 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Pope in America
|
|
|
Subject: BS: The Pope in America From: akenaton Date: 26 Sep 15 - 05:07 AM Not much traffic on this forum regarding the Pope's visit. Did he strike the right chord after his visit to Cuba, or was it a PR Operation? Seems to me that he could have said so much more concerning modern society and politics. The issues have become so important to the future of mankind, that a few sound bites on us ALL being "foreigners" etc seem a little inadequate. Whit dae ye's think? 'An nae insults please! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 15 - 05:16 AM Hard cases, soft faces, hit you with their deadly smile... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: DMcG Date: 26 Sep 15 - 05:21 AM Haven't paid much attention, I am afraid. But Pope Francis says a lot through actions, like declining the limousine and arriving at the Whitehouse in the sort of car normal people drive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: akenaton Date: 26 Sep 15 - 05:26 AM Well D, as devils advocate, that could all be part of the window dressing that has become common place. Its hard to avoid the conclusion that the Pope is being stage managed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:00 AM I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but he appears to be doing his damnedest to put a friendly sheen on an authoritarian organisation that has some pretty ropy policies and which is largely run by manipulative old men. But any evolution is a good thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: DMcG Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:14 AM I don't think so, Ake. "Being stage managed" implies a passive role where some unnamed other is doing the managing. Which would imply these others were around but ineffective for the last Pope. At risk of a limo-based joke slipping in, I do think the Pope is in the driving seat of this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: DMcG Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:24 AM Thinking about it, there's a heck of a lot of similarities between Pope Francis and Jeremy Corbyn. For example, how the bulk of the MPs or cardinals got to where they are by following and being wedded to an approach that the new leader thinks misses the whole point of the organisation ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:31 AM I think it remains to be seen whether that's actually what the Pope is thinking! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: DMcG Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:39 AM There is a fair amount of evidence on that, Steve, though obviously not as much as you would like. For example, he wrote and published a draft of a document on relationships that was welcomed by the various gay communities as the most positive thing they had heard from the Church ever, but then it got blocked and watered down by the cardinals - a problem Corbyn will hit, I am sure. He speaks out on the side of tolerance quite often, while the church has a long history of intolerance. Again, I am sure he does not go anything like as far as you would like, but, as you say 'any evolution is a good thing'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:57 AM Point taken. I do suspect that a significant number of the Church's most illiberal policies, regarding sex education, gay marriage, birth control and abortion, will never be changed. After all, religion's obsession with people's sex lives is well-grounded as a major instrument of control of the flock. Remember that we are all miserable wretches owing to Eve's sin, saved only by the crucifixion of Jesus. What more fertile ground for giving us rules that are hard to keep than sex? The only bigger one is fear of the hereafter. I'll change my mind when he rescinds the prospective sainthood of earlier popes' main sexual hit woman, Mother Teresa, for the right reasons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST Date: 26 Sep 15 - 07:23 AM The cardinals did choose him** so some of his views must be shared. ** even if they think god made them do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST Date: 26 Sep 15 - 07:36 AM Conservative dissent is brewing inside the Vatican |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: DMcG Date: 26 Sep 15 - 07:39 AM Excellent, Guest! Some of those topics may well take an inordinate of time to revisit, Steve, I agree. Many may depend upon new cardinals appointed during this papacy, rather than on Francis directly. But the area is not immovable as a recent announcement of changes to divorce procedures indicates (link and there is a conference on some of these topics next month. No-one should anticipate huge changes, I would say, but I'd be surprised if nothing at all happened. Some may consider the divorce changes tiny and a few decades too late. For the former, I'd say it is something that is terribly difficult for an outsider to understand but is huge for some of those going through it. As for the second, I'd agree but it is still early in this papacy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,# Date: 26 Sep 15 - 07:52 AM " Laudato si' " is a great encyclical from Francis. Anyone wishing to read it can do so at http://www.papalencyclicals.net/ I am far from being a religious man, so I skipped the 'praise the lord' parts of it. His indictment of capitalism and our abuse of this planet is severe and timely. I like the guy and have no doubt he's got the good of humanity at heart. He comes across to me as sincere in his views, and along with Corbyn and Sanders I don't doubt he's waking up millions of people in the world. YMMV. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: DMcG Date: 26 Sep 15 - 08:06 AM I am now wondering if Corbyn, should Labiur get elected, will insist on cycling up the Mall to speak to the Queen.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: akenaton Date: 26 Sep 15 - 08:36 AM Well, I'm very conservative ...for an atheist; and don't believe that the church's teaching should be re defined, or changed out of all recognition just to satisfy media fashion. the Church should give moral and social guidance to society....it is up to us whether we accept that guidance or not. I did not presume that the Pope was insincere, but in a huge organisation like the Catholic Church, or the Democratic Party, the decision makers are never the "front man". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST Date: 26 Sep 15 - 08:59 AM Bill Maher on Pope Francis: "He opposes gay marriage, he opposes gay adoption, he opposes transgender rights, against all forms of contraception, against all forms of abortion, ruled out women priests. He's more like Rick Santorum than Bernie Sanders." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,# Date: 26 Sep 15 - 09:22 AM Cute comedy, but read the encyclical as a stand-alone piece of writing. The guy makes sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Elmore Date: 26 Sep 15 - 09:59 AM He and the late Utah Phillips really appreciate the work done by Dorothy Day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 15 - 10:07 AM I'm afraid Bill Maher is spot on. And, though some people take heart from recent statements about divorce, etc., the changes are headline-grabbing but, ultimately, piffling. The Catholic church's stranglehold on people's sex lives is not only one of its biggest trump cards, it's also the main characteristic which sets Catholicism apart from other, more benign forms of Christianity. As soon as the Catholic Church allows real debate (which means debate with at least some prospect of sea-changes at the end of it) on real sex education, gay marriage, birth control and abortion, it ceases to be distinguishable from the other variants. Oh, I know about the twaddle regarding transubstantiation and all that, but at least that doesn't make millions of people miserable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: akenaton Date: 26 Sep 15 - 11:11 AM I'll be interested to see what the proper Catholics on this forum and the US intellectuals say about the visit. Oh and I agree with DMcG and the similarity to Mr Corbyn's position.....but I'm afraid if Jeremy gives to much rope to the "liberals" they may just hang him :0( The same "liberals" will hang the Christian Church and poor old Pope given half a chance. Although an atheist I believe the world needs social and moral order and the Church performs that purpose well. I am prepared to be convinced as to the existence of a "God", be it a deity, nature, the life force the Sun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 15 - 11:20 AM You are an exceptionally confused man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: akenaton Date: 26 Sep 15 - 11:29 AM I think you are wrong Steve, but what would I know? :0( Miss Cooper and her ilk, see Jeremy as very much a conservative dinosaur she despises his views as much as you despise the views of the Catholic Church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: DMcG Date: 26 Sep 15 - 11:34 AM The changes are not piffling, Steve, even if we can both easily think of things that are much bigger. I know you would agree they are not piffling to those affected, so I assume you mean piffling "in the great scheme of things." But they aren't there either, I would say. I am a practising Catholic but support the laws enabling gay marriage (and not a quotation mark in sight!). But if you compare the number of gays who want to marry with the number of Catholics who want or are divorced, I would guess the divorce number is much larger. And I do not downplay the mental anguish involved. Imagine you have lived in some society for all you life and still want to belong to it, but are rejected. That is going to be painful however you cut it. And there are similar changes going on in other areas, you know. The church opposes abortion and I know a lot of people who are much fiercer critics of it than the pope appears to be. But even there, if you look, there is a lot happening to stop women who have had abortions being excluded. You and Bill M would want the church to stop opposing it, and I don't think that likely for decades or more, but I see it as substantial progress to move from "this is an absolute horror" to "this is something we think wrong but in the real world circumstances mean it happens, and we must treat those who choose it with respect". From what I hear, the second is the Pope's stance, which is very different to some other parts of the church say, and I don't see it helpful in the long run to behave as if the church uniformly thinks the former. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 15 - 11:55 AM The Church is the archetypal dragger of feet. The changes you refer to are reluctantly yielded and are the Church's way of stringing the flock along. There will never be significant changes to its stance on the sine qua non major sexual issues but tweaking around the edges will always prove useful and heartening to the Church's members who will naturally pounce on any chink of light. As for abortion, I remind you that the woman who told us that abortion is the biggest threat to world peace is still lionised by the Church and is but a single miracle away from sainthood. We won't even mention her horrid institutions and her sucking up to vile dictators. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: akenaton Date: 26 Sep 15 - 11:56 AM Abortion is a hugely complicated issue, we are moving towards "abortion on demand", which would be a real horror and would probably signal the end of civilised society. Homosexuality and homosexual "marriage" is also hugely complicated, would we expect the Pope to bless the large rates of open "marriages" we see within male homosexuality, or polygamous ones, or close relatives?....Who draws the lines, should it be the media or the church? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 15 - 01:37 PM Thanks for deleting my admittedly sarcastic response to that. Instead, am I allowed to say that that is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read??
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 26 Sep 15 - 02:11 PM Akenaton: "Homosexuality and homosexual "marriage" is also hugely complicated,...." No it isn't, it's just another sexual behavior that was made 'complicated' by a political agenda, trying to make it out to be something that it is not!...Simple as that. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 26 Sep 15 - 02:31 PM He seems to be receiving the warmest of welcomes in US, from Catholic and non Catholic alike. As ever, opinions expressed on this forum do not represent real people in the real world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 15 - 03:16 PM What the people in the richest country in the world think of a Pope whose policies most severely affect the poorest people in the world, who the richest people in the world don't see very much, might not be the last word on the matter, Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Sep 15 - 03:33 PM Somebody above quoted Bill Maher: He opposes gay marriage, he opposes gay adoption, he opposes transgender rights, against all forms of contraception, against all forms of abortion, ruled out women priests. While he does hold all those positions, he doesn't expend a lot of energy expressing his opposition to those things. In fact, no pope in the last two centuries has focused very heavily on any of those things. Yes, there has been strong opposition to abortion in large portions of the Catholic Church, but the popes haven't spent much energy on those things. While I may not agree with the popes on those issues, those issues have not been their main focus. Fundamentalists focus on condemning the supposed "sins" of others, particularly sexual sins. On the other hand, Francis and his predecessors have spoken firmly and often against the sins we all bear responsibility for: the oppression of the poor, the immigrants, and the workers - and Francis is now speaking on behalf of the environment. No matter what I may think about Catholic teaching on gender and sexual issues, I think the popes have made sense with their teachings on social justice. So, I let the popes say what they will about sexuality, and I will continue to respectfully disagree - knowing full well that there's not much popes can do about people's sexual conduct, anyhow. But I'm proud of what they've been saying about social justice. I'd like to quote what Francis said to the U.S. Congress about fundamentalists. I wonder if Catholic fundamentalists (and fundamentalists in Congress) heard what he's saying. Here's his statement (underline is mine):
Our response must instead be one of hope and healing, of peace and justice. We are asked to summon the courage and the intelligence to resolve today's many geopolitical and economic crises. Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are all too apparent. Our efforts must aim at restoring hope, righting wrongs, maintaining commitments, and thus promoting the well-being of individuals and of peoples. We must move forward together, as one, in a renewed spirit of fraternity and solidarity, cooperating generously for the common good. The challenges facing us today call for a renewal of that spirit of cooperation, which has accomplished so much good throughout the history of the United States. The complexity, the gravity and the urgency of these challenges demand that we pool our resources and talents, and resolve to support one another, with respect for our differences and our convictions of conscience. In this land, the various religious denominations have greatly contributed to building and strengthening society. It is important that today, as in the past, the voice of faith continue to be heard, for it is a voice of fraternity and love, which tries to bring out the best in each person and in each society. Such cooperation is a powerful resource in the battle to eliminate new global forms of slavery, born of grave injustices which can be overcome only through new policies and new forms of social consensus. Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, its social life. I do not underestimate the difficulty that this involves, but I encourage you in this effort. Can anyone here disagree with any of that? I know the absolutists and demonizers will disregard everything Francis says because they disagree with his positions on their pet issues, but those pet issues are not his primary focus. What he says about social justice and the the environment, makes a lot of sense. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Sep 15 - 04:04 PM Here's an interesting piece about Pope Francis It's from the Guardian, written by Canon Giles Fraser, the Anglican Canon at St Paul's Cathedral, who was so fed up at the way the Cathedral treated the Occupy protest camp he resigned. Here is the headline on his piece, to encourage clicking on the link -"For the red pope, being pro-life is more about social justice than abortion". And he rightly focusses on the way the Pope ranked Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic Worker, up there with Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and Thomas Merton as great Americans who showed the way, in his address to Congress. The only problem for me with Pope Francis is that he's 78. It takes time changing things that need changing, and we'll be lucky if he has the time. Someone presciently wrote that it's a mistake to try and place him in terms of conservative or liberal - he's a radical. And his radicalism is very much based on radical traditions within Catholicism which break out every now and again - as with Dorothy Day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 15 - 04:45 PM I think that you make a good case, Joe. Yes, the present Pope has shown a good deal of humanity and political understanding in a good many areas of human endeavour. I welcome that. It's just that when you say So, I let the popes say what they will about sexuality, and I will continue to respectfully disagree I can't quite get my head around why you should be so respectful about attitudes that are so disrepectfully illiberal. OK, tactics, outcomes. Bit slow though, innit? Kevin, Giles Fraser is a man with a conscience all right but he is a loose canon if ever there was one ( sorry...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: DMcG Date: 26 Sep 15 - 05:00 PM 'Loose canon' is Fraser's byline in general, and even on that article. I've heard him speak a few times, and he was a panellist on the one occasion I got to be a member of BBC's Question Time audience. As a rule, I think he makes good sense. Now in this article he raises the relationship between pro-life/pro-choice and left/right, and in particular that it is the opposite of what you might expect when you think more widely than abortion . I see what he is getting at, I think, but feel it introduces more heat than light, as they say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Sep 15 - 05:35 PM Steve Shaw speaks of a Pope whose policies most severely affect the poorest people in the world. I suppose Steve is talking about birth control. Last time I heard, the decision to give birth to a child is usually the result of the decision and action of one man and one woman. Since Alexander VI (1431-1503 - father of Lucretia and Cesare Borgia and many other children), few popes have had any direct involvement in the procreation of children. Oh, I'm sure that church policy has an effect on population control attitudes and practices, especially in the declining number of areas where churches can successfully lobby governments to outlaw contraceptives. But I can't believe that church policy has ever been the primary reason why families have many or few children. Culture has a lot to do with it, too. But in the end, the choice is up to individuals. I'm one of the few Catholics I know who actually knows what the Catholic Church teaches about sex and contraception. That being the case, I can't see how the Church can have the dramatic effect on these issues that Mr. Shaw and Mr. Maher seem to think it does. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Sep 15 - 05:54 PM More heat than light? I'd put it the other way myself, which makes a nice change in this context. ................. I was pleased to see Pope Francis making that criticism of all kinds of fundamentalism. Sometimes I think there's a strange parallelism between a kind of fundamentalism that would try to impose religiously based obligations on a secular society, and a kind of fundamentalism that expects that religious traditions should conform at all points to the values of that secular society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:07 PM Steve, I've never thought of the Catholic Church as being a particularly good or realistic advisor on sexual issues. I have no doubt that plumbers had some knowledge of carpentry, but I rarely go to plumbers for advice on carpentry - or to celibate males for advice on sex. Since the sexual molestation scandal in the Catholic Church, I have taken the obligation upon myself to remind young priests, particularly Third World priests in the US, that I see no reason why they should be considered to be credible advisors on sexual issues. One young Filipino priest unfriended me last month over the gay marriage issue, but I hope he learned from what I had to say to him. Although what the Catholic Church says on sexual matters gets a lot of press and a lot of (justified) criticism, sex is a relatively minor part of the teachings of most churches. There is very little about sex in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or in the Bible. Yes, there are some sex-crazed fundamentalists that make a big deal of it - but for the most part, sex isn't what religious faith is all about. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: akenaton Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:09 PM Correct Mr McGrath, We can change laws at will to make legally acceptable what has been unacceptable for centuries. But the Church does not deal in laws, it deals in sin. What was a sin fifty years ago and a thousand before that, must surely still be a sin, if the Church is to retain any sort of moral credibility. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:12 PM I had a quick look at attitudes to Catholic strictures on contraception in an idle moment this afternoon (sitting in the sun, a rare opportunity this rotten summer, with me iPad). Well, the attitude of the church hierarchy is, as we know, unbending. But nearly every Catholic woman in the US in the modern era has used contraception. Most of them think that it makes them sinful, but onward they go. The Church has lost its grip, and a bloody good thing too. I need a lot of convincing that the poor in central and South America, and in many African nations, have made such progress. The Church still has a cast iron grip in so many places but I don't hear your protests. It's all very well quietly demurring, Joe, but quietly demurring tends to get nobody anywhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Ed T Date: 26 Sep 15 - 06:58 PM Frm what I see on TV, his mere presence seems significant to many in the US of A, even many who are not RC. If it was the last Pope, I suspect it may havd been different. This Pope seems to hit a good chord with regular people, making him more like a celebrity - and we know how this culture likes celebrities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Sep 15 - 07:42 PM Steve Shaw, the "poor in central and South America, and in many African nations" have more crucial things to do than argue with priests about birth control; and the priests have more crucial things to deal with, also. And I haven't encountered any U.S. Catholic women who have expressed any particular feelings of sinfulness for having used birth control. Birth control is more-or-less a forgotten issue in the Catholic Church, and has been for over thirty years. There's no more argument about birth control in the Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI issued his Humanae Vitae encyclical in 1968, which included maybe a paragraph on contraception and a mildly-worded statement that said the Catholics were not allowed to use "artificial birth control." There were some rumblings for a while, and then the issue was forgotten. Give me some evidence to the contrary. Oh, and give me some proof of this "cast iron grip" that you imagine. Ake, I suppose you're right that the Catholic Church doesn't change what's moral and what's not. But when its interpretation of moral principle isn't working, the interpretation is gradually forgotten. And then, one day, the Church says that "we never actually taught that." That's how Limbo gradually disappeared from Catholic teaching, until the day that Pope Benedict declared that wasn't really what we had been teaching. And the birth control think is not a basic moral principle. It's an interpretation (an official interpretation). It's clear to me that the birth control interpretation is now in the process of being forgotten. I predict that in the near future, Catholic prelates will forget what they said about gay marriage. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 15 - 07:44 PM You'll get there in the end, Ed. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Sep 15 - 07:54 PM I thought it might be some new term I hadn't come across, like chad. Good word, potentially, could maybe mean something like a chord that cheered people up. In which case it'd be pretty appropriate in this contact. ................. I'd suspect large families among poor people in Africa and Latin America probably has a great deal to do with the fact that child death is much more part of normal life, and without any welfare state or equivalent, family is likely to be the only source of help and support in sickness and trouble. The Catholic church I go to is fairly working class, with a very high proportion of first generation immigrants from all over - Africans, South Asians, Filipinos, Poles... Wherever they come from, local or abroad, the general pattern is two or three children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 15 - 08:00 PM Joe, the best way to prevent the transmission of HIV is condoms. Now that's me speaking as a lusty sort of bloke who is clinging on, successfully so far, to the notion that good sex is for everyone, including me, even in my mid-60s. But your Church still condemns condoms as evil and states that abstinence is the way to go. Old men in frocks telling young people in the 21st century that abstinence is the way to go. If you think they are wrong, which I believe you do, well all I can say is that it's your club. So why are you so soppy about letting them get away with such nonsense? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Sep 15 - 08:22 PM There's an awful lot of misunderstanding about this, Steve. In fact there isn't a ban on condoms as such, when used as prophylactics. Here's a quote from Pope Benedict back in 2010: "While he restated the Catholic Church's staunch objections to contraception because it believes that it interferes with the creation of life, he argued that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death could be a responsible act – even outside marriage. Pope Francis would probably put it better, he's a better communicator. And a Jesuit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Sep 15 - 08:30 PM Tortuous talk, Kevin. Do you think the average Catholic thinks it's OK to use condoms when he's in bed with the missus or not?? I think he should be told straight, not have to interpret obscurantisms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Sep 15 - 09:02 PM Benedict was very much an academic of a particular kind, and they often talk tortuous. Even when what they are saying is straightforward it sounds complicated, and that's even worse when it is complicated to begin with. There are other people who do it better, and can translate. And Francis is great at getting what he means across.. It doesn't help to have the media repeatedly trumpetting out over simplifications about absolute bans on condoms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Sep 15 - 09:27 PM Steve Shaw says: Do you think the average Catholic thinks it's OK to use condoms when he's in bed with the missus or not?? I think he should be told straight, not have to interpret obscurantisms. I think, Steve, that the average Catholic doesn't know and doesn't care. Statistics show that Catholics practice birth control at about the same rate as everybody else. Pope Benedict gave a wise, nuanced, intelligent statement on the subject. You want a yes-or-no answer, but the answer depends on the circumstances. And that's the case with every moral decision - decisions need to be made within context. A person has to weigh all the circumstances, and then make a decision. It's called thinking - and a lot of people don't want to bother to do that. But if you want a straight answer, I'll give you one that Benedict and Francis will agree with: a man with HIV/AIDS should never has sex without a condom unless he's sure his partner also has HIV/AIDS. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Rapparee Date: 26 Sep 15 - 09:40 PM Two points: First: According to Pew Research (no matter what the name says, it's not affiliated with any church) For instance, the recent Pew Research survey finds that U.S. Catholics are divided on homosexual behavior, with 44% saying it is sinful and 39% saying it is not – a figure that rises to 51% among Catholic adults under age 30. And majorities of Catholics say that living with a romantic partner outside marriage (54%) and getting a divorce (61%) are not sinful. About half (49%) say remarrying after a divorce without first obtaining an annulment is not a sin. In addition, fully two-thirds of U.S. Catholics (66%) say using artificial birth control is not a sin. Even 57% of the most devout Catholics – those who report attending Mass at least weekly – say using contraceptives is not wrong. Those who attend Mass weekly or more are divided over the sinfulness of cohabitation (46% say it is sinful, 45% say it is not). But these Catholics also are more likely to agree with church teachings when it comes to abortion and engaging in homosexual behavior: 73% and 59%, respectively, say these are sins. Indeed, a majority of all Catholics, regardless of whether they attend Mass regularly, say abortion is sinful (57%). Second: Burke said that the Pope isn't all-powerful. Burke should know better. Francis can speak ex cathedra and then: Ex cathedra is the theological term for a teaching that has been declared infallibly by the Roman Pontiff. In short, ex cathedra means that the pope can explicate an article of divine revelation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in full possession of his role as Peter's successor. When he does so he is protected from error. This ex cathedra possibility was supported by the Second Vatican Council. However, this does not mean that every time the pope speaks he is speaking infallibly. Even though only two doctrines have been declared ex cathedra, there are many others that the church professes must be believed. Some of these are laid out in the 1998 "Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei" issued by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. According to this document, many teachings are "irreformable" and "definitive" and as such can be seen as possessing the binding quality of an infallible doctrine, although not necessarily proclaimed ex cathedra. That is, they aren't promulgated by the pope himself but by the larger magisterium of the church. The lineup of "irreformable" teachings—ones divinely revealed—include those regarding Jesus, Mary, sin and grace, the sacraments, the primacy of the pope, and the doctrinal formulations of the ancient creeds. The lineup of "definitive" teachings on faith and morals—ones the church holds to be logically derived from divine revelation—include teachings such as the doctrine of papal infallibility, the immorality of abortion and euthanasia, the communion of saints, and others. Assent of "intellect and will" to both categories of teachings are required for full communion with the Catholic Church. If Big Frankie ever came out and say, ex cathedra, that the thoughts contained in "Laudato si" were what Catholics must believe, that would be that. No further argument possible. And as it is, he chose an encyclical, and the next step up is ex cathedra. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Sep 15 - 10:13 PM That's a pretty good summary, Rapparee. I think there are a few more steps between encyclical and "ex cathedra," but the general idea is correct. the "ex cathedra" stuff is not open to change or discussion, but it's rare and it's a complicated process. The last clearly ex cathedra statement was 1950, although there's contention that John Paul II's prohibition of ordination of women has that status. The decision on birth control was not "ex cathedra." So, the point is, there's a lot more discussion and a wider variety of opinions in the Catholic Church, than the absolutists would have us think. -Joe- |