantly undermines their force. And why is sex with animals out of bounds due to their inability to consent, but it's still OK to hunt them, or raise them for food? They certainly don't consent to those actions. And if you think children are clearly different from beasts in this way, you've basically conceded that humans are categorically different from animals in a way that evolution can't explain.

Trying to make "consent"--itself a pretty problematic idea, given the power dynamics at work in most sexual relationships-- the sole arbiter of sexual ethics creates more problems than it solves.

My question to you is does the government have a good reason to ban polyamory? Is someone being hurt by it? Does it cause harm to others who aren't part of the marriage?

Based on the liberal philosophy undergirding American politics, no, the government does not have a good reason to ban polyamory, or incest, or even beastiality. I'd suggest that that fact alone calls into question the entire liberal project.

I personally find it troublesome and I can't fathom it (Hell it is hard enough to handle one woman) but I am not sure what legal ground it really stands on.

I think your moral intuition is correct.

Sexual ethics isn't simply a subset of morality. It's the ultimate anthropological gauge, because it is so strongly related to what one believes a human being is. We're really getting at first principles here.