[url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-19/catholic-synod-revises-gay-acceptance-proposal/5824658[/url]
[QUOTE]The final version of a controversial Vatican document has radically revised its earlier wording on homosexuals, eliminating language that talked more positively of them than ever before in church history.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The earlier version spoke of "accepting and valuing their [homosexuals'] sexual orientations" and giving gays "a welcoming home".
The final version eliminated those phrases and most of the other language that church progressives and gay rights groups had hailed as a breakthrough.
The new version used more vague, general language, repeating earlier church statements that gays "should be welcomed with respect and sensitivity" and that discrimination against gays "is to be avoided".[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]"Instead, the bishops have taken a narrow view of pastoral care by defining it simply as opposition to marriage for same-gender couples," he said.
[B]The final version stressed that "there is no foundation whatsoever" to compare homosexual marriage to heterosexual marriage[/B], calling heterosexual marriage "God's plan for matrimony and the family".
[B]The earlier version said the church should acknowledge that couples in same-sex relations offered "mutual aid" and "precious support" for each other in times of difficulty.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]In his final address to the gathering, Pope Francis, who had called on the bishops to speak their minds frankly, said he would have been "worried and saddened" if there had not been such heated, honest discussion during the gathering.
The pope warned against both "hostile rigidity" by traditionalists as well as "destructive good will" by progressives who wanted change at any cost.[/QUOTE]
I guess it's good that they ever had the draft written that way in the first place. I'd say one step forward and one step backward is better than no movement at all. As an aside, the Vatican must be a helluva vicious political environment behind the scenes.
[quote]The pope warned against both "hostile rigidity" by traditionalists as well as [b]"destructive good will"[/b] by progressives who wanted change at any cost.[/quote]
Yeah fuck all that good will we need to stick to the dogma.
Francis is such a great guy right?
Too be entirely honest they just need to change the legal name for Marriage to just a Civil Union for everyone, let conservatives and religious nutters keep their Marriage and give benefits to everyone legally with a Union.
[QUOTE=Senscith;46273682]Too be entirely honest they just need to change the legal name for Marriage to just a Civil Union for everyone, let conservatives and religious nutters keep their Marriage and give benefits to everyone legally with a Union.[/QUOTE]
How about instead of diminishing everyone we just give equal rights to the oppressed minority?
[QUOTE=gerbe1;46273500]I'd say [B]one step forward and one step backward[/B] is better than [B]no movement[/B] at all.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but doesnt 1 - 1 = 0? :v:
[QUOTE=Explosions;46273654]Yeah fuck all that good will we need to stick to the dogma.
Francis is such a great guy right?[/QUOTE]
He is a great guy, he's also still a Christian dude who's nearing 80 years of age.
I mean the guy was elected to the most important place in the catholic church after already refusing it once a bunch of years back and he is surrounded by people who are a lot more traditional than he is, it's not that surprising that he'd take things slowly, last thing he needs is to split the church in half [I]again[/I].
they compromised, god knows, thats something the world could use more of.
consider that cardinals from all around the world, every country with a catholic population, agreed to not instantly basterdize gays, thats one huge step forward as a while since quite a lot of the cardinals come from countries where homosexuality is a mental disorder and illegal
[QUOTE=Jesus Crits;46273761]Sorry, but doesnt 1 - 1 = 0? :v:[/QUOTE]
Yes but at least the movement was there. That means someone had to have pushed it forward. If the move never happened then it neither proves nor disproves the existence of a willingness by some in higher parts of the Vatican to make changes to recognise and equally accept people of different sexual orientations. Since the move did happen, we [I]know[/I] someone is out there looking to try and liberalise the Catholic Church, and they have enough standing to get a draft report with such positive wording public.
Kinda weird - last I heard in the news the text in the original, italian released document is still as progressive. The step backwards happened only in the english translation.
Francis wanted this to go through, but he has to represent the church.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;46273798]Kinda weird - last I heard in the news the text in the original, italian released document is still as progressive. The step backwards happened only in the english translation.[/QUOTE]
no parts of the english translation were just more conservative than the italian version, but the italian one left out parts from the draft that were very controversial
Oh dear, the Francis zealots won't like this.
This will take time, and maybe, a really long time for the church to accept and go away with traditional values
I think this came in too soon, its the catholic church for christ sake, it won't be this easy. It needs time.
Maybe at a time when majority of a world accept this, then vatican could be pressured.
[QUOTE=N0 WAR;46273828]Oh dear, the Francis zealots won't like this.[/QUOTE]
what, the people who don't immediately demonise him as a horrible person? no, they've made a pretty compelling defense
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;46273842]This will take time, and maybe, a really long time for the church to accept and go away with traditional values
I think this came in too soon, its the catholic church for christ sake, it won't be this easy. It needs time.
Maybe at a time when majority of a world accept this, then vatican could be pressured.[/QUOTE]
Far better that the Vatican accepts the change and pressures outwards. The Catholic church still has enormous sway in the ideologies of the (primarily Western) world. If they changed their stance to be more accepting, a huge portion of the world's population would become more accepting over a much shorter period of time than otherwise.
[QUOTE=Lijitsu;46273866]Far better that the Vatican accepts the change and pressures outwards. The Catholic church still has enormous sway in the ideologies of the (primarily Western) world. If they changed their stance to be more accepting, a huge portion of the world's population would become more accepting over a much shorter period of time than otherwise.[/QUOTE]
They didn't change the world, but rather, the world changed them. 20 years ago their stance would be agreed by many countries. But today more and more are forcing considerations within the vatican.
Which is why more countries need to step out, then vatican will questions themselves more often if they should change with the world, or remain with old values that could be outdated in the future.
[QUOTE=laserguided;46273809]Francis wanted this to go through, but he has to represent the church.[/QUOTE]
What the hell does that mean? He [i]is[/i] the church. Papal authority is the basis of the Catholic faith.
People keep giving this bullshit excuse about how Francis' "hand are tied" and the Vatican bureaucracy is running the show behind his back, but it's just not true. He has absolute control over everything that happens in the church. If he wants to change a doctrine, he can do so in a minute.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46273907]What the hell does that mean? He [i]is[/i] the church. Papal authority is the basis of the Catholic faith.
People keep giving this bullshit excuse about how Francis' "hand are tied" and the Vatican bureaucracy is running the show behind his back, but it's just not true. He has absolute control over everything that happens in the church. If he wants to change a doctrine, he can do so in a minute.[/QUOTE]
I do think the politics behind the scenes are swaying his decisions considerably. But he only lets it because he wants to keep the job / image of the Church intact. Rather than because he's incapable. Kinda like how Barack Obama could stop drone strikes, torture and mass surveillence if he wanted too.
But yeah otherwise I agree with you.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46273907]What the hell does that mean? He [i]is[/i] the church. Papal authority is the basis of the Catholic faith.
People keep giving this bullshit excuse about how Francis' "hand are tied" and the Vatican bureaucracy is running the show behind his back, but it's just not true. He has absolute control over everything that happens in the church. If he wants to change a doctrine, he can do so in a minute.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, there is such a thing as conversion, and there is such a thing as lobbying, even in the vatican.
Pope Francis [I]could[/I] theoretically change literally everything in the span of a year, but doing so would basically break a lot of people away from the religion and into sects or other variations of Christianity (that's literally why Protestantism exists). Not to mention that things still have to be done in an orderly, political fashion because they're not in the middle ages anymore.
Don't blame the guy for trying to keep the changes slow enough to be accepted by everyone rather than doing outbursts of reform.
[QUOTE=laserguided;46273809]Francis wanted this to go through, but he has to represent the church.[/QUOTE]
do you even know what the pope is
he's speaking for fucking [i]god[/i] in the catholic faith. his word is law.
[editline]19th October 2014[/editline]
sure, there could be a tense political environment behind the church, but if he wants something to be done, he definitely can do it.
To everyone saying "but the Pope has supreme authority! He can do whatever he wants!":
They've tried that a few times. If you'd like to think back to your grade school history classes, you should have a pretty good idea of what happens when the Pope becomes a free agent. You get a Schism. And an Antipope. And usually the Church ousts the Pope (abandoning God's will is a pretty common excuse), seats another Cardinal, reverts any changes the old Pope may have made, and locks down for a few hundred years.
That's not what the Church needs right now. It's just as much a political institution as it is a religious one, and stability is more important than rapid, disastrous progress. I can guarantee you if Francis started rewriting the doctrine to solve every issue immediately, the institution would implode. The Holy See doesn't move quickly, you don't stick around so long if you do.
The Vatican is a master of the long game.
[QUOTE=woolio1;46274992]To everyone saying "but the Pope has supreme authority! He can do whatever he wants!":
They've tried that a few times. If you'd like to think back to your grade school history classes, you should have a pretty good idea of what happens when the Pope becomes a free agent. You get a Schism. And an Antipope. And usually the Church ousts the Pope (abandoning God's will is a pretty common excuse), seats another Cardinal, reverts any changes the old Pope may have made, and locks down for a few hundred years.
That's not what the Church needs right now. It's just as much a political institution as it is a religious one, and stability is more important than rapid, disastrous progress. I can guarantee you if Francis started rewriting the doctrine to solve every issue immediately, the institution would implode. The Holy See doesn't move quickly, you don't stick around so long if you do.
The Vatican is a master of the long game.[/QUOTE]
Even if that were true, it doesn't excuse Francis of anything. He's still choosing to be part of an organization that is explicitly anti-gay. Whether or not he's being "forced" to go along with it because of politics, he's chosen to be the leader of an organization that, among many other terrible things, makes gay people out to be monsters.
From what I can remember, however, theology never had anything to do with any of the medieval schisms. So I don't see why Francis couldn't simply walk out into St. Peter's Square tomorrow and say "it's not a sin to be gay." He simply chooses not to. Why? Because he believes that it [b]is[/b] a sin.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46275198]Even if that were true, it doesn't excuse Francis of anything. He's still choosing to be part of an organization that is explicitly anti-gay. Whether or not he's being "forced" to go along with it because of politics, he's chosen to be the leader of an organization that, among many other terrible things, makes gay people out to be monsters.
From what I can remember, however, theology never had anything to do with any of the medieval schisms. So I don't see why Francis couldn't simply walk out into St. Peter's Square tomorrow and say "it's not a sin to be gay." He simply chooses not to. Why? Because he believes that it [b]is[/b] a sin.[/QUOTE]
He already said that "gay people wouldn't go to hell" though a Church spokesperson twisted it later.
Fact of the matter is, by simple politics, and because it would be outrageous given the disposition of the Church he is trying to convince, he cannot just put an override statement down. That would say 2 things: Pope Francis supports the gays, and Pope Francis is alone in this in the Vatican and not properly representing the Christian religion.
Noone liked Pope Francis because he was entirely flawless and ticked everything in the strict liberal progressive's handbook, but because in contrast to other Popes he is miles better and is actually doing something about the most pressing issues in the Church and the Religion, including treatment of homosexuals.
[QUOTE=Senscith;46273682]Too be entirely honest they just need to change the legal name for Marriage to just a Civil Union for everyone, let conservatives and religious nutters keep their Marriage and give benefits to everyone legally with a Union.[/QUOTE]
the catholic church doesn't hold a monopoly on the concept of marriage though, nor does any religion(despite of how much they would like to).
[QUOTE=Explosions;46275198]Even if that were true, it doesn't excuse Francis of anything. He's still choosing to be part of an organization that is explicitly anti-gay. Whether or not he's being "forced" to go along with it because of politics, he's chosen to be the leader of an organization that, among many other terrible things, makes gay people out to be monsters.
From what I can remember, however, theology never had anything to do with any of the medieval schisms. So I don't see why Francis couldn't simply walk out into St. Peter's Square tomorrow and say "it's not a sin to be gay." He simply chooses not to. Why? Because he believes that it [b]is[/b] a sin.[/QUOTE]
You really shouldn't try to argue a point your biased too, you come off as if you have a massive chip on your shoulder. Anyway the Church Considers all sex that isn't there for reproduction a sin and Marriage to Christians is Literately a Reproduction contract that's why they make the distinction in this report.
[editline]19th October 2014[/editline]
I should also point out Homosexuality isn't considered Sinful by the Catholic Church but its seen as Morally indecent, but that's exactly what Francis is changing.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46275198]Even if that were true, it doesn't excuse Francis of anything. He's still choosing to be part of an organization that is explicitly anti-gay. Whether or not he's being "forced" to go along with it because of politics, he's chosen to be the leader of an organization that, among many other terrible things, makes gay people out to be monsters.
From what I can remember, however, theology never had anything to do with any of the medieval schisms. So I don't see why Francis couldn't simply walk out into St. Peter's Square tomorrow and say "it's not a sin to be gay." He simply chooses not to. Why? Because he believes that it [b]is[/b] a sin.[/QUOTE]
Oh fuck off already. The guy's 77 years old and has been part of this religious institution for basically most of that time, he's one of the most moderate and sensible persons with influence in the catholic church, and you're willing to diss him entirely because he doesn't pander to your very specific ideals at a speed that you have decided.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46275198]Even if that were true, it doesn't excuse Francis of anything. He's still choosing to be part of an organization that is explicitly anti-gay. Whether or not he's being "forced" to go along with it because of politics, he's chosen to be the leader of an organization that, among many other terrible things, makes gay people out to be monsters.
From what I can remember, however, theology never had anything to do with any of the medieval schisms. So I don't see why Francis couldn't simply walk out into St. Peter's Square tomorrow and say "it's not a sin to be gay." He simply chooses not to. Why? Because he believes that it [b]is[/b] a sin.[/QUOTE]
Let's just forget that the catholic church is about a lot of other things apart from their views on homosexuality. According to you, because someone might disagree with a single view held by the church, the person should leave that church. How about trying to make changes from the inside? The catholic church is an ancient institution, and it's simply impossible to make quick, radical changes to it, when you're basically dictacting the lives of billions of people - you would end up alienating a lot people that way.
There are an enormous amount of Catholics in the world, large amounts of them live in countries where Gay Marriage, or even homosexuality itself, is frowned upon. The Vatican also has to be mindful of competition from Protestant Evangelism, which is still decidedly anti-gay and successfully promoting itself in developing countries; particularly in South America and Africa.
When I came to this thread, I imagined to see a gif of Pope Francis standing on the bill of pro-homo regulation and doing backflips circus style :v:
The Pope is of course the ultimate authority of the catholic church, but he can't say something that sits so far from what the majority of Catholics believe. They wouldn't accept, someone would go out and say something else, and the church would get a new Pope in a few years and nothing would've changed.
I don't even really know Francis stance on this, but historically the Pope isn't just the be-all and end-all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
