Filum Romanum - A Thread for the Catholic Church

Considering that the Vatican helped by playing a part in the recent development in the US-Cuban relations, I think they'll let him appear there (especially, since he's from a nation that speaks the same language, which means that there's a fair bit of affinity). JP II was fairly different from this Pope in regards to history and politics.

That Cordileone guy sounds like an unsavoury character.

Not particularly—not unless one also considers Francis, his two predecessors, or archbishops of the Chaput type "unsavoury." Of course, many figures on the Catholic left have long held exactly such a view, and it's largely those "prominent Catholic" usual suspects who seem to be clamoring for Cordileone's ouster. Now that's their prerogative ... but let's not pretend that the things about Cordileone that displease them have much to do with anything other than what the Catholic Church considers garden-variety orthodoxy.

Sorry, Euo; my misguided love of ten-cent vocabulary strikes again! The noun "ouster" is the state of being ousted: a removal or being shown the door.

edited 21st Apr '15 11:01:11 AM by Jhimmibhob

Grammar nitpick: "an ousting" (noun), not "an ousted". You can get ousted (verb) in an uprising, though.

The Pope has confirmed his visit in September to Cuba, prior to going to the United States.

Is this Cordileone unusually strict, or does he seem so in contrast to how sexually liberal the city of San Francisco is?

This petition also raises the question of whether a church office is meant to represent the local community of believers, or the church hierarchy. I think in principle it's the latter, but they can't ignore the local makeup when appointing figures of authority without courting trouble.

A: Sounds like he's like a lot of Catholic reactionaries. Firmly adherent to the strictest interpretation of the Church's canon on sexual issues and not really giving a damn about what anyone else thinks.

B: It's the latter, both in principle and in practice. The Catholic Church's organization is very medieval and hierarchical at its roots, and there's really no room for democracy in a church where holiness flows down; from God, through the Apostles and through Peter, to the bishops, to the priests, to the people. The function of the community of believers is to listen to what their priest tells them.

edited 23rd Apr '15 2:06:00 AM by Ramidel

In some cases, including the current doctrine of the Church?

Nothing about what he said conflicts in the least with current doctrine. Please take note: he said that the actions are a grave evil, not that the people are evil.

That's a distinction that is usually glossed over and ignored by folks who want to be outraged at some part of Church doctrine. But it's a fundamental distinction that must be made: the person is not the act. The sinner is not the sin. You not only can make the distinction, you must learn to do so: "Love the sinner but hate the sin."

edited 23rd Apr '15 4:17:28 AM by Madrugada

That's a pathetic dodge. It's doublespeak at its finest. You do not love gay people if you seek to deny them their sexuality, and condemn their sexuality as a wicked and disgusting act that you hate.

It seems inevitable to me that eventually the RCC is going to accept homosexuality. All the momentum is in that direction. I think we are just waiting for all the old conservatives to die off. Of course they cant just come out and say that- this being the RCC, they will try to have it both ways. Historically, they have used doublespeak to change the doctrine without the appearance of changing the doctrine.

No, Ache, it's not a dodge and it's not doublespeak. People do it all the time, when they feel like it.

If you have a child who tells lies, do you hate the child or the lies and lying? How often have you heard — or said yourself to a friend — "Dude, I like you, but that was a real dick move"? That's making a distinction between the person and the act.

The thing is, as Christians and Catholics, we're called on to do it all the time, not just when we feel like it or for people we're already inclined to like/love.

The person is not their acts.

That's extremely unconvincing. Forgiving people for behaving badly of their own free will is patently not equivalent to "loving" gay people but hating expressions of actual gay love. Nothing forces you to lie, you can always make the decision to tell the truth. Gay people cannot, however, choose not to be attracted to people of the same sex. Transgender people cannot choose to not be transgendered. Unless the expectation is that gay people never have gay sex or feel attraction, and that transgendered people must stay in the bodies they were born in their entire lives, which is unreasonable in the first case and evil in the second. It also demands an obligation that cannot be fulfilled except by people of uncommon willpower or self-loathing. Forcing people to undertake a functionally impossible task is not love.

When my friends do something dickish, its because they made a choice to do so. When LGBT "sin" its because they were born that way.

@DeMarquis: It's possible, but I think getting women into priesthood will happen earlier than that.

@Ach: I totally get your anger, but with any long-standing organization, you gott have small stepping stones. The bit about Pope Francis telling others the 'who am I to judge homossexuals' thing is an early stepping stone that cause quite the discussion between conservative and liberal Catholics. The ground, as it stands, is still filled with conservatives, but it will be gradually replaced with more liberal types.

While homossexuality is still deemed as a sin, it may change in some near/distant future. Sure, for those who are impatient, this would just get them even more angry, but baby steps have to be taken to persuade the more conservative types gradually towards tolerating (and then, who knows, accepting) homossexuals, including the non-celibate types. I've talked about this in the LGBT Rights and Religion thread.

Not too many decades ago was homossexuality illegal, according to the law in many countries. Regardless of religion being involved in the law or not, religious societies do not tend to adopt or embrace new things quickly (except technology that allows them to spread the word and communicate).

But, if you don't accept them taking the baby steps, they will refuse to take the larger steps. Encourage the intolerant to abandon, even if slowly, any harmful intolerance that is no longer deemed acceptable in secular society.

That has nothing to do with anything that I said. I was commenting on the hypocrisy of "love the sinner hate the sin".

And again, Ache, you're ignoring the fact that it's not "being gay" that's considered wrong. It's acting on it. I'm het, but because I'm also single, I'm expected, by Catholic doctrine, to remain non-active sexually, unless or until I marry again. So unless you're saying that you don't think gay people can control what they choose to do...

Now, is it unfair that the Catholic Church denies gays the right to marry within the church and thus legitimize sexual activity? Yes, I think it is. But that's a very different thing than asserting that it considers them "evil" or demands that they stop being gay.

There's no hypocrisy in separating the act from the person. We all do it anyway. Whether or not to engage in sexual activity is a choice. It's not an easy one to forego, but it's still a choice.

edited 23rd Apr '15 6:52:16 AM by Madrugada

Being attracted to someone of the same sex isn't a sin.

Again on the attraction thing, I'm pretty sure that's not a sin in doctrine. Acting upon that attraction and having gay sex is a sin, but the attraction in of itself is not.

So the exception that is that gay people not have gay sex, same as the expectation is that people not have pre-marital sex or use birth control. Now true Christian doctrine includes room for screw ups, that's the whole point of the hate the sinner not the sin thing, people screw up at times but you're still meant to love them and try and help them onto the proper path.

edited 23rd Apr '15 6:56:01 AM by Silasw

Don't be dense. What I am saying is, as you conceded, is that going through life without sex is very hard. Arguably, its also extremely unhealthy. A life lived in such a manner is not something you would demand of people you claim to love.

No, it merely considers physical expressions of gay love to be "grave depravity" and that being gay is "objectively a disorder". It demands that they may never physically express their love. That's not a restriction it places on heterosexuals.

Except it's a choice that is vastly easier for heterosexual Catholics, who can look forward to future sexual encounters with their spouses, as opposed to gay ones who must remain celibate forever.

You have neatly sidestepped the issue of transgendered people too.

I'm not being dense. You are refusing to accept that "acting" is not the same as "being". You are refusing to accept that non-married heterosexual sex is considered just as much a "grave depravity" as gay sex. You are insisting that simply "being gay" is considered wrong. You are ignoring the fact that no one is saying it's "fair" that the Church refuses to allow gay marriage, since marriage legitimizes sexual activity.

You willfully ignoring what the doctrine really is in favor of what allows you to be more outraged at it.

edited 23rd Apr '15 7:41:42 AM by Madrugada

Source on that? I wasn't aware of being gay being wrong in official doctrine, just having gay sex.

Ache you're right that the Catholic Church is incredibly unfair on gays and places a lot of limiters on them that they don't on strait people, that's something entirely legitimate to object to, so object to that and stop distorting the truth so as to get even more outraged, there's plenty to get outraged about without having to distort the truth.

edited 23rd Apr '15 7:48:36 AM by Silasw

I'm not distorting anything.

Source is the Catechism of the Catholic Church

As usual, you've not actually addressed anything that I've actually written. My argument is that the church's line about "acting vs being" is a distinction without a difference. It still places an unreasonable expectation upon the "sinner" in the context of LGBT rights. If you cannot grasp the nuance of the argument, then fine, but don't accuse me of wilfully ignoring anything.

edited 23rd Apr '15 8:20:49 AM by Achaemenid

So why is this something special to LGBT rights? We 'hate' the sin in the rest of life fine. I hate all sorts of stupid shit my friends have done and my friends hate all sorts of stupid shit I've done, we still love and care for each other.

Why is gay sex with someone you love "stupid shit"?

The same reason that pre-marital sex with someone you love is "stupid shit".

I don't deny that it's stupid and backwards but it's stupid and backwards because it considers consensual gay sex a sin, not because it believes you can object to a sin without hating the person who sinned.

edited 23rd Apr '15 8:52:20 AM by Silasw

I'd assume the Catholic Church considers being gay "objectively a disorder" because gay people are not orientated toward the Church's view of sexual morality: they don't wish to marry someone of the opposite sex or procreate and thus all of their sexual inclinations encourage them to sin. Presumably something about heterosexuality being the "natural order of things" as well.

It makes sense if you're on board with the Church's logic.

edited 23rd Apr '15 8:55:51 AM by majoraoftime

Except for most people sex is an intrinsic part of a long-term relationship. So hating the sin and loving the sinner deprives LGBT of that cornerstone in a way that it does not for heterosexual couples. In essence, it forces LGBT to live lives of total sexual abstinence. That's A: almost impossible, and B: fairly unhealthy. It's certainly not an act of love. Regardless of whether Catholic doctrine on this issue is aimed at gay people or gay sex, it still ultimately affects the people's quality of life. "I love the sinner but hate the sin" is a cop-out.

edited 23rd Apr '15 9:03:40 AM by Achaemenid