TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Filum Romanum - A Thread for the Catholic Church

Go To

Madrugada Since: Jan, 2001
#251: Sep 22nd 2013 at 12:06:47 PM

^ Um, "eschatology" has nothing to do with the status of a fetus as a person... That's the branch of theology concerning the end times or the final events in the history of the world or of humankind. I think you want "dogma" note  there.

demarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#252: Sep 22nd 2013 at 12:08:02 PM

I knew what he meant.

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#253: Sep 22nd 2013 at 12:08:32 PM

Meh. I was probably looking for metaphysics, but you all know what I meant.

CaptainKatsura Decoy from    Poland    Since: Jul, 2011
Decoy
#254: Sep 22nd 2013 at 1:39:14 PM

Heh, some medieval theologists were likely more liberal about whether fetus is a human than some of Catholics who will soon announce pre-fertilized eggs as sacred tongue Acquinas deemed fetus a human after set amount of time passed, and of course male fetus matured quicker according to him.

My President is Funny Valentine.
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#256: Sep 22nd 2013 at 7:35:46 PM

Well, the Thomas Aquinas thing has a point; in the past, the Catholic Church has attempted to use science (or at least natural philosophy) to determine when abortion is or is not okay. Now, they've kinda dropped that in favor of pure theology.

Mind you, I think that the tail is wagging the dog here. "Life begins at birth" slots quite neatly into a more general Catholic moralism, where sex is a good thing when done between a husband and a wife with the possibility of procreation, and a sin otherwise. But you don't hear about the "no contraception" and "no premarital or extramarital sex" positions. Nobody cares to comment on them because they're seen as utterly dead horses; everyone broadly but shallowly agrees that adultery is bad (and nobody cares about the Church position on it), and premarital sex and contraception are broadly fine with everyone except grumpy old men. Abortion and homosexuality? Those are actual firing lines; even though abortion isn't going anywhere, it's still able to rile up its defenders like virtually nothing else.

But I do think that abortion is mainly where it is in the Catechism because the Church's theology wants to support a particular vision of sexual morality, and it's only under such a magnifying glass because of its power as a rallying point.

edited 22nd Sep '13 7:38:19 PM by Ramidel

Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#257: Sep 22nd 2013 at 7:53:23 PM

[up] " broadly fine with everyone except grumpy old men"

Not as much as you might think. Alot of people don't have sex before marriage, thankfully. Despite popular culture as a whole going to shit there's a number of us who stick to our guns.

and even people that do, often time's it's because of peer pressure rather than personal choice. Personally I think peer pressure to do something that could get you a serious disease is much worse than peer pressure that might make you be a bit more careful.

I'm baaaaaaack
PhilippeO Since: Oct, 2010
#258: Sep 22nd 2013 at 8:01:27 PM

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.

This is judging by standard of different times. Vatican II is "liberal" at their time. It is definition of "liberal" that move. Before Vatican II Church having Latin language Mass, pray that Jews should be converted, having hereditary nobility at Vatican government, and see non-monarchical government with doubt. And at the time Vatican II gay rights movement barely exists and apartheid still working in SA. judging Vatican II by standard of 2013 is unfair.

And Pope Benedict is actually one of the most liberal priest at that time, granted he fail to change with time, but a lot of old people also retain belief and taste of their youth. He doesn't always considered "conservative".

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#259: Sep 22nd 2013 at 9:08:44 PM

@Joesolo: Yes, but the point is that it's not a point of view that will get any press or notice. Even in the morally rather-conservative United States, people aren't going to start lynch mobs against sexually active young men (yes, Double Standard noted), or even consider it their business to talk about it, and trying to ram abstinence down kids' throats has been widely laughed at. The moral norm that a person should (which is the key word) be virginal until marriage is gone; it's a life choice, not something that it's polite to try to press on others.

By contrast, in the abortion debate, the expected position of a pro-lifer is "you shouldn't murder a fetus." The pro-life movement considers it perfectly acceptable to attempt to persuade and impose their views on others. And so it's a lot easier for the Catholic Church to preach on abortion than on abstinence, and it gets a lot more press when they do.

joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#260: Sep 22nd 2013 at 9:21:18 PM

well it is a lesser sin you know?

hashtagsarestupid
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#261: Sep 22nd 2013 at 9:38:30 PM

[up] indeed.

[up][up] Eh. Fair enough. Lots of people with no self control out there, now that it looks ok some people stopped caring.

I'm baaaaaaack
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#262: Sep 22nd 2013 at 9:39:04 PM

[up]Or some people simply disagree. :P

Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#263: Sep 22nd 2013 at 9:45:15 PM

each has their own opinion on the matter. I see it as a lack of self control.

I'm baaaaaaack
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#264: Sep 23rd 2013 at 12:10:01 AM

Either or. I think your belief is fundamentally inaccurate in many cases, but we're drifting off topic and it's not my place to white-knight for another subculture.

edited 23rd Sep '13 12:17:39 AM by Ramidel

CaptainKatsura Decoy from    Poland    Since: Jul, 2011
Decoy
#265: Sep 23rd 2013 at 1:59:15 AM

[up][up]I see marriage as obsolete institution. If you're in relationship with someone you don't really need such ceremonies.

My President is Funny Valentine.
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#267: Sep 23rd 2013 at 3:29:22 AM

This is judging by standard of different times. Vatican II is "liberal" at their time. It is definition of "liberal" that move. Before Vatican II Church having Latin language Mass, pray that Jews should be converted, having hereditary nobility at Vatican government, and see non-monarchical government with doubt. And at the time Vatican II gay rights movement barely exists and apartheid still working in SA. judging Vatican II by standard of 2013 is unfair.

I wasn't doubting that Vatican II was a step forward. I was pointing out that, of the five Popes we have had since its conclusion (Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis), Paul was mildly moderate, JPI reigned for 33 days, JPII and Benedict were generally very conservative in doctrinal matters, and Francis is as yet unknown. So the liberal effect of Vatican II was rather short-lived.

And Pope Benedict is actually one of the most liberal priest at that time, granted he fail to change with time, but a lot of old people also retain belief and taste of their youth. He doesn't always considered "conservative".

Yes, and? His was a conservative papacy. Also, I'd dispute that he was necessarily one of the most liberal. He was a reformist when it came to the role of the papacy, but he had a rather conservative reaction to the Marxist student movement during the late 1960s, when he was a professor at Tuebingen.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
demarquis (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#268: Sep 23rd 2013 at 2:55:07 PM

Vat II was a clear statement of doctrine. Francis hasn't clearly made any doctrinal statements on hot button issues, AFAIK. Is there any concrete reason to assume he's planning to.make any specific changes?

I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#269: Sep 23rd 2013 at 2:57:02 PM

If the reactions of his subordinates to relatively mild statements in the right direction are any indication, the fact that they wouldn't let anything through if he tried.

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#270: Sep 24th 2013 at 2:46:50 AM

He also can't just up and decide "suddenly contraception is okay guys!" In order to make such a vast doctrinal jump - which would be far beyond the changes of Vatican II - he would need another ecumenical council at the very least. I suppose he could sit down and say "I'm speaking ex cathedra", thus invoking papal infallibility. But, the thing is, nobody's ever really done that in such a massively controversial way.

Indeed, the last clear example of a Pope invoking infallibilitynote  was Pope Pius XII's Munificentissimus Deus, which affirmed that Mary was "assumed" bodily into heaven when she died rather than decay and rot like us plebs. The last disputed example - proclaimed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - was JPII's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, an apostolic letter reserving the priesthood for those with willies and Y chromosomes. If Francis invoked it to make unilateral alterations to doctrine, there would be an almighty row, it would be the most autocratic thing any Pope has ever done, and there might well be some theological jumping-through of hoops to negate it. It could well lead to schism.

Vatican defrocks and excommunicates rebel priest Father Greg Reynolds for his support of women priests and gay marriage. The punishment was written under the authority of Pope Francis, and presumably was approved either tacitly or explicitly by him.

edited 24th Sep '13 2:53:01 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#271: Sep 24th 2013 at 3:12:17 AM

...I have kind of mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand, Reynolds was asking to get his ass kicked over this; hell, even he admitted as much. According to Hart, he was laicized and ignored that, and excommunicated for continuing to act as a priest when he's been laicized. Whether he's right or wrong, this move is only openly stating something that's been the case in fact.

On the other hand, this is a sharp turn from the tone we've come to expect from His Holiness. Secret Inquisitorial hearing, cutting his payout without any explanation, failing to give a reason in the document...it's blatantly obvious that this was an exemplary purge. Which I think was the plan on Reynolds' part anyway; incite the Church to come down hard on him and become a martyr at no real cost to him.

It reeks of how I'd run The Purge, and I'm not Pope Francis. Francis trying to rule by fear goes against the tone he's been trying to set from the beginning of his papacy.

wild mass guessThe Pope was giving the Vatican staff rope and a chance to panic, and he's shortly going to revoke the excommunication, say that he had never authorized that, and authorize a full payout to the ex-priest. And he'll use that as an excuse to kick some ass around the Vatican as well.wild mass guess

edited 24th Sep '13 3:14:44 AM by Ramidel

joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#272: Sep 24th 2013 at 7:09:40 AM

or it might be something similar to what the main character from fiddler on the roof went through(i forget his name), he goes along with some changes from tradition but eventually one of his daughters takes and action that is just too far(in his view), and he completely cuts her off. note  This guy was one of those trying to turn "the ship" on a dime, and he was going against the church and breaking the rules. He wasn't supposed to be acting as a preist at this point, that was the warning. He then went completely against that. If he expected anything less than what he got, well, I don't know.

edited 24th Sep '13 7:10:17 AM by joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack
Quag15 Since: Mar, 2012
#273: Sep 24th 2013 at 7:24:24 AM

Reb Tevye is the character's name.

Jhimmibhob Since: Dec, 2010
#274: Sep 24th 2013 at 7:31:03 AM

It's an instructive moment, though. Lately, the most ignorant and least responsible journalists have misinterpreted Francis's words as making him a different sort of Pope than he actually is. Now, Reynolds is far closer to being the priest that they're wishfully portraying Francis as—and Francis just excommunicated him! Not that that's likely to put any sense into them.

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#275: Sep 24th 2013 at 7:35:48 AM

I think its more to do with the natural compulsion of journalists to examine the Church as they would a political party. Politicians can change direction far more easily than clergymen.

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Total posts: 4,059
Top