Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/29/pope-francis-on-gays-who-am-i-to-judge/?hpt=hp_t1">http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/...pt=hp_t1</a> Talk about your seismic shifts. The Catholic Church must be in a whirl today.
Originally Posted By dagobert >>> Talk about your seismic shifts. The Catholic Church must be in a whirl today.<<< Although I'm Catholic, I don't care what they say and I don't live according to their principles. I just hope that the church will make the shift to the 21st century and stops acting like they did in Medieval Times. It's time to renew the church and stop the harassment on gays and lesbians. But every church should do that. The Catholic Church isn't the worst. Luckily the influences of churches on governments isn't that big anymore and finally many countries already made same-sex marriage legal. Hopefully more will do so too.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Thanks for sharing. I may have my beef about religion in general, but I'll give him credit for trying to make a progressive move.
Originally Posted By mawnck I don't know how seismic it is, when taken in the context in which he said it. He did not say that he or the church was OK with homosexual practices. (Stay tuned for the media's equally incorrect "POPE BACKTRACKS ON GAY ENDORSEMENT" headlines in the next few months.) But good on him anyway. This Pope seems to have his priorities in order.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I agree that it might not be seismic. As the article said, it seems more a change in tone than in policy. But tone is important. Take birth control. Officially, as everyone knows, birth control is still a no-no to the Vatican. But as everyone also knows, the typical Western priest does not rail from the pulpit against birth-control every Sunday, and knows full well that most of his parishioners are using it. And so, although everyone still knows the official position, your average Western Catholic doesn't really consider birth control an issue. If we could get to that place with homosexuality, that is a step forward (and it's already moving there with average Western Catholics). I also liked that Francis said "the tendency is not the problem." That still leaves wiggle room for the official position on activity, or calling for celibacy or something like that. But even that statement is a step forward that some Catholics, especially in the third world, need to hear. In fact, I think the statements by Francis may be more helpful there, where just the "tendency" can be seen as sinful and even criminal, than in the west. Hearing him call gay people "brothers" might be very helpful to gay people in those countries.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 More than you might think, Hans, especially in those parts of the world where people like us face far worse than we do here. That's why I think this statement was important, the more I think about it, even if I don't exactly hang on the Vatican's every word (I'm not even Catholic myself.) We shouldn't forget what our gay brothers and sisters around the world face. Yes, absolutely, largely because of religions of various stripes. But a lot of people believe in them, so when one moves forward, even a little bit, that's a good thing.
Originally Posted By ecdc I care. This Pope is so awesome I'd become Catholic if I didn't hate church. I see this as potentially more seismic than others. To say, "Who am I to judge?" really shifts the conversation. It probably won't lead to an official policy change, but it may lead to a "don't ask, don't tell" style approach to gays in the church. Two years ago, that was unfathomable.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Stay tuned for the media's equally incorrect "POPE BACKTRACKS ON GAY ENDORSEMENT" headlines in the next few months. >>> It's already come, at least according to some: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/vatican-quickly-performs-damage-control-on-popes-t,33292/">http://www.theonion.com/articl...t,33292/</a> "Vatican Quickly Performs Damage Control On Pope’s Tolerant Remarks ... the Pope’s thoughtful message of understanding was clearly taken out of context ... the Holy Father was clearly tired after his long trip to Brazil and never meant for his comments to sound caring or realistic"
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It's not a change in policy. The Pope said that gay priests had to ask God forgiveness for their horrible sin of having the gay.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "We shouldn't forget what our gay brothers and sisters around the world face. Yes, absolutely, largely because of religions of various stripes. But a lot of people believe in them, so when one moves forward, even a little bit, that's a good thing." Of course it's a good thing, but I there's no doubt that the Pope's position on such matters is far less relevant today than it would have been 10, 20, 30 years ago. Besides, as Tom Sawyer pointed out, the Pope was primarily speaking about homosexuals in the church who are seeking God. I think it's safe to assume the rest of us sinners who aren't trying to repent and actively having gay sex are still looked down upon. It's not like the Vatican will be hosting gay weddings next week.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Of course not. That's why I said I didn't think this was as seismic as some people did. But even a change in tone can be important. And it's hard for us to understand, but in some parts of the world the church is just as influential as it ever was and people really do take anything the Pope says seriously. So when he says "the tendency is not the problem," it does matter, especially to those people who were brought up to believe that the tendency is the problem.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It isn't a seismic shift until the lumbering mass of the church changes course. It has changed its positions in the past on things like slavery, rape, and clerical celibacy so it isn't unprecedented. Until Rome's doctrines and policies change then this is just PR.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Exactly Tom Sawyer. From what he said the act of homosexual sex is still regarded as a sin, which is why I'm questioning how this can be considered progress for sexually active gay Catholics or any gay person living in countries where the Catholic Church has political influence. While the tone is more conciliatory than in the past, the outcome is that this is simply a clarification and not a dramatic change in Church doctrine.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's not a change in policy as far as I can see. Yet, even if it just becomes a change in priority (as well as tone), it could be a step forward, if not a huge one. Look at birth control. The official position hasn't changed. It's a big no-no; a sin in fact. But they just don't emphasize it like they used to. If they talk about it, then yes - it's still forbidden. But they don't talk about it much. They know they'd alienate their flock - in the west, virtually all straight couples young enough to need it use it. And they know that. I think this may be (remains to be seen of course) the first step in something similar for homosexuality. Officially, nothing will change. De facto, they know most Catholics know and have no problem with gay people now (and that's only accelerating) so they don't want to alienate the flock. So they just won't emphasize it so much. In the short term they'll probably "clarify" his remarks in a way we don't like, but watch long term... Over the next 20-30 years it will be treated like birth control; officially still a no-no, but just not something they focus on.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I get how the fact that he worded this way is an improvement over how it has previously been expressed, but I also feel that the bigger deal you make out of it, the more power you give to the guy/religion's view point in general. I know me personally being an atheist skews my opinion, but I could give a flying rat's behind what this guy thinks.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'm not Catholic (obviously), so perhaps I'm approaching this from the wrong perspective. I was raised in a church that revered leaders to a degree that bordered on (and often crossed) idolizing. The line between policy and what church leaders, especially the top man, said was so blurred they were usually (though not always) one in the same. I suppose I've mistakenly assumed the Catholic Church was similar to this.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I grew up Catholic, and I would say your assumption is spot on ecdc.
Originally Posted By ecdc There are Catholics here that can speak better to this than me. But I do think it's difficult for people raised in decentralized, pick-your-pastor Protestant churches to appreciate just what it's like to have a rigidly patriarchal hierarchy, where members are told that hierarchy are literally witnesses of Jesus Christ on earth. Mormon church leader talks (they're never called sermons in the church) are seen as semi-canonical. Mormons are told to read the official magazine of the church, The Ensign, every month, and it's main feature is an article by top church leaders. They gobble up biographies of modern and historical leaders. If they speak in church or teach in Sunday school, they are expected to quote almost exclusively from the scriptures or from the sayings of church leaders. Teaching materials are correlated and are literally the teachings of a particular Mormon prophet, alternating each year between them. Whether you go to a Mormon church in Ghana, or Brisbane, or Salt Lake City, these teaching materials and lessons are exactly the same, and they all revolve around Mormon leaders. Many Mormon homes have pictures of the prophet next to paintings of Jesus. Mormons travel from around the world, spending thousands of dollars to come to Salt Lake City to General Conference, just to see church leaders, even though the speeches are available online. Books authored by LDS leaders are best sellers in Salt Lake City. Local Mormons swap inspirational anecdotes about run-ins with church leaders. They tell urban legends about how the prophet really saw Jesus in the temple. They faithfully profess that if the prophet told them to do something, no matter what the sacrifice entailed, they would do it. Sorry to ramble on, but again, do not underestimate the importance of the words of a church leader in a centralized, patriarchal church structure.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I guess in the sense that their veiwpoint could influence lots of their "flock" who are currently against gay marriage, or just being gay period, it would be a good thing. But the very fact that these people let these men become so powerful is a very serious issue and becomes problematic and leaves issues for the rest of the world to deal with. I'm against his influence in principle, and hate that he has power over anyone to begin with. And as an atheist, I think ignoring him alltogether is the best thing to do.
