![]()
I see what you're saying, but on the other hand, I think that there is still value in trying to understand the internal debates within a religion (even if you don't believe in it) in order to evaluate how that faith should be seen.
To put it another way: I am not a Muslim. I do not believe that the Qur'an is the direct word of God. I therefore have no direct stake in internal discussions over what is, or is not, Islam. On the other hand, my moral beliefs make me strongly against Jihadi terrorism, and this issue has been very visible in the public sphere recently in connection to Islam. Now, some Muslims claim that the doctrine of jihad can be interpreted in many ways, such as the internal struggle to be a better person; others say that it means violent action against non-believers. Although this internal debate will not do anything to change my mind about my stance on Jihadi terrorism, since I'm not a Muslim and can't be swayed by an appeal to a faith I do not believe in, it could shift my view on Islam as a religion. If Muslims arguing for a less violent definition of jihad can make a good argument (based on theological, historical, cultural, or whatever other sources), I will show much more respect for Muslims as a whole than if the Jihadis can successfully argue their point, whether or not they then go on to commit acts of terrorism. (It might impact the amount of tolerance I am willing to show a Muslim, for example, even if I can be sure for whatever reason that they will not personally attack another person). In addition, not having seriously studied and engaged with Islam, I would also personally not want to make a blanket statement claiming that more moderate claims in this area are only matters of style, and that even a more expansive view of jihad can still serve as a cover for terrorism.
edited 20th Sep '13 5:09:43 PM by BokhuraBurnes
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
A fair point, but I don't see a massive amount of earth-shaking debates within the modern Church. Francis's big priority is curial reform, which means nothing doctrinally, only administratively. The people mounting the greatest theological challenge to Church doctrines are people like Hans Kung, who is not actually recognized by the Vatican as having the authority to teach theology.
edited 20th Sep '13 5:12:37 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiWe'll just have to see, then. I would like to think that a reorientation on to the central principles, while not leading to immediate action, could pave the way for future openness (or at least a less dysfunctional church). Maybe it won't.
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.Oh it's definitely a step in a more progressive direction. Which while we all may make snide remarks about is clearly is in people's interests.
Of course here lies the problem with self modernisation for the church. Appealing to 'secular morality' will never be enough to satisfy it's detractors. But it might be enough to alienate its already fractured core support base.
hashtagsarestupidAlso consider that if our higher-ups get an executive order to cool off on those issues and stop descending like harpies on anyone who dares dissent, we're more likely to see it become more prominent. Right now, our slight-to-overwhelming majority dissent (depending on topic) is mostly silent, because people like Call to Action get excommunicated for going forward with anything.
Change happens slow, and there is no guarantee that the outcome we want is the one that will happen. But if the Church is ever going to relax it's doctrine with regard to homosexuality, then first attitudes have to change. If I were gay, I wouldn't be tripping over myself to become a Catholic, but it would be nice to think that one day it will become less of an opponent.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Indeed, though I can see another tactical motive here: the Church is trying to re-align itself on the Western European political map, and thus revive Political Catholicism there. Since at least 1978, the Church has been most closely aligned with social conservatives in Western Europe. Trouble is, social conservatism as a political force in Western Europe has been dying out for decades, a decline mirrored in the decline in Church attendance and religious influence. Rather, Enlightenment ideas of individual liberty, at least in sexual matters, are making gains everywhere. The Church doesn't want to anchor what little political influence it has left to a sinking ship. So they are trying to carve out a niche on the left through which to regain political influence.
I'll give Francis this: he's streetwise. Benedict was (I gather) a fairly able theologian, but to say he was dumb as a bag of hammers when it came to the "real world" would be an insult to bags of hammers.
edited 21st Sep '13 10:09:02 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei
He wasn't so much a bag of hammers as he was simply detached from reality (as a good chunk of theologists/church intellectuals tend to be).
A church doesn't have to adhere to or fulfill every demand from the LGBT community, atheists or disillusioned people. However, Pope Francis saying something in the tone of "Who am I to judge a homosexual person?" is, no matter how much someone wants to see the church changed, impressive. You can't deny that.
Pope Francis is quite the contrast when compared with his predecessor and more aware of some more important issues (I'm not saying that homossexuality or abortion is not an important issue; on the contrary). And, while he may not change much, the people who are listening to his words and are getting motivated might be part of the central organization in the future (potential priests, bishops and other influential figures). So far, I'm optimistic regarding this Pope.
edited 21st Sep '13 1:58:25 PM by Quag15
I'll grant you that it is a noteworthy shift in tone. It remains to be seen if the Church is capable of what Francis seems to promise. Bear in mind; we've been here before. Vatican II was widely seen as a move toward a more liberal church, in line with the zeitgeist of the 21st century. Instead, we got 3 decades of reaction. There are a great many ifs in Francis' papacy when it comes to bringing the Church into line with what European liberals (and not, necessarily, the majority of still-practicing Catholics). If he's still with us in 5 years. If he can effect lasting change in the Curia. If this is not aimed at a revival of political Catholicism. If he can ride out the gauntlet of threatened schism.
Francis has won admiration for his genuine humbleness and simplicity after decades of "imperial" papacy under JPII and Benedict, whose style of governing the Church had a strongly autocratic streak. He has also continued to work for the poor despite his elevation - his phone calls to rape victims and those who correspond with him, for instance. But "under the hood" the teachings of the Church remain the same, as they will forever. And those teachings still clash with my own understanding of the world and, indeed, with the modern political zeitgeist. So I (and I speak only for myself here) remain deeply sceptical of the Church and the likelihood of it changing in any substantive way. I am also worried that a newly effective Pope will be able to reverse the gains that secularists and social liberals have made over the last two decades.
I fear that people want to see in Francis whatever they want to see in the Church, and, in doing so, are projecting their own opinions onto the new Pope. Nothing good will come of this. As the Good Book Says...: "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets." Luke 6:26.
edited 21st Sep '13 2:55:20 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiThen again, the Catholic Church has been around over 1000 years, and as such has built up a lot of institutional inertia — trying to make major changes and keep the Church together is a very difficult task.
Vatican II did create a schism in the Catholic Church, and some did leave the Church because of what was agreed there. Change will be slow, but that's the way it has to be.
Keep Rolling OnIt's been said upthread; the Catholic Church is like a supertanker. You can't turn something like that around quickly if you don't want it to capsize.
But I do agree largely with Achaemenid's point: the Pope's tone shift needs to be evaluated in the context of the results it gets. Which is why stuff like cancelling the bonuses to the Vatican bankers (or as Achaemenid put it, "throwing the moneylenders out of the temple") is more impressive to me, as that's a sign of commitment to concrete administrative reform in line with his new program. Which is most certainly within his office's power and duties.
Francis: Abortion "the product of a throwaway culture"
He also linked his anti-choice stance to social justice outcomes, quoting the Benedict-era encyclical Caritas in Veritate:
So, social conservatism with social democracy. Well, there's his niche that I talked about. But will it work?
edited 22nd Sep '13 3:24:22 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei
That's a step forward, actually. "Get people to the point where they can welcome new life" is better than "burn the witch!" stance. <_< Not tonnes better, but it's something.
It also loops back into his anti-poverty stance quite nicely: if people can afford to look after children, they generally do at least try to. <sighs>
edited 22nd Sep '13 3:38:36 AM by Euodiachloris
Catholic Church is more interested in protecting unborn children than worrying about what women think about bearing the child, especially if it is a product of rape. For them, women are little more than tools to produce new converts that can be baptised when barely self-aware and then brainwashed into obeying what clergy says, with mixed results fortunately, seeing how many Catholics have defected so far.
My President is Funny Valentine.A big part of the institution (and some people) might think that way, but the other big part (and a lot more people) don't even think that way. Don't generalize.
As for baptism, it's just a practice. They can defect any time.
I can only speak for myself by saying that I'm not brainwashed, being a Catholic. Not every priest is interested in brain-washing, ok?
@captain- Your dead wrong. We value all lives, including those of children not born yet. Thats all I'm saying before we get into another Abortion derail.
And there's no brainwashing. We have a few CCD classes, it's no more brainwashing than the school system is, less so if anything given we spend alot less time in religion class. If you don't like it, you can leave, and plenty do and have. Heck, there were hundreds of millions that left because of the reformation.
edited 22nd Sep '13 9:13:51 AM by Joesolo
I'm baaaaaaack"How dare you take your eschatology to its logical conclusion!"
Seriously though, hitting poverty would hit abortion harder than hitting abortion would, not only in the reasons why women want to get one, but in many cases the reasons why they're getting pregnant in the first place.
edited 22nd Sep '13 12:06:46 PM by Pykrete

I'll be brief:
I am not a Catholic. I believe all that stuff about God's universal love etc to be untrue. So it doesn't really affect me personally: "you are loved by a God you don't believe in" is a meaningless message. Thus, the most important part of the Catholic Church, to me, is how it chooses to engage with the very many people who do not believe in its metaphysical claims. I am not overly concerned with what the Church is, because I have no stake in it. I am concerned with what it says and does. And I think that Francis is not the moderate he is claimed to be, and that the chances of the Catholic Church under any pope aligning with my own convictions is very unlikely. So, I see little reason to be optimistic about the new papacy.
edited 20th Sep '13 4:23:19 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei