Support NeoGAF

[Buckethead]

It's a political dodge.

 

[ComputerMKII]

Actually, good sir, you're supposed to be the link between God and humanity.
You should be able to judge gays by asking your God what's up with them, like why are people gay if he doesn't want gay people, and then tell us God's ideas on them.

That's your role, technically.

Luckily i'm an atheist, shrug.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

 

[Monocle]

It's difficult to keep an institution relevant in the modern world when an assertion of infallibility, a dead set resistance to reform, and a fetishization of blind obedience are some of its defining features.

As long as the pope defends his church's grotesque homophobic and misogynistic policies, he should be regarded as nothing more than an apologist for the hatred, ignorance, and persecution spread by that bigoted organization. Business as usual for the grand edifice of hypocrisy that claims to be such a force for good in the world.

 

[Alrus]

As far as I know, sex that isn't done for procreative purposes is sinful for the Church. So yeah, I highly doubt they're going to change their view on homosexual sex anytime soon. That would be a pretty radical change of dogma.

 

[Jackpot]

"The problem is lobbying by this orientation"

Doesn't this mean any gay rights group?

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Slavery goes against Jesus Christ's teachings (which is why Pope John VIII condemned it in the year 837).

What teachings specifically? It's my understanding that Jesus never mentions slavery, or homosexuality for that matter.

 

[ComputerMKII]

What teachings specifically? It's my understanding that Jesus never mentions slavery, or homosexuality for that matter.

I only have the French version but here's the letter John VIII wrote to the princes of Sardinia:

Il est une chose pour laquelle nous devons paternellement vous admonester ; si vous ne la corrigez pas, vous encourrez un grand péché, et par elle ce ne sont pas les gains que vous accroîtrez, comme vous l'espérez, mais bien plutôt les dommages. Comme nous l'avons appris, à l'instigation des Grecs, beaucoup qui ont été enlevés captifs par les païens sont donc vendus dans vos régions et, après avoir été achetés par vos compatriotes, ils sont gardés sous le joug de l'esclavage ; alors qu'il est avéré qu'il est pieux et saint, comme il convient pour des chrétiens, que lorsqu'ils les ont achetés des Grecs, vos compatriotes les renvoient libres pour l'amour du Christ, et qu'ils reçoivent leur récompense non pas des hommes, mais de notre Seigneur Jésus Christ lui-même. C'est pourquoi nous vous exhortons et nous vous commandons, avec un amour paternel, si vous leur avez acheté des captifs, de les laisser aller libres pour le salut de votre âme.

(Source: Heirich Denzinger, Symboles et définitions de la foi catholique, Éditions du cerf, Paris, 2005, p. 247.)

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

This means nothing as long as the church insists that homosexuality is a sin. Condemning people to celibacy is not compassionate or caring.

This means a lot more than nothing.

 

[patapuf]

It's not going to change and people are still going to be mad because the opposing sides have a different point of view. Supporters of a 'modernization' of the church want it to 'get with the times' but, to a Catholic, the church and its teachings are eternal. They're supported by millenia's worth of lives of saints and believers, and they expect to remain when you, me or any current lawmaker will be long dead.

tl;dr Reformists are thinking short-term while the church is thinking very long-term. The debate will never be settled.

The church has changed it's teachings before. It will again. It may take a long time, it may not change in the way critics want it to but i really doubt we have seen the last modifications of teachings.

 

[gofreak]

Reading another report it sounds like he's talking more specifically about gay priests, and this tone would be a shift from Benedict, who (I believe) said that gay people should not become priests.

So that would be a better stance for gay priests, but it would have no consequence beyond that.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Baby steps....

 

[Irminsul]

This means a lot more than nothing.

You're right, and that's the problem.

How nice would it be if nobody cared what some backwards-oriented organisation is thinking about life, the universe and everything. Sadly, too many people do care.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I only have the French version but here's the letter John VIII wrote to the princes of Sardinia:


(Source: Heirich Denzinger, Symboles et définitions de la foi catholique, Éditions du cerf, Paris, 2005, p. 247.)

So what's the gist of it for English speakers? Which teachings of Christ elucidate his stance on slavery?

 

[OriginofHysteria]

Straight pre marital sex is already frowned upon by the church so its not really surprising he took this stance when it comes to gay sex considering they dont yet take a positive stance on gay marriage.

 

[AlimNassor]

I finally get it...he's the PR Pope. He says what we want to hear, but, doesn't actually do anything.

 

[General Choomin]

When is he gonna say that smoking weed is ok? That would be cool...

 

[Midnight Moon]

Where did they find this guy? lol

Argentina I think? I was reading up the history of him and apparently he has been against homosexuals (me!) forever.

 

[Pau]

As far as I know, sex that isn't done for procreative purposes is sinful for the Church. So yeah, I highly doubt they're going to change their view on homosexual sex anytime soon. That would be a pretty radical change of dogma.

Nope. As long as it's in a marriage, it's not sinful.

Anyways, what he's saying has already been the stance of the Church. Hate the sin, not the sinner. Nothing new here so I don't get the baby steps comments.

 

[jett]

Thread title is erroneously cut short. It's too bad that aside useless PR posturing like living in an apartment and trading the pope mobile for a ford focus he's not actually properly reforming anything.

The Church teaches that it cannot ordain women because Jesus willingly chose only men as his apostles.

Jesus also only willingly chose to seek out his fellow jews. Think on that buddy.

 

[Monocle]

Nope. As long as it's in a marriage, it's not sinful.

Anyways, what he's saying has already been the stance of the Church. Hate the sin, not the sinner. Nothing new here so I don't get the baby steps comments.

Fortunately, gay marriage legalization is sweeping the globe. Problem solved, am I right?

 

[Irminsul]

Fortunately, gay marriage legalization is sweeping the globe. Problem solved, am I right?

Not necessarily, as there's a difference (at least in many countries) between marriage registered by the state and a marriage in church. The Catholic church would probably only recognise the latter.

 

[thefro]

Nope. As long as it's in a marriage, it's not sinful.

Birth control/condoms, etc are considered sinful, even within marriage. The Church considers that different than 2 people in a marriage who can't have kids for whatever natural reason (i.e. woman past menopause, etc).

 

[Monocle]

Not necessarily, as there's a difference (at least in many countries) between marriage registered by the state and a marriage in church. The Catholic church would probably only recognise the latter.

It's always gotta be something.

 

[NonexistentK]

Masonic lobbies, really?

 

[BowieZ]

Slightly misleading thread/article title, there.

 

[Raist]

So what's the gist of it for English speakers? Which teachings of Christ elucidate his stance on slavery?

Some pope says it isn't cool, after being bought slaves should be given their freedom.

That doesn't answer the original point, merel proves it: the catholical church eventually changes its stance on things, so I'm not sure the "eternal" value of teachings stands.

But I'm still waiting for someone to show me that Jesus himself taught that salvery is wrong, especially since there are definitely a few verses in the NT that say otherwise.

 

[Vagabundo]

Pretty much everything fun is a sin if you're catholic. Luckily it's pretty easy to clear the slate once a week.

 

[The Albatross]

Isn't the whole point of being God on earth to judge people?

The Pope is not God on Earth.

- more to op -

Nothing new here, but Francis seems determined to be more inclusive, which is nice. Anybody expecting any sort of change of heart on homosexuality or homosexual acts from the Church will be disappointed.

So I guess the Vatican Councils never happened? Because, actually, there's nothing eternal about the Catholic Church. Even the Earth revolves around the Sun since the early 1990ies I believe.

...

You believe wrong

 

[Dude Abides]

Nope. As long as it's in a marriage, it's not sinful.

Anyways, what he's saying has already been the stance of the Church. Hate the sin, not the sinner. Nothing new here so I don't get the baby steps comments.

I think it has to be "open" to procreation as well, hence the proscription on contraception. Not sure if it's technically a sin to use a condom or the pill, or just something you're not supposed to do.

 

[Pollux]

It's difficult to keep an institution relevant in the modern world when an assertion of infallibility, a dead set resistance to reform, and a fetishization of blind obedience are some of its defining features.

As long as the pope defends his church's grotesque homophobic and misogynistic policies, he should be regarded as nothing more than an apologist for the hatred, ignorance, and persecution spread by that bigoted organization. Business as usual for the grand edifice of hypocrisy that claims to be such a force for good in the world.

Hyperbole, much?

 

[Monocle]

The Pope is not God on Earth.

- more to op -

Nothing new here, but Francis seems determined to be more inclusive, which is nice. Anybody expecting any sort of change of heart on homosexuality or homosexual acts from the Church will be disappointed.

Hopefully at some point he'll personally address the "disappointment" experienced by gay kids when their lives are destroyed by their religious parents and peers. A nice statement to the effect of "stop torturing people for expressing love" would be cool.

 

[Pollux]

The church has changed it's teachings before. It will again. It may take a long time, it may not change in the way critics want it to but i really doubt we have seen the last modifications of teachings.

Name one piece of core doctrine the church has ever changed...

 

[Joel Was Right]

I would encourage people to read the actual article rather than the title

 

[Irminsul]

Name one piece of core doctrine the church has ever changed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council

There you go.

 

[patapuf]

Name one piece of core doctrine the church has ever changed...

I specifically said teachings and not doctrine. The interpretation of the catholic doctrine has changed

The way the church treats sin, various scientific findings (to the point that evolution "does not conflict with the faith)", non-believers ect. has changed a lot.

 

[Pollux]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council

There you go.

no core doctrines were changed.

I specifically said teachings and not doctrine. The interpretation of the catholic doctrine has changed

The way the church treats sin, various scientific findings (to the point that evolution "does not conflict with the faith)", non-believers ect. has changed a lot.

Fair enough, misread your post.

 

[mckmas8808]

This means nothing as long as the church insists that homosexuality is a sin. Condemning people to celibacy is not compassionate or caring.

The church did not insists this from nothing. It's straight from the Bible. So if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the Bible.

 

[Oersted]

No judgement, but you are a sinner and will end up in hell. Really, no judgement.

 

[CF_Fighter]

Isn't it already like that? Not universally, but I'm pretty sure gay people are the least religious group you can find anywhere.

And then you have my uncle who is a priest in the Episcopal Chruch and is gay. He is in a blessed civil union and recognized legal marriage because he lives in Vermont. He's experienced hate in certain places he's gone, even had to quit a job a few months in because the chips were stacked against him by lay leadership, but overall it has been more acceptance and love for him and his husband.

 

[Hari Seldon]

The church did not insists this from nothing. It's straight from the Bible. So if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the Bible.

Church could interpret the Bible differently, and I think they will one day. They didn't have modern homosexual relationships when the Bible was written. They had tribe leaders with 3 wives that diddled little boys on the side (like they still do in parts of that region even today). I think there is theological room to update the teachings to account for this historical fact, and allow for gay marriage.

 

[Vicetrailia]

He's good with the status quo, expected but disappointing.

 

[Oersted]

The church did not insists this from nothing. It's straight from the Bible. So if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the Bible.

Read the bible again

 

[BigDug13]

This means nothing as long as the church insists that homosexuality is a sin. Condemning people to celibacy is not compassionate or caring.

It's the Catholic Church. If you're not having sex for the purposes of procreation then you're doing it wrong. I can see how that mindset translates into celibacy for gays since they aren't procreating with each other.

 

[archnemesis]

The church did not insists this from nothing. It's straight from the Bible. So if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the Bible.

You're right, I do have a problem with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Fortunately there are progressive Christian organizations that don't treat women and gays as second-class citizens.

It's the Catholic Church. If you're not having sex for the purposes of procreation then you're doing it wrong.

They do have exceptions for e.g. infertile straight couples.

 

[Christine]

Teaching that homosexual acts are sinful marginalizes gay people and directly hurts their ability to integrate into / be accepted by society. The pope's statement here is incoherent and empty of import.

 

[BigDug13]

You're right, I do have a problem with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Fortunately there are progressive Christian organizations that don't treat women and gays as second-class citizens.
They do have exceptions for e.g. infertile straight couples.

Yeah but you know what I'm saying. Sex is for procreation. Homosexual sex is not, therefore they will never see it as a good thing.

Don't they equally teach that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is a sin?

Everything is a sin anyway. It's not like homosexual acts are on a different sin level than premarital sex or defiling the temple of your body with cigarettes and drugs or being jealous of your neighbor.

Theyre never going to say it's not a sin to have sex man to man. Even man to woman in the pooper is just as sinful.

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

Nothing has changed, this aren't even "baby steps", religion won't change... and maybe for the better, it makes it easier to see how full of crap they are. Teaching that homosexuality is wrong and discriminating against woman, smh.

Everything is a sin anyway. It's not like homosexual acts are on a different sin level than premarital sex or defiling the temple of your body with cigarettes and drugs or being jealous of your neighbor.

There's sooo many silly sins, honestly... you really can't obey the bible 100% and be a functional human being.

 

[Nathan Muir]

So what's the gist of it for English speakers? Which teachings of Christ elucidate his stance on slavery?

None that are contained in that letter. I'm guessing the OP doesn't speak French, or he didn't read that letter closely. That is the Pope admonishing and instructing to free purchased slaves so that the souls of the owners might be freed. It doesn't matter if the Pope speaks this in the name of Jesus Christ or not, that in no way elucidates Christ's specific stance.

After all, God knows what's been done "in the name of Christ" on both sides of the good-evil spectrum. Using that phrase in one's teachings does not make the message itself somehow directly of Jesus Christ.

 

[mckmas8808]

Church could interpret the Bible differently, and I think they will one day. They didn't have modern homosexual relationships when the Bible was written. They had tribe leaders with 3 wives that diddled little boys on the side (like they still do in parts of that region even today). I think there is theological room to update the teachings to account for this historical fact, and allow for gay marriage.

It'll be hard for me to see the catholic church changing that much to be honest.

Read the bible again

I have and that's what it says. Now if you're asking for a different interpretation of the verses then that's something different. But what the Pope said is the literal writings of the Bible.

 

[archnemesis]

Don't they equally teach that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is a sin?

Sure, it's in their teachings although I get the impression they are more fervent when denouncing gay sex.

Everything is a sin anyway. It's not like homosexual acts are on a different sin level than premarital sex or defiling the temple of your body with cigarettes and drugs or being jealous of your neighbor.

That's an unfair comparison since cigarettes and drugs are harmful substances. Having sex is good for you and repressing your instincts isn't going to do anyone any good.