 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Pope's Survey
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: akenaton Date: 23 Nov 13 - 12:27 PM I agree with a lot of that Frank, but the crimes in the main, were not paedophilia. Adult men sexually assaulting teenage boys, can hardly be descried as paedophilia. The Celibacy rule has damaged the Catholic church, it should be removed....women should be allowed into the priesthood, and contraception should be no business of the church |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Musket Date: 23 Nov 13 - 12:32 PM I said two posts. It was one. My apologies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 Nov 13 - 12:59 PM will never stop ridiculing and abusing people of faith till they get what they want, a completely secular society. Well we atheists get ridiculed by people of faith (as well as by you) all the time. If we're not bitter ex-Catholics who didn't listen at school or read enough, we're practising a new religion called militant atheism. The truth is, Achy Tony, this is an internet forum, not real life. A place where a scurvy few of us say exactly what we think, sticking our heads above the parapet (sorry, I can't think of any cliches today to save my life). Earlier you said that we scurrilous militant atheists wanted to see the end of all religion, which is tosh and deserving of ridicule. Now you're saying we want a completely secular society. Well now, you've hit the nail right on the head! That's exactly what I would like to see. No faith schools. The teaching of comparative religion in schools, not religious instruction liberally laced with prayers under crucifixes. No archbishops in the Lords as of right (as of merit, maybe). No faiths having a say on what they regard as "moral issues" that they would wish to apply to everyone, not just their followers. Yeah, sounds good and healthy to me. Everyone doing their own thing, no pressure on anyone else to do the same as them. Their private beliefs are none of my business, and my alternative convictions are none of theirs. Great! And I'll tell you summat else: if I went around in real life routinely ridiculing all my Christian family and friends, not only would I alienate them but I'd also alienate all my other mates as well for being a total prick. But that's cos I have a real life and can make the distinction. Have you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Nov 13 - 10:04 PM Musket, I share your disdain for the term "Homosexual Agenda." Here's the Wikipedia definition of the term:
I've heard it used to describe just about anything the right-wing speaker disagrees with, I suppose because the speaker thinks all wrong must come from homosexuals. Stringsinger, I agree that women should be ordained to the priesthood, and I think that particular policy change would be very beneficial to the entire church. However, the Catholic Church has many members in places of the world that are simply not ready to accept women as leaders, so I can understand the difficulties involved. Pope John Paul II made a statement that the Catholic Church does not have the authority to ordain women. Cardinal Ratzinger then inquired if this was an infallible statement and JPII said yes - but I don't think the procedure would hold up in court. So, my interpretation is that the church did not have the authority at the time and therefore did not exercise that authority. However, who's to say whether the church might get the authority at a later time? I don't think Rome agrees with me on that, because they've excommunicated a couple of priests who promoted ordination of women. But I'm convinced I'll win out in the long run. Eliza, I think you offered some very good insights. I have to confess that I make it a rule never to go to a Catholic priest for advice on sex, although I've known a very few wise priests who are exceptions to that rule. Instead, I give them advice, for the most part - whether they want it or not. I work with teenagers in church, and it's very hard to figure out what to tell them about sex. I usually let the other youth leaders say what they have to say on the matter, and then I gently try to make what they say a bit more realistic. I believe that sex is sacred and should be limited to people who truly love one another - although I did have one relationship where the sex was so wonderful that I didn't realize that there really wasn't love there. I also believe in the sacredness of lifelong marriage, and I think that churches should work to preserve loving sex and lifelong marriage as ideals. But the reality is that a lot of wonderful people have sex without being married. I have trouble with 16-year-olds having sex because there are a lot of complications they cannot foresee; but I have a real problem telling 40-year-olds that they shouldn't have sex with another lover after a divorce - especially if they've remarried, but even if they haven't gotten married to the new love. Still, I can see the value of the ideal of saving sex for marriage, or at the very least taking time to make a serious decision about whether or not you really want to have sex with this person. I'm OK with churches holding lifelong marriage and no sex outside marriage as the ideal, but I think they need to balance the ideal with reality - and I think the Catholic Church fails horribly on this. Eliza states the Roman Catholic policy on divorce correctly. If people are validly married, they cannot remarry - and if they remarry, they are considered to be in a "state of sin" and are not allowed to receive communion (which means they are not in full communion with their Catholic Church). There is an exception - if they can prove that there was something present at the time of their first marriage that was an impediment to having a truly "sacramental" marriage, that first marriage can be annulled (and, rarely, a second or subsequent marriage might be annulled). After 21 years of marriage, my ex-wife kicked me out of the house and got a divorce and filed for a church annulment based on the grounds of "psychological unpreparedness" at the time we got married in the first place. And I suppose it was true - we were not prepared for the fact that she would be troubled by anxiety and depression all the years we were married. So the annulment was granted, although I suspect the cause was helped by the fact that two of the three priests on the annulment tribunal were friends of mine. So my ex got married again, before the annulment was effective, and that marriage lasted six months. And then since the second marriage wasn't "really" valid, she got married a third time and that marriage lasted for a while. I was single for ten years, and I just couldn't in good conscience accept the idea that lifelong celibacy after a divorce was a good idea. I had three wonderful relationships over that ten years, and I really wish a fourth one had worked out. And then I ended up marrying a longtime friend in 2002, in a church marriage; and we're still happily married. But even though I'm glad I got an annulment and was remarried according to church law, I think it's wrong that the Catholic Church requires that people obtain an annulment before remarriage. I was married for 21 years, and my ex and I did everything I could to preserve that marriage - but it still failed. But don't tell me that wasn't a marriage - that's duplicitous. But the Catholic Church says my first marriage wasn't valid. I agree with the conservatives that the Catholic Church has granted far too many annulments - but they would disagree with my thinking that there has to be another way to recognize second marriages while preserving the ideal of lifelong marriage. Pope Benedict made inquiries about the situation of remarried Catholics, and it looked to me like maybe he was considering recognizing divorce and remarriage as an actuality. It didn't happen, but I think it will become a reality with Pope Francis. As for sex outside of marriage, maybe it is sinful, but I have never thought of consensual sex as more than a minor sin - and I think of minor sins as "opportunities for learning" that don't quite fit the ideal we ought to live up to. Now, I suppose that none of this will make sense to anyone who thinks in absolutes, who believes that all laws must be either obeyed or abolished if the law cannot be obeyed. But churches are expected to present the ideal for living, not the "minimum requirements." And if the ideal is unrealistic, maybe it's still something to strive for - and not really a horrible thing if we don't always achieve the ideal. I got less than 100% on a lot of examinations I took over my increasingly lengthy lifetime, and I don't feel particularly guilty about not always achieving perfection. But I still strive to make myself a better person, and I think that's all that can be expected of me. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Ian Mather Date: 24 Nov 13 - 02:07 AM Joe. Thank you for opening up about what makes Joe Offer. It isn't often that people say so many personal things about themselves on an Internet forum so I really hope your considered post wasn't borne of exasperation through those of us who don't share your view of your church. Steve hits the nail with the hammer when he notes that the people posting on the forum may be stating their case in ways they wouldn't in person. That described for me the opportunity to let the safety valve blow from time to time. When posting as Musket, despite many people knowing its Ian Mather typing, I tend to polarise to push a point or mock to expose agendas that I am appalled by. Obviously, I am no moral compass and have no right to be holier than thou. But I don't let that get in the way. ... Just to say I see many parallels in your past and mine. I didn't have and don't have a faith to set my decisions against and would find it rather odd to subject myself to the judgement of an annulment panel. Especially one made from celibate men with no experience of marriage! However, your background is very different to mine in that respect and conversely you may find it odd to go through life without that spiritual support? We will always disagree on faith matters and occasionally I shall post comments designed to polarise opinion, but in the final analysis, it's what floats your boat. Happy sailing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: akenaton Date: 24 Nov 13 - 04:43 AM Your post illustrates your personal views very well Joe, but the Church is an institution and is in much graver danger from the "liberal" agenda which we see here, than from homosexuals or even "non militant" atheists like myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: DMcG Date: 24 Nov 13 - 04:51 AM I'm not sure what exactly you mean, ake. As I read it, both Joe and I are on the liberal wing of the Catholic church. Are you saying you think we are the threat to the Church? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: akenaton Date: 24 Nov 13 - 05:10 AM Sorry DMcG.....No offence intended to either You, or Joe, but I think allowing society to lead the Church,will finally lead to its own destruction. The media is a strong propaganda machine, the Church cannot compete, especially in the "developed" West, where the cult of "self" is now well and truly bedded in. Perhaps it can survive in other areas and even achieve a "rebirth" here, as our social and economic disintegrates and people become once again dependant on and caring of, one another. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: DMcG Date: 24 Nov 13 - 05:17 AM Oh, I'm much harder to offend than that, Ake! No, it was a straight question. In many ways, my position and Joe's are driven by attempts to relate the Church to the rest of the world. It is certainly an arguable case - not one I'd agree with, but still logically reasonable - to say that to behave in that way is damaging to the Church. In some ways, it's like the question-that-must-not-be-asked (What is f.m.?) Some want a pristine and highly admirable thing, even if it effectively a museum piece, others see its continual evolution as proof of its ultimate health. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Nov 13 - 07:07 AM As for sex outside of marriage, maybe it is sinful, but I have never thought of consensual sex as more than a minor sin - and I think of minor sins as "opportunities for learning" that don't quite fit the ideal we ought to live up to. I'm just wondering how this somewhat Christian-centric view of "consensual sex as [no] more than a minor sin" outside marriage sits with all those people who don't care for marriage and those societies in which there is a more flexible attitude to monogamy. Marriage is a purely human invention. The organs providing sexual pleasure developed via natural selection. It should be clear to all that natural selection did not specify that sexual pleasure was turned on like a switch by a ceremony. You're making "outside marriage" the pivot point when it should be the word "consensual". Don't you think it's high time we stopped seeing "sex 'n' morals" as irrevocably joined at the hip? Incidentally, I see "consensual" as meaning quite a bit more than "not rape". I see it as free from exploitation and ignorance (and a bit more still). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 24 Nov 13 - 07:30 AM IMO consensual sex between people of any sexual persuasion who are not in a committed relationship does no-one any harm. If folk do not wish to marry, why should they? Even 'promiscuous' sex is only 'wrong' in the eyes of the morally pious. My definition of what constitutes a 'sin' is an action that does harm. Sex is perfectly natural and pleasurable. It isn't a 'minor sin', it isn't a 'sin' at all! I do find it a bit strange, the Church's over-preoccupation with what folk do with their genitals! Surely there are far more hurtful, harmful and evil actions that could be addressed by religious 'rules'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 24 Nov 13 - 08:12 AM The word "liberalism" is ambiguous. If it is used in the sense of lowering moral standards, obviously everybody is morally obligated to counteract. On the other hand, liberating ethics from the grip of religious (or other) elites can and should result in more adequate moral standards, which are easier to implement and thus result in higher levels of morality. Religious leaders should insist on the highest realistic standards of morality, but leave it to the experts to find out what these are. This must not be confused with genuinely religious practices such as food taboos - each religious community must find out which of these are really essential. Catholic doctrine seem to have become fairly "liberal" in that respect quite a while ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 24 Nov 13 - 08:59 AM Eliza, sex can do a lot of harm in many distinct ways. Ethicists have a hard time when trying to make sense of it, even when they are only working for the comparatively clear-cut purposes of secular jurisdiction. A major obstacle is the fact that the human brain has various layers of notions about sex, some very deeply rooted. In such cases, it is a reasonable strategy to do as our ancestors did, unless we have compelling reasons to do otherwise. Since religion is in itself concerned with history, religious ethicists tend to be more conservative than the average of their societies, or even declare ethics to be as invariable as their religion. This is fallacious in many ways, e.g. because of new technologies such as DNA tests. The measurement of harm itself is constantly changing in history. Thrashing children is nowadays considered harmful, also by most Christian ethicists, although in the 1950 it was completely accepted worldwide as a means of education. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Musket Date: 24 Nov 13 - 09:29 AM Just using a rough arsed guess, I'd reckon that most of the psychological distress that can come from sex is the link to the ingrained sense of what religious organisations feel it is all about. As we are talking Catholicism, the sense of mea culpa that goes beyond people who believe in such things and into mainstream society. Hence my comment above that if adultery wasn't frowned upon by those we are taught to put on a pedestal, it wouldn't be as much fun for those who indulge.... Assault is assault is assault, but consensual sex, if it leaves a scar, there has to be a proportion of blame attached to those who try to write rules on who with and when.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: Stringsinger Date: 24 Nov 13 - 09:37 AM Joe, I have great respect for you for your opening up the avenues of dialogue here on Mudcat. Although I disagree abour Catholicism and am critical of it, I don't want you to think that I don't respect you personally We who don't believe have been silenced, sometimes brutally, by religionists who have evangelical fervor under the delusion that their persuasions will have some positive effect. When I hear a particular religious defense, I feel impelled to take it to task because I honestly don't think that a defense of religion has a positive effect on the welfare of society. I don't ask those who adhere to their beliefs to give them up in hopes that some day they might examine them more closely and reach a different conclusion but I don't want to force my views down anyone's throat. I do think, however, that ex-Catholics should consider carefully why they left the Church and not be amenable to any evangelical attempt to woo them back. I hope we can amiably agree to disagree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 24 Nov 13 - 09:44 AM As we are talking Catholicism, the sense of mea culpa that goes beyond people who believe in such things and into mainstream society.Christianity was definitely not the inventor of strict rules and harsh sanctions against adultery. They must be as old as human settlements. (A small number of small tribes are known who have not limitations of sex other than direct incest. They must be small enough to have a tight collective sense of responsibility for the offspring. Presumably, they gave up their original stricter rules when they found controlling their observance infeasible.) Again, Musket, you prove that you have very little knowledge about human nature. Does Ian have any more, and if so, why does he not share it with you and us? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: DMcG Date: 24 Nov 13 - 10:05 AM Quoting from the appendix to Steven Pinker's 'The Blank Slate': This list [by Donald E Brown] was compiled in 1989 and published in 1991, consists of primarily "surface" universals of behaviour and overt language noted by ethanographers .. It omits near universals ... And, there it is: sexual regulation (and incest is listed as a separate universal, so this is regulation apart from incest) Yep, some form is known in all societies we have encountered or studied. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Musket Date: 24 Nov 13 - 01:31 PM Don't bring the tone down Grishka. Everybody is aware that religions use sex as a control on their members. To say that it predates Christianity is rather silly. It might, but my point still holds. Priests didn't invent paedophilia but that doesn't make the guilty ones less culpable. My knowledge of human nature is indeed little. Perhaps you would wish to enlighten us oh wise one? Only make it simple. I have problems understanding your posts generally, and to date dismiss your withering contributions as rambling bollocks... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 24 Nov 13 - 02:12 PM As we are talking Catholicism, the sense of mea culpa that goes beyond people who believe in such things and into mainstream society.... seems to mean: that sense went from Catholicism into society - does it not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 24 Nov 13 - 02:23 PM And as for bringing the tone of this thread down - I could not, even if I tried hard. Well, it is not quite as bad as in some other threads, but not very far, with largely the same protagonists. The special problem I have with you, Musket, is that I sometimes fail to recognize which one of your personae is speaking. Could you perhaps announce more consistently, as you sometimes do, when you want to be taken seriously? By default, I assume not, and it is my own fault if I respond. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Musket Date: 24 Nov 13 - 02:29 PM No. Funnily enough, I put what I meant. The SENSE of mea culpa goes beyond Catholicism. Most organised religions, not just Christian ones have a method or three of demanding obedience and having the masses wanting to show the people who run the religions that they are deserving of membership is a fairly common feature. Sex of course being something that people can control others by, as every preacher, prostitute and pimp know only too well. Look, I am a pedant too at times, but your picking out semantics and irrelevance is not to my mind a useful contribution to the debate. Your views on the many subjects this thread has thrown up would be nice, but this is silly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Nov 13 - 03:42 PM Eliza, sex can do a lot of harm in many distinct ways. Oh great, let's accentuate the negative! Ahem: Drinking water can do a lot of harm in many distinct ways. Eating food can do a lot of harm in many distinct ways. Sitting down can do a lot of harm in many distinct ways. Standing up can do a lot of harm in many distinct ways. Walking down a city street can do a lot of harm in many distinct ways. Driving a car can do a lot of harm in many distinct ways. Riding a pushbike through London can do a lot of harm in many distinct ways. Sitting at a computer keyboard for too long can do a lot of harm in many distinct ways. Listening to Beethoven at loud volume (yay!) can do a lot of harm in many distinct ways. Not getting your nose out of your book when the missus is trying to talk to you can do a lot of harm in many distinct ways. Supporting Sheffield Wednesday can do a lot of harm in many distinct ways. Being obsessed with Strictly Come Dancing can do a lot of harm in many distinct ways. So what precisely is your bloody point? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 24 Nov 13 - 04:14 PM Musket (24 Nov 13 - 02:29 PM), my remarks were not about semantics. We agree that clergy and other persons of authority are tempted to abuse their power; I wrote that a number of times. This however does not allow the conclusion that the ethical problem is inexistent and a mere invention of the clergy, as you seem to suggest. Commercials on TV are usually biased, but this does not imply that everything they advertise is crap. I also wrote that I disapprove of the text of specific Catholic doctrine mentioned by Joe - and I would do so even if abuse were impossible. Steve, my point is what I stated, in response to Eliza's (and apparently Musket's) idea that there is no real ethical problem about sex, all made up by the clergy. Ethics, like sex, also has a strong positive side, but that was not Eliza's question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: DMcG Date: 24 Nov 13 - 04:55 PM A completely off-thread comment: I really don't understand what people intend when they say something "is not a matter of semantics", because semantics is the study of meaning. if the meaning isn't important, how can there be a considered argument? Ok, the term is in common use to mean "the exact words chosen aren't important", but it still grates on me! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Nov 13 - 05:08 PM Steve, my point is what I stated, in response to Eliza's (and apparently Musket's) idea that there is no real ethical problem about sex, all made up by the clergy. Ethics, like sex, also has a strong positive side, but that was not Eliza's question. Clear as mud. :-( You see, the thing is, when you say Eliza, sex can do a lot of harm in many distinct ways it does sound like you're singling out sex from all the other things that "can do a lot of harm in many distinct ways", thereby appending a moralising undercurrent. Sex is what people do. I had my first wank when I was nine. Eating and drinking and dancing and breathing and singing and telling lies and crying and laughing and having fun and hurting and dying are what people do too. You've been hoodwinked, along with Joe and his Catholic brethren. Focusing on sex as "doing harm" or "being a slight sin" is exactly what religion has brought upon us all. Strictures regarding sex are the numero uno blunt instrument of control exercised by religion. The powers that be delight in pontificating to us about our sexual habits, usually telling us how impure we are. Yes you can have sex badly. You can eat badly too. Or not get enough exercise badly. You can do everything that human beings do, badly. But religion doesn't give a shit how many burgers you eat or how long you spend in front of the telly. Nah, none of that crops up much in "theology". Sex is the big thing. I'd like to say that that's ironic in the face of Catholic clergy supposedly abstaining from sex, but I'm not so sure. Anyway, thing is that sex has so much potential for Catholic authoritarians. You can't half make people feel guilty about sex if they are (a) having it outside marriage (b) having it without the sole intention of getting preggers (c) having it with someone else's spoken-for (d) having it with a rubber on yer willy (e) having it with someone of your own gender or (f) having it without simultaneously praying to Our Lady (I made that one up). Sex is what people do. All people. Put it into that context and stop worrying about it any more than you worry about anything else. Which doesn't mean don't worry at all. But sex is no more a moral issue than me eating one ham and pickle butty too many. It's what people do (have I said that already?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 24 Nov 13 - 06:23 PM DMcG, in the given context the word "semantics" was correct. Musket stated that I had misinterpreted the meaning of his sentence, and were to argue about semantics. I denied that. Steve, once more you misunderstood me completely. Eliza wrote that since sex cannot do any harm, there is no moral issue involved. She, you, and others suggest that those who declare such issues just invented them for their personal or collective benefit (sadism etc.). I generally agree that if there is no harm (as presumably in all cases dear Eliza is thinking of), there is no ethical question. If however there is any harm, for example cuckolds being angry and feeling betrayed, ethicists have the difficult task to identify the harm and weigh possible justifications. Historically, unaccounted pregnancies were considered the main harm. Measures to minimize these are as old as civilization, and probably hard-coded in our genome. (Some species of birds, where the male invests a lot of work in its offspring, have corresponding hard-coded patterns of behaviour. For example, the insistence on virginity must be seen in that context.) It definitely predates any formal religion. Obviously the invention of contraception, DNA tests, but also the low birth rate in industrialized societies constitute an entirely different objective situation. Ethicists should adopt their reasoning to that, but must also take account of the existing mindset. In the past, there were no other ethicists than clergy, so it was tempting to say or write "it is God's will" - saves a lot of explaining. The dilemma they are facing now, particularly the Catholic tradition, is that ethics must change, whereas God's will must not. There is only one solution, favoured by most non-Catholic clergy: give up the claim for a monopoly on ethics, leave it to the experts in free discussion. Since Joe and I disagree on that matter, I cannot have been "hoodwinked, along with Joe and his Catholic brethren". My only family connection to Catholicism is a grandmother who was a non-practicing Catholic, so I have little insight into Catholic affairs. But I know those vile teachers or preachers who take any excuse for their sadistic pleasure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Musket Date: 24 Nov 13 - 06:27 PM You couldn't handle supporting Sheffield Wednesday.... Your allegiance to a set of scousers demonstrates your lack of understanding of the beautiful game.... Grishka. I don't have split personality.. Neither of us understands you, if it helps. The sex diversion reminds me of a Spike Milligan sketch, used in a novel or two by him where a prisoner is being led down after being found guilty of shagging in a shop doorway. "You can fine and lock up all you like!" He shouted at the bench "But you'll never stop fucking in Catford!" He was a failed catholic out of interest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: Joe Offer Date: 24 Nov 13 - 06:56 PM I have quite a bit of contact with most of the churches in town, except for the "born again" religions. You people talk about churches and how they do all this horrible stuff stifling sex and all - but I rarely hear sex mentioned in church. I hear an awful lot about feeding the hungry and finding housing for the homeless. Especially in the Catholic Church, I hear about fair treatment of immigrants. I went to a rally Friday night that was sponsored by the Catholic Bishop of Sacramento, challenging our two extremist Republican congressmen to meet with the bishop and at least sit down to talk about immigration reform. The meeting had a very positive, celebratory tone. The bishop spoke in both English and Spanish, and led the audience in singing a couple of rousing songs. In his sermon this morning, our deacon (father of five) spoke about dealing with death and grief, talking about the deaths of his son and of a good friend - both of whom were known to many in the congregation. Last week, there was a lot of talk about the typhoon in the Philippines, and how we needed to have compassion for the victims. I guess that's the "liberal" stuff that Akenaton is so worried about. But obsession with sex? No, I really don't think that's common any more. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 24 Nov 13 - 07:41 PM Musket writes: Grishka. I don't have split personality.. Neither of us understands you, if it helps.Well, the Musket persona refuses to read posts that do not fit his clichés, so he cannot possibly understand them. He also finds that we bigots do not deserve exact reasoning, and that it serves us darned right if he makes a fool of himself (NB this is not my vague analysis, but essentially Musket's own declaration). The Ian persona, in contrast, rarely posts, but obviously sometimes slips through Musket's censorship. Anybody can ask me for an explanation when I have not expressed myself clearly enough. Is my post of 24 Nov 13 - 06:23 PM still incomprehensible? — Joe has a point that sex is not necessarily what the clergy like most to talk about, but what they are most likely to be asked about, since it poses the most visible conflicts with the mainstream ethics in industrial societies. Manifest restrictions are still in force, such as sacking Church employees for their sex life. Particularly in the question of remarriage, the favourite strategy of overlooking does not work. Joe, you characterized that EWTN paper as conservative. Does the following passage still describe mainstream Catholic doctrine? It is to the pope and the bishops that this teaching authority is entrusted. As the Second Vatican Council put it: "in matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful, for their part, are obliged to accept their bishops' teaching with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Nov 13 - 08:04 PM But obsession with sex? No, I really don't think that's common any more. Well that's all very well, and I'm sure that other things come to the fore just as much. But you simply can't get away with this. The damage is done. The Catholic Church during my time with it, and since, has laid down the laws about sex, when to have it, when not, what it's for, who can have it with whom, that it must be without contraception, how you must not abort (cf. Mother Teresa, not at all an embarrassment but actually lionised and soon to be sainted), what lasciviousness you are not allowed to have running through your mind (backed up, of course, by the very words of Jesus), and so on. Laced, of course, with a nice layer of misogyny. All under pain of mortal sin. Your "not any more" defence, which you frequently resort to, is actually not much of a defence at all when you consider that the message of old, or not so old, is long-ingrained into tens of millions of Catholics' minds, and your church, disingenuously, does nothing whatsoever to dispel that message. Your quiet fight from within, a concept I heartily endorse, is laudable. But too bloody quiet by miles. You sound far more like an apologist to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Nov 13 - 12:31 AM Well, Steve - a couple of years ago, I attended a morality class for catechists, taught by a young priest with a brand-new master's degree in moral theology from Rome. I didn't like what he was saying, so I let him have it. In front of the class accused him of "trivializing sin" by focusing on sex and tai chi and yoga and ouija boards, instead of spending his time denouncing real sin like child abuse and racism. He was almost in tears. Later he reported me to the diocese. I got a call from the diocese, asking me to be a little kinder to the guy.... Grishka - The paper on moral decisions on the EWTN Website is a fairly accurate reflection of mainstream Catholic teaching about the balance between conscience and church teaching. Note that right after the part you quoted, the paper says, "Thus for a Catholic to disagree with what the Church teaches on abortion, he or she would need to have very clear reasons and convictions." The paper is more balanced than many I've seen on EWTN, which is generally quite conservative. So, the general principle is that you can do things that contradict church teaching with no guilt, if you have seriously considered the matter and truly believe that what you are doing is the right thing. No, if you do this thing publicly, the church might take some action against you, particularly if you are a volunteer teacher or an employee of the church. You and your conscience are between you and God; but the Church might have something to say if it gets wind of it. The Catholic Church doesn't have much power over people anymore, unless they're employees. When I'm teaching in the Catholic Church, I think that I should be teaching what is official church teaching, so there are certain areas I will not address in a teaching situation - birth control being probably the most significant of them. I can teach about abortion because I agree with church teaching that abortion is wrong - but I think that the matter should be approached with the utmost compassion and I savor the opportunity to express my opposition to the harshness of the anti-abortionists. And when I teach about abortion, I also explain about the primacy of conscience in such matters. I will teach general concepts about the sacredness of sex and marriage, but that's an area that gets really "iffy" if I get too deep into it, so I generally stay away unless the situation is just right. Again, it's important to see the balance of these things. The Catholic Church, believe it or not, doesn't put a whole lot of effort into teaching about the morality of sexual matters. And believe it or not, my reading of church documents over its entire history, makes me believe that at least on an official level, sex has not been a discussion topic of primary importance at any time in church history - still, it's the topic that most people pay most attention to. The Catholic Church puts primary emphasis on a number of teachings that are not readily acceptable to conservative Catholics: opposition to warfare and capital punishment, our obligation to provide for the needs of the poor and homeless and imprisoned, and the rights of immigrants and workers. In fact, most of the primary teachings are things I support wholeheartedly. I think the U.S. Catholic bishops do a particularly good job on immigration. Abortion is also a primary issue, but it's one that makes me uneasy because I have a lot of sympathy for the need for women to make their own decision about their own pregnancies. Here's a video clip of the immigration rally we held Friday. I'm really proud of how it worked out. http://univisionsacramento.univision.com/videos/video/2013-11-23/abogan-por-la-reforma-migratoria -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Nov 13 - 02:48 AM Joe. I rarely hear sex mentioned in church. I hear an awful lot about feeding the hungry and finding housing for the homeless. Especially in the Catholic Church, I hear about fair treatment of immigrants. That is my experience of churches here too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian Date: 25 Nov 13 - 03:17 AM No. Still somewhat confused. Must be me who's thick. Look on the bright side, at least I tried. Some of Grishka's contributions on other threads, my eyes begin to glaze over after the first sentence. I am sure that services in the Catholic churches aren't obsessed with sex if those of you in the know say they aren't. But in the context of this thread, the church is asking its members questions to, amongst other things, work on its image. Ask many non Catholics about the image and you will find it is about opposing contraception, telling young boys not to be tempted to masturbate and accommodating Anglican clergy whose misogyny precludes them to work for a woman. The reality of the day to day work of a local church gets drowned in the message. And to be honest, as Joe keeps pointing out, the centre is far more conservative than the Joe Offers of this world. Sorry for contributing whilst the grown ups are around Grishka. I am sure you will find plenty of schoolboy errors in that which you can point out for the amusement of. Err.. The teachers warn you not to amuse yourself. ..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Nov 13 - 03:29 AM Musket says: And to be honest, as Joe keeps pointing out, the centre is far more conservative than the Joe Offers of this world. True, but it gives the Joe Offers an opportunity to reach all those good people on a deep level; and Joe has seen great progress in some, maybe many. I was so impressed to see Leticia, an undocumented alien, act as a leader at the immigration rally Friday night. When I met her five years ago, she was shy and scared. Not no more. She really shone on Friday. And I don't know that I'd call myself a "liberal." I call myself a "radical moderate." I think my own thoughts and don't satisfy anybody, but I try to bridge the gaps between people. As for what's the center of the Catholic Church, that's a good question. Most of the priests and nuns I know, are on the progressive side. Bishops tend to be more conservative, with streaks of brilliance in areas like immigration. Lay Catholics are quite a mixture, from far left to far right, with huge middle that's quite open-minded. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 25 Nov 13 - 06:35 AM Joe, So, the general principle is that you can do things that contradict church teaching with no guilt, if you have seriously considered the matter and truly believe that what you are doing is the right thing.Not exactly what the paper is saying, if you are honest, since on top of serious consideration, it demands complete knowledge of and priority to the hierarchy's teachings in details. It is this priority that is being questioned, even by many Catholics, more so than strictness and sanctions. The pope's survey may be a first step to adjust the official Catholic position fundamentally (rather than just "liberalizing" the criteria), following other religious communities. BTW: if my writing is incomprehensible, anyone should feel free to ask for explanations. It may well be my fault, for which I apologize. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Nov 13 - 06:45 AM Joe, "So, the general principle is that you can do things that contradict church teaching with no guilt, if you have seriously considered the matter and truly believe that what you are doing is the right thing." Not exactly what the paper is saying, if you are honest, since on top of serious consideration, it demands complete knowledge of and priority to the hierarchy's teachings in details. Precisely. To put it less kindly, the Church provides a getout clause that sets the bar way too high for almost everyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Nov 13 - 06:53 AM I am sure that services in the Catholic churches aren't obsessed with sex if those of you in the know say they aren't. But in the context of this thread, the church is asking its members questions to, amongst other things, work on its image. Ask many non Catholics about the image and you will find it is about opposing contraception, telling young boys not to be tempted to masturbate and accommodating Anglican clergy whose misogyny precludes them to work for a woman. The reality of the day to day work of a local church gets drowned in the message. Exactly. Whatever the message honest Catholics want to put across, the Church, from where I'm sittin', retains its control-over-sex image - and does very little to counteract that image, which speaks volumes to non-Catholics who think about it. As for church services not being obsessed with sex, well that has a disingenuous ring about it. Church services are attended by children, and I suppose an awful lot of Catholics would object to sexual matters being aired from the pulpit in front of them. Not only that, a celibate fellow wearing a frock is hardly going to command much respect from an audience of mostly married people if he starts issuing advice about their sex lives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Nov 13 - 03:20 AM Grishka, I think you're reading a bit into that EWTN document, although it is a bit conservative. There's a difference between objective morality (the act itself) and subjective morality (the guilt of the person making the moral decision). The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a section on conscience that you might find surprisingly reasonable. Here's an excerpt:
1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart. 1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,musket noting Date: 26 Nov 13 - 04:24 AM From my heathen place of observing, the use of the word reason in the same sentence as creator doesn't bear scrutiny outside the church. Which is fine. But it does make for difficult reconciling of the church's position in society at large. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 26 Nov 13 - 06:03 AM Joe (26 Nov 13 - 03:20 AM), I assume that you find the text reasonable, whereas most non-Catholic religious people will find it problematic. In principle, nobody doubts that Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened.I can accept "willed by the wisdom of the Creator" as somewhat metaphorical, but the problem starts with ... human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.The word "authoritative" implies an accepted authority; if it is rejected, the word "authoritarian" is adequate - insisting on one's authority. In contrast, my notion is that sinners either have an erroneous own judgment of morality or do not bother about it sufficiently. If the own judgment is correct, any opposing teachings must necessarily be incorrect and thus not deserving authority. In other words: society as a whole, including clergy and teachers, must foster the wish to do the right thing. Ethicists must find out what the right thing is in a given context, taking their reasons from observations and logic, analogous to science. Ethics, like science, must be subject to transparent public discussion. Authority is gained by convincing arguments, not by succession and consecration. Nevertheless, clerics are required to be good ethicists; so are teachers, journalists, and other people of influence. The situation becomes complicated when genuinely religious axioms potentially conflict with ethics. Fortunately, such objective conflicts are rare. Unfortunately, many religious people falsely regard their old customs or old teachings as religious axioms, or declare them thus for selfish reasons. There are cases in between, for example circumcision - not easy to decide. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Nov 13 - 06:32 AM Well, what Musket said, and also I think that "guided by authoritative teaching" has a dark, almost Maoist ring about it. Hard cases have a habit of saying things softly. The rest of your post does little to counter my point that the conscience bar is set so high that it is almost impossible to jump. The invitation to do so is certainly not there. Yes, I'm a heathen looking at it from the outside too, but I still vividly remember those conscience lessons we had in our retreats... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Nov 13 - 06:35 AM Authority is gained by convincing arguments, not by succession and consecration. Excellent. I must say, you're rock-solid on this stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: Stringsinger Date: 26 Nov 13 - 12:36 PM The Pope had these recent words of wisdom. "Capitalism is a form of tyranny." It's too bad that in order for this realization to be accepted for its value, it had to come out of the mouth of a pontiff and not just anyone, since it encourages the lockstep thinking of his adherents. That conclusion should have been drawn years ago. The selfless and considered approach to society is one which advocates that we and all animal life deserve an equal break in our attempt to make democracy work. I'll go a step further and attest that "Libertarianism (as it's defined today) is a form of tyranny and psychopathy. I hope we don't have to wait for a Pope to come to terms with this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: akenaton Date: 26 Nov 13 - 12:47 PM Well said, Frank....most people here haven't a clue about ethics, with the exception of Grishka of course. Though I wont pretend to understand everything he/she says, I am willing to take a "leap of faith" with him/her. Capitalism makes "ethics" redundant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Musket Date: 26 Nov 13 - 01:29 PM Sorry Joe, you asked that this thread doesn't descend into anything bad but there is a whiff of bigotry that I am not laying at the feet of the church's attitude to women or gay people. Those of us with "no clue about ethics" recognise the ethical position of treating people as second class citizens and persecuting them for their lifestyle choice. String singer also spoke of an ethical approach to democracy, which of course is anathema to the worm above. He sees the word "libertarianism" in a negative context and gets excited, not that he knows why. Back in your hole worm. Decent people posting here and they don't want to read your awful views on equal members of society. Some of is are about to eat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: akenaton Date: 26 Nov 13 - 05:41 PM Is it ethical to allow people to die and become ill needlessly, to serve any agenda? If you had any ethics Ian, you would not be such a strong supporter of the Capitalist system, nor as dismissive of the beliefs of others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Nov 13 - 07:00 PM Somehow, somewhere, I lost the track of the train of logic in this thread - or wasn't there any? As for ethicists, I would hope that everyone is an ethicist, in one form or another - we should all consider the effects seriously whenever we make a choice to do something with significant impact. To my mind, we should make our moral decisions with our own logic, taking the guidance of rules and authorities into consideration - at least, that's how my Catholic seminary taught me to make moral decisions. I wasn't taught to follow rules - I was taught to make my own decisions for my own actions, taking the rules into consideration. That, my friends, is the authentic Catholic tradition, no matter what misconceptions of Catholic rules you may have heard. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 27 Nov 13 - 06:45 PM Joe, you are too long with Mudcat to expect threads to have trains of logic, aren't you? We must be glad when we find sporadic streaks. As for ethicists, I would hope that everyone is an ethicist, in one form or another - we should all consider the effects seriously whenever we make a choice to do something with significant impact. To my mind, we should make our moral decisions with our own logic, taking the guidance of rules and authorities into considerationYes, and their arguments in a free discussion. That, my friends, is the authentic Catholic tradition, no matter what misconceptions of Catholic rules you may have heard.I read them in the texts you mentioned. You are probably right that those rules / teachings do not play the role in Catholic practice that conservative clergy attach to them. The pope seems to have realized that, and may be preparing a major reform of the Vatican's doctrine. Yesterday he published a statement - not really sounding clear to me, but journalists suggest that the following passage indicates nothing less than a revocation of the infallibility dogma: Nor do I believe that the papal magisterium should be expected to offer a definitive or complete word on every question which affects the Church and the world. It is not advisable for the Pope to take the place of local Bishops in the discernment of every issue which arises in their territory. In this sense, I am conscious of the need to promote a sound "decentralization".If those journalists are right, it will be not 30, but 500 years late, and all the more respectable. (Note that the other major churches have been there for centuries, yet not been able to prevent abuse of power as described by Musket.) Further steps lie ahead, together with the other religions and denominations. Being an ethicist is as high a qualification as being a scientist - I do not claim either, at expert level. (In fact, what I wrote in this thread seems pretty basic and self-evident to me.) Ethical reasoning must be strong enough to serve as a basis for a better organization of society worldwide, universally accepted, to prevent various disasters. (Using the word "capitalism" is a bad idea, since in 19th-20th century logic, "socialism" is associated.) That project takes more collective effort than any conventional politics can offer - neither can a conventional revolution, of course. All persons of authority, including but not restricted to religious leaders, will be required to contribute really new practical ideas and convincing arguments, not just patronizing wisdom. Let us see how much the pope has understood. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: akenaton Date: 27 Nov 13 - 07:15 PM This seems to be a "good" Pope, but he's been reading my posts. "Capitalism a tyranny"?......Of course it is, and there will never be any sort of real equality 'till it is left far behind. I have been trying to explain this very point to people like Ian for years. In place of ethics they have an agenda, an agenda designed and promulgated by our rulers (corporate Capitalists) to divide and manipulate.....This agenda has become known as "liberalism", but in reality it is the very antithesis of liberal thought. According to Ian, we live in a liberal paradise, the only dark clouds on the horizon are the lack of "marriage" rights for homosexuals, and the right of any other minority to do exactly as they please regardless on the effect their actions have on other sections of society. Well, now the blessed Francis has spelt it out for them.....and I'm off down to the chapel tomorrow morning, to join up!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey From: akenaton Date: 27 Nov 13 - 07:22 PM Alright Joe? |
