teruterubozu
Member
Either way, the power doesn't lie in the congregation - it's all top-down. That's why Catholics just up and leave the church without challenging the authority.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Vatican to American Nuns: Not Bigoted Enough
- Thread starter Devolution
- Start date
- Status
Either way, the power doesn't lie in the congregation - it's all top-down. That's why Catholics just up and leave the church without challenging the authority.
Captain_Spanky
Member
Corrupt patriarchy is not the same as religion me old son.
Leeroy3101
Banned
People are afraid to think for themselves, want to believe they'll live after death, find "god chosen" individuals to be infallible, and a family history of Catholicism keeps them there.
People view those such as Martin Luther and many modern day atheists to be individuals who are of the devil. It's quite sad.
Eh, there's Power, and then there's power. The body of the faithful could totally just do an "oh you" eyeroll, and keep on trucking and the Church would be rocked to the core. Instead of changing faiths, somehow we should just negate their "Power" to control how we live our lives. I get called a 'bad christian' when I pick and choose like that. Like I give a fuuuuuuk.
Lived long enough to see Martin Luther conflated with atheists. Huhnh.
Leeroy3101
Banned
I grew up in a Lutheran church as well as going to the church attached school from K-8. We were exposed to the history of Lutherans in many of our religion classes throughout the years. They portrayed The Catholic Church as viewing Luther as a godless man.
I don't follow any form of Christianity, or any other religion, anymore. Religion is limiting and nothing but chains on the power of the individual. I'm still a compassionate human being towards others. I've been following a Secular Humanist philosophy.
teruterubozu
Member
No disagreement there. I still attend mass, but I use it more as a Buddhist meditation session and block out the noise.
teruterubozu
Member
Good old anonymous poster. Drive-by posting as expected. Never Change.
Even Christians should(and are) disgusted at how the Church acts. Rampant greed, bigotry, hate, idiotic and dangerous talks(like no condoms in Africa). How do you expect us to act when arseholes come out and say things like that? "Oh that's ok, it's because of religion so we'll allow this awfulness!"
Sutton Dagger
Member
Souldriver
Member
NoRéN;37120250 said:
Nope, he's just Mclaren777. You'll get to know him soon enough.
On topic: saw this earlier on a news site. It's just so hilariously sad how it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Par for the course...
It's not?
Meus Renaissance
Member
Usually worshippers follow the dogma set out by their religion, not the other way round. What you're describing isn't people feeling abandoned by their faith but rather people who walked into the wrong room
Lucky Forward
Member
So the Vatican is reaching out to Mel Gibson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Gibson#Religious_and_political_views
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
Hard to imagine why the "let's pick the most evil looking motherfucker" for the next pope thing didn't work out for them.
I love to tell this story: The greatest couple in the world to me are my two friends, Mark and Greg. They're gay and have been in a relationship for going on 15 years. As a couple they have last the longest of all our extended group of friends. Mark was the best man at my wedding and they have such a stable life that we asked if they wanted to be god-parents of our first born. They were thrilled.
My wife is Catholic and we were married in a Catholic church. When we approached the family priest (a very nice Jesuit) he loved the idea but had to send a note to the Vatican. Pope John Paul was alive then and we got a yes back.
A few years later we had our second born and went with the same plan. This time, with Pope Innocent in charge the answer came back as no! Immutable word of God my eye!
I can see the Catholic church fluxuating with every new Pope. God's will has nothing to do with the laws the Vatican puts down. It's all about the Pope's agenda.
My wife is Catholic and we were married in a Catholic church. When we approached the family priest (a very nice Jesuit) he loved the idea but had to send a note to the Vatican. Pope John Paul was alive then and we got a yes back.
A few years later we had our second born and went with the same plan. This time, with Pope Innocent in charge the answer came back as no! Immutable word of God my eye!
I can see the Catholic church fluxuating with every new Pope. God's will has nothing to do with the laws the Vatican puts down. It's all about the Pope's agenda.
Meus Renaissance
Member
By that logic, why not then change the Christian OT to the 'Christianity |OT| The official thread of hope, faith and infinite love for bigots'? Or go further and hand out automatic bans for any Christian, Muslim or Jew that defends these beliefs when questioned on them? Or just lay the gauntlet down and ban anyone who even associates themselves with such bigoted beliefs? People in the past have been banned for bigoted comments so wouldn't it make sense to just continue that?
Maybe I don't get it, but perhaps you could explain GAF's moderation policy when it comes to religion
What does any of that have to do with whether the thread title matches the thread content?
Invisible_Insane
Member
I hear Galileo and Copernicus were Catholic too, for all the good that did them.
1) What Dave said.
2) Are you saying that's inaccurate?
Catholics are banning condoms in Africa ?!?!?!
Nuns not teaching Catholicism are being chastised by the Church.
This is mindnumbingly groundbreaking news.
Learn2read
Member
aaaaand here's the persecution complex, right on schedule.
The Lamonster
Member
Accurate thread title 
Nice to see that some ppl are above moderation on this forum.
krypt0nian
Banned
So one cannot believe and state that religion is nonsense here? Especially in threads where religion is clearly behaving poorly?
Meus Renaissance
Member
It's not as straight forward as that. My issue isn't with the title itself, but rather the moderation policy on religious threads. He highlight the first paragraph but the second is the one that provides the context.
Rome also chided the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) for sponsoring conferences that featured a prevalence of certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.
Considering their conflicting position on topics like abortion for example, this isn't a surprise - if anything it's just a continuation of their doctrine. So therefore the criticism and bigotry isn't in regards to this specific story, but rather those religions that subscribe to these beliefs in general. So why allow anything but the criticism of such bigotry on GAF? If the title matches the content, then why allow the defence of that content as seen in the religious official threads? Why give special dispensation to one set of bigoted beliefs from another? We've seen, for example, others gone from GAF because of their bigoted beliefs on race or gender.
It's probably not a great way to promote general discussion of Christianity, which is supposed to be the purpose of that thread.
... But not this thread, obviously. I think the title of this one is fine, given the content of the news article.
Omegasquash
Member
Sorry, this likely isn't the worst, and it's by far not the last thing. Also, it's nothing to do with moderation.
Edit: @imtehman
No, it's not, but it will. IT ALWAYS WILL. Judging not, and all that.
can you tell us what those "radical feminist themes" were?
If they are anything like the examples provided in the first paragraph of the article then, yep, the Church is still bigoted as fuck and should be called out on their bullshit.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Since people apparently want to make this a meta thread:
Is it OK to start a news thread with a loaded thread title? I'd certainly prefer that people didn't. I don't think it's welcoming for broader discussion. It's absolutely not the thread title I'd have picked. But we generally choose to intervene only when the thread title is such a bad mismatch that it causes confusion or distraction from the issue at hand. It seems to me that the topic of conversation in the thread matches the subject of the article.
I didn't read this thread until it was called to my attention, but I'm a lot less likely to moderate the thread now that I'm being forced to meta-moderate the thread, which is always unfortunate.
Is it OK to describe someone else's position as bigoted? Provided that you're describing their position and you don't cross the line into personally insulting them, I'm not really sure what the supposed problem is supposed to be. Someone might not feel this particular position represents bigotry, but that's not a moderation problem, that's a discussion problem. It's a discussion forum. If you disagree with someone's position, discuss it with them.
Do we ban people for bigoted or insulting remarks? See TOS
If you notice a post that you feel does not adhere to the terms of service, please just PM a moderator instead of replying to the thread with "LOL MODS SUCK LET THESE PEOPLE GET AWAY WITH MURDER!!!!! CRAP MODS CRAP SITE!!!!! ID RATHER EAT CATFOOD THAN POST HERE!!!!" If you really think GAF moderation is terrible and beyond redemption, we release you from your GAF exclusive contract; feel free to post anywhere else.
Any further posts that are about GAF instead of about the actual article being discussed will be deleted.
Is it OK to start a news thread with a loaded thread title? I'd certainly prefer that people didn't. I don't think it's welcoming for broader discussion. It's absolutely not the thread title I'd have picked. But we generally choose to intervene only when the thread title is such a bad mismatch that it causes confusion or distraction from the issue at hand. It seems to me that the topic of conversation in the thread matches the subject of the article.
I didn't read this thread until it was called to my attention, but I'm a lot less likely to moderate the thread now that I'm being forced to meta-moderate the thread, which is always unfortunate.
Is it OK to describe someone else's position as bigoted? Provided that you're describing their position and you don't cross the line into personally insulting them, I'm not really sure what the supposed problem is supposed to be. Someone might not feel this particular position represents bigotry, but that's not a moderation problem, that's a discussion problem. It's a discussion forum. If you disagree with someone's position, discuss it with them.
Do we ban people for bigoted or insulting remarks? See TOS
If you notice a post that you feel does not adhere to the terms of service, please just PM a moderator instead of replying to the thread with "LOL MODS SUCK LET THESE PEOPLE GET AWAY WITH MURDER!!!!! CRAP MODS CRAP SITE!!!!! ID RATHER EAT CATFOOD THAN POST HERE!!!!" If you really think GAF moderation is terrible and beyond redemption, we release you from your GAF exclusive contract; feel free to post anywhere else.
Any further posts that are about GAF instead of about the actual article being discussed will be deleted.
We need to know precisely what these 'radical feminist themes' are. I wouldn't be surprised if they're neither radical nor feminist.
We don't do what you propose because 'being religious' and 'being bigoted' aren't mutually inclusive. There is also the issue of criticising an institution, not necessarily the followers of that institution. In addition, religious members have been banned for bigoted views and non-religious members have been banned for making bigoted comments about religion.
I think the reason people find criticism of religion so jarring is because they're not used to it. To those people I would say 'get used to it'. No belief system is above scrutiny and when scrutiny reveals a myriad of flawed perspectives and archaic values, you can't expect people just to walk away to save your feelings.
(posted this, saw Stump above and my penis shrivelled up)
Not everyone with religious faith and conviction necessarily follows doctrinal beliefs regardless of what poorly thought out instigation from religious or secular circles would have you believe. Quite frankly, I'd like to challenge you to find a perspective where having members of a religion arguing against each other isn't good for the advancement of religious belief in general. GAF doesn't necessarily need to be moderated with a single monolithic standard as a whole; whether I agree with it or not context has always played a role.
And if you want to be a little more entertaining about it, I'm perfectly willing to view selective moderation in this context as a nice reminder that unchallenged, ignorant, poorly thought out ethical and moral judgments thrown out from behind the wall of "exercise of religion" can be put exactly where they belong: in a cage.
Hari Seldon
Member
As a Catholic I think that the Church will come around eventually on gay marriage. Just get a more liberal Pope who sees the losses in the west and allow it. Personally I think you could get away with this even with the few statements in the Bible regarding sodomy. I personally believe the statements in the bible are more towards the pedophilia type of gay relationships that exited in those cultures at the time, not between two consenting adults.
The Vatican did eventually allow evolution and even birth control in certain circumstances to prevent disease. They come around, just slowly. You have to wait for Popes to die off and be replaced by more liberal popes, which is a slower process than some people would like.
But the Catholic church will never, ever, ever be ok with abortion. That is what probably got them to crack down on the nun group more than anything else.
The Vatican did eventually allow evolution and even birth control in certain circumstances to prevent disease. They come around, just slowly. You have to wait for Popes to die off and be replaced by more liberal popes, which is a slower process than some people would like.
But the Catholic church will never, ever, ever be ok with abortion. That is what probably got them to crack down on the nun group more than anything else.
Meus Renaissance
Member
Does it really matter what the specifics are? The article is clear about one thing and it is these themes were "incompatible" with the teachings Catholic faith. Whether they were feminist, or political or social in nature doesn't really matter, ultimately the content was "against" doctrine. The complaint the Vatican has is that the LCWS isn't or hasn't done enough to distinguish the beliefs of the Catholic faith from these themes. To what extent and why is another question. It's a complaint that anyone, irrespective of their thoughts on these beliefs, can understand. That's the actual story (which is actually a non-story to most here) here but the title has developed it into an opportunity to talk of how bigoted the Church or religion is in general, as seen by most of the comments already.
Sorry Smoky and Davidion, I had a long PM written out but have lost interest in this particular point I raised now. Maybe another time
This the guy who was talking about Female Priests/Marriage? It's been in the news recently after that opinion poll
Pollux
Member
The LCWR is a Catholic organization and is thus governed by Canon Law whether they like it or not. The Church had every right and should have come down on the LCWR the way the did. Within the LCWR leadership there is a refusal to teach the Church doctrine on the right to life. Members of the LCWR, at their conventions, were openly questioning the need for the Eucharist and the ability of mankind to "move beyond Jesus". But the point is that these women are Catholic nuns who took vows. They weren't duped into joining religious orders, they knew the Church's stance on these issues, and they still joined. With that being said, saying things such as "moving beyond Jesus" and openly questioning the role of the Eucharist in Mass in any other time would have been called heresy. But that's a dirty word these days.
If nuns and priests want to openly question Church doctrine then they shouldn't be surprised when the Church puts its foot down. The LCWR has done an outstanding job helping the poor and doing community outreach programs, but that's only half of their job description. The other half is to promote the Faith, as it is taught by the Church. If they don't want to do that, or refuse to do that, then they should not be surprised when the Church tells them to start doing what they took vows to do. If you don't believe in the Church's doctrinal teachings then you shouldn't have become a nun.
If nuns and priests want to openly question Church doctrine then they shouldn't be surprised when the Church puts its foot down. The LCWR has done an outstanding job helping the poor and doing community outreach programs, but that's only half of their job description. The other half is to promote the Faith, as it is taught by the Church. If they don't want to do that, or refuse to do that, then they should not be surprised when the Church tells them to start doing what they took vows to do. If you don't believe in the Church's doctrinal teachings then you shouldn't have become a nun.
Devolution
Member
Then Church Doctrine needs to change and they recognize that but want to remain true to their love of Jesus. Not everyone feels that religion has to be the epitome of intolerance. Frankly I support these nuns in their endeavors to not follow certain teachings that ostracize and vilify others. If Christ's words were about love, just what the fuck is the point of christianity in so many places?
Deified Data
Banned
Church policing its members - I see nothing outstanding about that. I don't agree with their aims, but I see nothing wrong with the church having some degree of control over its organization. If Catholics want to be liberated from such archaic dogma, perhaps they should commit their souls to a more forward-thinking religion.
Also, read as "big-toed". As in the church having some issue with the nuns' feet. Ahem.
Also, read as "big-toed". As in the church having some issue with the nuns' feet. Ahem.
Love doesn't really mean accepting every tom, dick, and harry viewpoint out there (Catholics for Satan!! Woohoo!!). To be a part of a religion means accepting the dctrine or getting the heck out and wait for change on the outside if you don't like your hand slapped.
They really should just start their own religion.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I suspect that when someone says "Catholics need to change doctrine X", what they mean is "In order to be a positive force in the world, Catholics need to change doctrine X" or "In order to stay relevant in the world, Catholics need to change doctrine X" or "In order to reflect a better understanding of the founding principles of Catholicism, Catholics need to change practical doctrine X", variously and depending on context.
It's true that the counterpoint to the all three arguments is "Nuh uh, we don't need to do shit", but then you can just imagine that the statements instead read "Catholicism is a negative force in the world because it does not change doctrine X", "Catholicism is becoming irrelevant because it does not change doctrine X", or "Catholicism is an incomplete or corrupt understanding of its own stated principles because it won't change doctrine X", again variously and depending on context.
I'm pretty sure anyone who suggests anything is aware that they are not literally an authority issuing proclamations on behalf of the actual Catholic church.
They can be one and the same though because it's subjective. The Catholic Church is a positive force in the world based on their doctrines. There is no particular reason why the Catholic Church would need to hange their stance on anything. In fact, by the time they realize they need to change, a new religion or secularism would have risen up to replace them. In the meantime, they should have an expectation that the people who took vows to accept the orthodoxy would teach it. Otherwise you have people who are literal hypocrites to the Catholic faith.
The Catholic Church doesn't damage the world simply because they don't want their nuns championing things contrary to their Doctrine(Being against abortion doesn't damage the world to begin with)
For the record, I think it's perfectly fine to call out the Church or anyone for policies one does not agree with. It just seems silly to call out the church for saying nun aren't being Catholic enough as if anyone but Catholics have a say in that. They've only been doing for a 1,000 years and no particularly reason or rush to change.
Devolution
Member
I suspect that when someone says "Catholics need to change doctrine X", what they mean is "In order to be a positive force in the world, Catholics need to change doctrine X" or "In order to stay relevant in the world, Catholics need to change doctrine X" or "In order to reflect a better understanding of the founding principles of Catholicism, Catholics need to change practical doctrine X", variously and depending on context.
It's true that the counterpoint to the all three arguments is "Nuh uh, we don't need to do shit", but then you can just imagine that the statements instead read "Catholicism is a negative force in the world because it does not change doctrine X", "Catholicism is becoming irrelevant because it does not change doctrine X", or "Catholicism is an incomplete or corrupt understanding of its own stated principles because it won't change doctrine X", again variously and depending on context.
I'm pretty sure anyone who suggests anything is aware that they are not literally an authority issuing proclamations on behalf of the actual Catholic church.
Or they ignore that doctrine has changed in the past so the idea that it can't is hilarious as hell.
Pollux
Member
The Church teaches love. The Church doesn't hate homosexuals, mothers who get abortions, or women.
The Church teaches that God loves a gay man the exact same as a straight man. However, the Church teaches, and has ALWAYS taught, that the sacrament of marriage can only be between a man and a woman. That doesn't mean they hate homosexuals and are intolerant of homosexuals. What they are against is the sexual act outside of marriage, and since they don't recognize the right of two men/two women to get married, any sexual act between those couples is considered a sin. That sin is THE EXACT SAME as if a male/female couple were to have sexual relations outside of marriage. It is THE EXACT SAME as a guy looking at some porn and masturbating. All of those actions are mortal sins. Guess what else are considered mortal sins...wishing evil on your parents, lust, excessive gambling, perjury, missing Mass on a Holy Day, and committing any mortal sin with the idea that you can just go to confession after and be forgiven. All mortal sins are equal. It's not that the homosexual sexual act is the sin, it's the sexual act outside of marriage that is a sin. But because marriage is only between a man and woman in they eyes of the Church, then the homosexual act will always be a sin.
The Church doesn't hate women just because they won't let women be priests or get abortions. The Church believes that life begins at conception, and abortion is basically murder. Pro-choice people might argue that it's the woman's right to do with her body as she chooses. The Church responds, the woman has that right, until her body is shared with another being. At that point she has a responsibility to the child. The huge gap between the two sides that just can't be crossed is that both sides fundamentally disagree on when life begins. The Church doesn't hate women who get abortions either, they condemn the SIN of abortion. And yes, getting an abortion is a mortal sin. But it, just like the rest of the mortal sins, may be forgiven.
Out of curiosity, have you ever read what the Church ACTUALLY teaches and believes, and the Church's reasons behind those teaching and beliefs?
On female ordination
On abortion and contraception.
On homosexual relations/marriage
You can support the nuns all you like. But that doesn't change the fact that they are CATHOLIC nuns, who took VOWS to follow and teach CATHOLIC doctrine, not just on social justice but on theology as well.
Just because most people don't believe in sin anymore, doesn't mean that those who do believe in sin should be condemned (the irony). Just because the Church doesn't conform to the "Left's" (for lack of a better word) **current** position on sexual ethics does not make the Church intrinsically evil, spiteful, or the epitome of intolerance.
If these nuns feel as though the Church needs to change on matters of doctrine and they cannot continue to maintain their vows to the Church as it is now but want to "remain true to their love of Jesus", then they can become Episcopalians.
There's a difference within the Church between Discipline and Doctrine. Discipline can change, Doctrine cannot. What changes were you referring to?
krypt0nian
Banned
So no sex before marriage, but you can't get married means we don't hate you?
Fuck that. You know that's idiotic, right?
In regards to the nuns, obviously the greater good is not what the catholics are advocating. Archaic rules are more important at this point, so calling them out on it should be a regular occurrence.
Pollux
Member
And what, exactly, is the greater good?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked