Filum Romanum - A Thread for the Catholic Church

Oi! Where did we say that it was right? No, really, where?

We said that the Church's position is what it is, and will probably be changed only in the future. We stated its position. Is it right in our personal hearts here? No. The best thing we can do is to try to change things gradually and support the LGBTQ folks whenever we can.

You probably assume that we're a bunch of folks slavishly devoted to every single word coming out of the RCC or the Pope.

No, I don't. Cool it.

People are saying it is right in the sense that they keep alternatively saying that the Church "loves the sinner but hates the sin", so it isn't really against gay people^note What I've been arguing is that functionally that's just weaseling. but nevertheless they themselves are too liberal and enlightened to even consider it a sin in the first place. So a more accurate term would be trying to defend the doctrine whilst disagreeing with it personally.

Poor phrasing.

edited 23rd Apr '15 2:10:07 PM by Achaemenid

Where has anyone said that it's not bad for gay people? I'm pretty sure people in thread agrees that things suck for LGBT people when it comes to the RCC rules, but it's why it sucks that we disagree on.

edited 23rd Apr '15 2:09:20 PM by Silasw

I do that with Islam whenever I feel it's being unfairly or unkindly criticized. People are sentimental like that.

You're saying gays have the right to have sex with each other. I agree with that wholeheartedly.

The comparison to pedophilia was to illustrate that it's justifiable to forbid someone from acting on their inclinations if it would cause harm. The RCC thinks gay sex causes harm — to the individual, to society as a whole, and to some vague natural law they like taking for granted. They happen to be wrong, but that's beside the point. Under the assumption of harm, forbidding a homosexual from having sex is just about the only thing they can do that could possibly be considered loving. Misguided, harmful, and needs to stop. But loving.

Thus, the "love the sinner" philosophy in question is still internally consistent. Used on a wrong premise, but consistent.

It's not, really. We do it all the time for people we're close to and don't want to cut ties with. The problem is othering; it comes from a completely different set of causes.

edited 23rd Apr '15 2:22:29 PM by Pykrete

This. And it only applies to Catholics, within the religious sphere (they can't interfere against the secular law - hence why civil marriages are legal in Portugal, for example). Any power they had in the secular sphere has been gradually losing support (e.g. considering the current referendum on same-sex marriage in Ireland - a referendum would've been unthinkabale there just a few years ago), and they certainly can't forbid non-Catholic folks from having gay sex.

Sentimental and willing to mediate. As someone who's been on the side of critizing the Church unfairly, I can attest to that, both from an outer and an inner perspective.

I just don't think the Catholic Church's doctrines were ever designed to be something that would take into account the human sexuality. I mean, controlling behavior can only go too far before people call BS On it. The 10 commandments would not even say anything beyond "Don't commit adultery".

However those might not be very relevant to modern theology.

Right now most of the statements on homosexuality from the Catholic Church come from the following institutions:

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments mentions explicitly that no one with "deeply rooted homosexual tendencies" shall be initiated in the sacred orders or if they hold what they call gay culture.

The Cathecism of the Catholic church mentions that homosexuals are not to be discriminated against and calls them to chastity

Against Christian marriage, Pope Paul VI wrote the Humanae Vitae which mentions that christian marriage must be under the virtues of union, love, fidelity and fecundity. Since the last one is impossible in homosexual marriage, this is the theological "counter". Pope John Paul II The Great spoke again of this in the sixth cycle of the Theology of the Body

Going way before to say, Siant Thomas Aquinae's Summa Theologica, homosexual practices are considered contranatura becuse of the definition Thomas uses to define "natural behavior". So it is an "intrinsec" evil, as refered to in the Veritatis Splendor.

All of these documents are old, none of them are beyond the year 2000. It is due for revision.

I agree that its internally consistent, my point is that its never applied in a way that actually benefits those it is supposed to aid. It's a beautiful theory, but doesn't really work that well - to the extent that it becomes a total dodge, because those who profess to "love the sinner" still make life miserable for them, and because the actual standard demanded of everyone is de facto unattainable except for very exceptional or troubled people. In my opinion.

I'm happy to agree to disagree though, because I think this discussion is getting quite unprofitable.

edited 23rd Apr '15 2:33:00 PM by Achaemenid

It does not help when a cardinal or something important shows up and says things that are incredibly stupid, like what Cardinal Varkey Vithayathil said once...

The reason we're making such a big deal about this despite disagreeing with our Church's official stance on this is that when you try to solve a problem, you have to recognize and address at what point the problem actually happens.

To use a really silly but surprisingly pertinent analogy, if I were debugging a program and found that a function was giving back bad data, I'd look over the function. But I'd also look to see if it was getting passed bad data or called erroneously to begin with. That's what's going on here. The problem isn't with loveSinnerHateSin() — it's with the incorrect assumption that gaySex() should even be calling it.

Yeah, that too.

edited 23rd Apr '15 2:36:41 PM by Pykrete

"Love the sinner" doesn't mean making the sinner happy, any more than a police officer's dedication to customer service means he has to let the criminal go. They are in the business of saving souls, not treating people nicely. Given their belief the homosexual sex places their salvation in jeopardy, they feel that they have little choice but to discourage the activity any way that they can. That's what "love" means to a devout Christian- to help someone develop a closer relationship to God.

It depends. That is a matter of conflict between the Catholic and Protestant groups, which ties in with the whole 'faith vs. good works' debacle.

And, according to Catholic doctrine, it is still ultimately up to the so-called sinner to redeem himself/herself, which means that what other Catholics can only do is to encourage said sinner to seek confession (see also the Sacrament of Penance or Reconciliation), not force him (especially since Vatican II). Some Protestant sections are more into the saving souls business, without the person in question necessarily consenting to it.

edited 23rd Apr '15 3:53:27 PM by Quag15

Yes, of course, the RCC doesnt try to save people against their will, but by encouraging them to reform. Virtually all Protestant denominations do as well. My point is that what homosexual people may experience as bad treatment is actually devout Christians trying (in their own misguided way) to encourage the person to reform themselves.

Fair point.

The British government was sincerely trying to help Alan Turing, as well.

And hey, trepanning shamans were just trying to let evil spirits out of people's heads.

Nobody is arguing that they are right...

What did my comment touch off?

Anyway, yeah, I agree that condemning homosexuality/homosexual acts (I do not personally care to chop the theology on the difference between the two at the moment) as sinful is bad, and a sign that the Church needs to yoink its head out of its ass, same with a lot of issues.

Now that I'm done with that particular argument...

I said Cardileone is part of the reactionary wing of the Church who takes an extremely strict view on the doctrine. Catholic doctrine is often open for interpretation, or for choice of emphasis. Francis has not changed the Church's view on sexual issues one bit, but he has suggested that the Church as a whole stop fighting that battle so vigorously and work on helping the poor. The accusations against Cardileone are that:

• He is putting an excessive emphasis on fighting about sexual issues, to the detriment of the archdiocese.
• He's picked a pastor who has engaged in inappropriate means of fighting said battle (like a pamphlet asking elementary-school girls if they'd had an abortion) and who has used his legitimate authority in a very dickish way.
• He doesn't listen to his congregation or to his subordinates, instead operating within a clique.
• And to sum it all up, he's an arsehole and the whole thing is leading to an "atmosphere of intolerance."

Is any of this illegal for an archbishop? Absolutely not, it's completely within the scope of his authority. But the people writing the letter want him gone because they think that all of this is a bad thing for Church and archdiocese.

I can't speak to the last few points, but it strikes me that the Catholic Church probably wants an archbishop who'll choose his fights based on the state of his flock. And even in light of Francis' comments about emphasis, if there's one diocese in America where an orthodox bishop needs to pick a fight about matters sexual, San Francisco is a strong candidate.

Depends on how much the church cares about keeping the flock together versus keeping on-message.

The Catholic Church's views on sexual morality and those of its flock in San Francisco are not in step. Now, again, the congregation is supposed to shut up and obey, but being people, their response is instead to either ignore the Church or leave it. If the archbishop keeps yammering on about it he's just going to piss off the people who he's supposed to be leading. Of course, a bishop's authority emphatically doesn't come from his flock like a Protestant minister or a Jewish rabbi's does, but I submit that his relevance does and that the Church does have an interest in not actively picking a fight with people who would otherwise follow it.

(Personally, I think Episcopal Church USA or similar denominations might do well to start trying to hoover up reach out to lapsed Catholics, though the strength of Catholic identity even in lapsed Catholics might make that difficult.)

Why is Catholic identity stronger than other similar christian denominations. I mean, like, why is it the Raised Catholic stereotype there? Are catholics just more devout? They don't seem so, and lapsed catholics aren't usually devout at all...Can someone point to me that?

The trope page's explanation is, in part, that Catholicism is an ethnic identification as well as a religious one. An Irish-American, for example, may consider their moral views and those of the Catholic Church to be fatally incompatible, but while their religious views might align with a Protestant church's, their "tribal" identity remains very much Catholic and the idea of converting wouldn't even enter their mind.

I can't see that explanation working in Portugal (to name an example), where there has always been a mix of various ethnicities from across Europe, North Africa and the former colonies.

I prefer the explanation that Catholicism is more of an educational/cultural identification feel of belonging, rather than a matter of ethnicity.

I wonder if I should edit that trope page...

edited 24th Apr '15 3:59:07 PM by Quag15

Yeah I'd say it's more that Catholicism is tied to certain identities and that being raised Catholic means more as you tend to be educated Catholic, while being educated Protestant isn't a thing outside of the Deep South I believe.

My primary school was technically a Church of England school, but all that meant was that we sung religious songs in the morning, we still learnt about and visited other faiths in RE and I'm pretty sure our school plays would bounce from stuff like Joseph to stuff like Bugsy Malone.

Like, I guess I fall on that category as well, as agnostic as I am, if asked on the street my first response is catholic.

IIII'll giiiive youuu PILLARISATION!

edited 24th Apr '15 4:14:33 PM by TheHandle