Here’s a tw**t from the British Humanists, and it’s pretty much on the mark.
Pope plans to restate his opinion that LGBT couples deserve fewer legal rights & then be lauded as a great reformer https://t.co/rnOW17UarQ
— Humanists UK (@Humanists_UK) April 8, 2016
If you go to the BBC article linked in the tw**t, and the Vatican’s 261-page document on these changes, “On Love in the Family,” (I haven’t read it all!), you won’t find any sweeping changes—mainly a bunch of bromides that take no courage to expound, and a few weak but progressive-sounding changes, like “let’s not ostracize divorced people”. For example, here’s the BBC’s summary of the non-gay stuff:
The Pope has not changed Catholic doctrine, as some had hoped, but he does open the way for greater devolution within the Catholic Church on issues such as communion for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.
What he suggests is that bishops in each country can seek solutions best suited to their own culture, and he calls for better integration into the Church of those in what he calls “irregular” situations.
. . . Pope Francis urges priests to exercise careful discernment over “wounded families” and be merciful, rather than judgemental.
He criticises the individualism that has led many in the West to value their own personal satisfaction over the needs of their spouse.
He says yes to sex education but argues it must be within a framework of education about love.
The emphasis throughout is on better pastoral care: better preparation for couples on what marriage involves, and more understanding from parish priests and others for human frailty.
Pretty lame stuff.
To be fair, though, the document doesn’t ostracize the divorced:
242. The Synod Fathers noted that “special discernment is indispensable for the pastoral care of those who are separated, divorced or abandoned. Respect needs to be shown especially for the sufferings of those who have unjustly endured separation, divorce or abandonment, or those who have been forced by maltreatment from a husband or a wife to interrupt their life together. To forgive such an injustice that has been suffered is not easy, but grace makes this journey possible. Pastoral care must necessarily include efforts at reconciliation and mediation, through the establishment of specialized counselling centres in dioceses”. At the same time, “divorced people who have not remarried, and often bear witness to marital fidelity, ought to be encouraged to find in the Eucharist the nourishment they need to sustain them in their present state of life.
But where the real rubber meets the road—on the status of gay Catholics—there are only two paragraphs in the document, and those are below. As the BBC notes, “some liberals will be bitterly disappointed that there is not a greater welcome for gay Catholics – something Pope Francis was never likely to deliver.” Indeed!
First, there’s a paragraph urging compassion for gay couples, but also calling for “respectful pastoral guidance”. I can understand this only as meaning that the Church will give them help understanding why gay unions are immoral and wrong:
250. The Church makes her own the attitude of the Lord Jesus, who offers his boundless love to each person without exception. During the Synod, we discussed the situation of families whose members include persons who experience same-sex attraction, a situation not easy either for parents or for children. We would like before all else to reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence. Such families should be given respectful pastoral guidance, so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives.
And the real meat of the issue: no change in the Church’s attitude towards gay marriage:
251. In discussing the dignity and mission of the family, the Synod Fathers observed that, “as for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family”. It is unacceptable “that local Churches should be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies should make financial aid to poor countries dependent on the introduction of laws to establish ‘marriage’ between persons of the same sex”.
So the British Humanists seem to have it right: the Pope and the Church want to look as if they’re modernizing Catholicism, because it’s bleeding adherents everywhere but South America, but they’re not willing to make substantive changes. Remember, though, that they still consider homosexual acts a “grave sin,” subject to perdition if unconfessed. Their own doctrine thus has their hands bound.
It still amazes me that people consider Pope Francis such a great reformer when he can’t even do the decent thing and sway the church about accepting gay marriage. After every country in the world has accepted those unions (save, of course, the Muslim countries), the Church will still be digging in its heels.
And no change on the doctrine of men in dresses for the clergy.
I was thinking this pope might let hemlines go a bit higher.
I was thinking the same thing:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/03/10/socks-from-papal-tailor-sold-online/
What goes beyond amazement is that people of this faith would turn to a life long bachelor for guidance on something like marriage. Having been married for over 40 years, I would not begin to tell anyone how to conduct their married lives.
Also, if his guidance on this subject or any other was coming from a 2000 year old doctrine, I would have to be insane to give it a thought.
If I want to learn something about evolution I wouldn’t stop off at the corner body and fender shop. What the Pope publishes here is a hope to stop the bleeding and increase the cash.
Well the advice to divorced etc couples was to, “… find in the Eucharist the nourishment they need to sustain them …”.
The pope is suggesting cannibalism and drinking blood to help people get over their break-ups. The love of modern culture for zombies and vampires is clearly the current manifestation of Roman Catholic influence. 🙂
So to get over that breakup, become vampire or join the Donner party. The Donner party was not a political one.
Were they the ones who gave their name to a style of kebab? Or, as one friend used to refer to the products of certain 2am city-centre kebab shops, “catbabs”.
Randy Schenck posted “What goes beyond amazement is that people of this faith would turn to a lifelong bachelor for guidance on something like marriage. Having been married for over 40 years, I would not begin to tell anyone how to conduct their married lives.”
Reading that paragraph triggered a flash of insight. Maybe the catholic church UNDERSTANDS that allowing its priests to marry and raise families would bring them face to face with the realities that other mortals experience thus making it more difficult for them to spout the platitudinous advice and strictures they offer from their god-given infallible texts.
So para 250 says “‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided”, and that is immediately followed by a paragraph that is a bill poster for their own centuries long unjust discrimination against the LGBT community. Brilliant!
You just don’t understand. It comes from God and therefore can not be discrimination. You see, the Pope says God told him and the Pope is the mouth of God. Get it? The best racket in town.
But, when the Vatican walks back the Popes utterances, the Pope (God’s mouth) was not speaking ex cathedra, but merely whimsically. God has a tremendous sense of humor, don’t you know.
The Catholic church is going to be the way it’s going to be. I can’t care about that. I am annoyed that people who are gay or divorced and find the church is prejudiced against then will continue to support the church. Maybe reform will come someday, but it will come more quickly without its supporters. Abandon the church and it might change how quickly it modernizes.
Hmmmm. As I expected. Same re divorce but more sympathy to be displayed
Divorce (Section 241-243)
Gays to be shown some “respect” and not actually attacked but the same
Contraception stance is exactly the same (and of course abortion) Encouragement to have Large families. Some expressed sympathy for poverty stricken families – if both parents consider not in interests of the family unit to have more children – so long as this is NOT for interests of just having a good material lifestyle (it explicitly says that)
The document Upholds Humanae vitae and Catechism 2370 which says
Catechism 2370
“Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159 etc etc.
Yes. I’ve always wondered how not having sex at fertile times in order to avoid having children was consistent with deliberately doing anything to interfere with procreation.
I suspect it’s because the Rhythm Method is the most unreliable method of contraception by far. The old joke is:
What do you call couples who use the Rhythm Method for contraception?
Parents.
“What do you call couples who use the Rhythm Method for contraception?
Parents.”
An oldie but a goodie
The New York Times has an interesting article on the Pope’s document. As might be expected, both conservative and progressive Catholics dislike it.
______________
The Times writes:
Although Francis has earned a reputation as a reformer, some liberal Catholics may be disappointed. Many had hoped Francis might go further, perhaps by detailing health exceptions to the ban on contraception, expanding the roles for women in the church or prescribing a clear process that would permit Catholics who divorced and remarried outside the church to receive communion.
“It wasn’t as innovative as many had hoped,” said Lucetta Scaraffia, a scholar of Catholicism in Rome, adding, “The result is quite modest with respect to the investment and expectations that the world had.”
—————–
It is hard to determine what Francis really thinks. Perhaps he wants to go further, but the political pressures against him are too great. Most institutions only change to any great degree when they are in a crisis, such as going out of business. Perhaps if even more Catholics abandon the Church, real change would take place. We are not yet at that point so real reform is not around the corner, although to conservatives even the most modest changes are viewed with great fear.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/09/world/europe/pope-francis-amoris-laetitia.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Yeah. When he did his Climate Change encyclical, Fox News was full of conservative Catholics saying it was just the pope’s opinion and they would be ignoring it because Climate Change wasn’t a real thing.
Yes. When the conservative has to choose between the Pope and the Fox line – Fox wins.
How can someone who has made absolutely no changes to dogma or rules or structure possibly be a reformer?
The explanation I’ve heard for the Pope’s impotency is that Catholicism is not truly hierarchical, but exists in a kind of bureaucratic oligarchy such that the Pope can only hint at desired change while the Bishops actually determine the course of events. Doesn’t help much does it?
Sounds very plausible and is almost certainly the case but, unfortunately for believers, it is also yet one more thing that puts the lie to the claim that the Pope is the direct representative of Christ.
Well, maybe he’s not the mouth of God. Maybe he’s a different orifice.
Confound it Man! Thankfully it was just water. I shudder to think of what hot coffee explosively injected into one’s sinuses and out their nose would feel like.
That wasn’t the orifice I was thinking of, but it works almost as well. (my apologies for any discomfort you may have felt).
No need to apologize. Nasal irrigation is good for the sinuses.
The answer I hear from most Catholics is that the Pope can’t just make the changes necessary for the RCC to catch up to humanity in regards to moral/social progressiveness because he is bound to scripture and dogma. How do you just change the divine mandates of an omnipotent, unchanging deity without people figuring out that you’re just making shit up?
FWIW, I think they are right but it begs another more important question. Why look to them as a moral authority then?
“How do you just change the divine mandates of an omnipotent, unchanging deity without people figuring out that you’re just making shit up?”
You invent the concept of dispensations. Theists have an endless supply of rationalizations stored in their asses. They can pull them out whenever needed. Just ask the Mormons.
Dunno. I think the acceptance of divorced people into communion is a pretty big deal, at least from the Church’s perspective. That was essentially the Church’s only stick on the divorce issue (aside from getting remarried in the Church). On the other hand, the idea that localities should decide these matters for themselves is a terrible idea. Aside from undercutting the idea of a single Catholic doctrine, the variation in local practice is sure to create dissatisfaction. So, yes, I support both of these changes.
The most apt model from recent history for what’s happening in the RCC today is the period of glasnost and perestroika in the Soviet Union during the 1980s. Those who disparage Francis’s efforts are like the Reagan era hawks who called Gorbachev a phony because he didn’t unilaterally destroy the Russian nuclear stockpile or order the immediate release of every last political dissident from the gulags and labor camps.
Worse, they may end up like the whole of the American intelligence community, which kept predicting that Soviet T-72 tanks would come pouring through the Fulda Gap even as chunks of the Berlin Wall were about to come tumbling down.
That could be the case, but given the evidence of his reported actions since he became Pope, it doesn’t look that way to me.
Exactly, his statements on the family have all been traditional as far as I can tell except for minor details to do with style and giving additional emphasis to the poor.
He’s kept telling Europeans and Westerners they are selfish, materialist and must address this by reproducing more instead of being old withered infertile grannies.
He’s more sensitive to those poor countries that do have high population as well – so recommended in Philippines that having 3 children better idea than large families.
He’s hinted years ago that should be more sensitive to family pressures in terms of continuing to offer pastoral care – whilst discouraging overall practises that are not standard Catholic.
He’s done nothing new about the child abuse situation, though at least he doesnt blame it on homosexuality in society.
Then again, for an organization that is so dogmatic and regressive…reminiscent of the Dark Ages, even tiny reformist comments can seem to some like a revolution.
Somer wrote:
“He’s done nothing new about the child abuse situation, though at least he doesnt blame it on homosexuality in society.”
Interestingly in paragraph 45 of the document he has this to say:
“The sexual abuse of children is all the more scandalous when it occurs in places where they ought to be most safe, particularly in families, schools, communities and Christian institutions.”
“Christian communities”???!! Listed last in the sequence and not simply stated as “Catholic churches”, or “by Catholic priests”
Hmmm. Very interesting.
I meant: “Christian institutions”???!!
Just that Benedict was disposed to the view that toleration of homosexuality in society at large had corrupted society, including some priests, and it was emulation of this supposed secularisation of society that had lead them to abuse children. A bishop in Ireland argued as much, but his views have not been popular with this Pope.
Gorbachev made big changes and I personally don’t think the changes are anything like as substantial as that. There is there is some change re divorce (recognition of remarried couples who presumably have not sought annulment of previous marriage)”they are not to be excommunicated” I assume this means they can take part in communion. Im not a Catholic though so I may well be wrong.
The document has a big emphasis on pastoral care if there are problems in the marriage, and Church telling people exactly how the details of their sexual life should be .
I suppose though, to be fair there will be resistance, even within the Curia, let alone broader Cardinals and bishops, to any change.
I find the term “pastoral care” to be offensive, belittling and creepy. Most of the major ethical failings of Catholicism alluded to so clearly in one simple two word phrase. And the clergy says it so lovingly while their flock responds with adoration.
It reminds me of the scene in the movie Spotlight in which the female reporter knocks on the door of the retired Catholic priest and asks him about his child molestation problem and the kindly priest readily admits to it but just doesn’t understand that he has done something wrong.
I think I’m gonna be sick.
You do know that was just a movie, right? In other words, a jewish recount of a Catholic scandal. Anyway, those evil slaveowners really got what they deserved, like that scene from Django Unchained.
A grade school taunt and a fantasy about a Jewish conspiracy to make the RCC look bad? That’s the best you’ve got? I hope I’m not supposed to feel indignant.
Yes, I know Spotlight was only a movie. A pretty good one too. My only criticism is that it didn’t go far enough in portraying the actual real life depravity of the RCC. But I can understand the movie maker’s reluctance to portray such graphically twisted and unethical behavior. And I don’t necessarily mean the child raping priests themselves.
Couldn’t give less of a rat’s ass what the pope thinks about anything. It’s always more of the same, with minor and mostly insignificant tweaks here and there.
This whole story is reminiscent of the comment about re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Or, another perhaps-relevant cliche, when a business is mired in debt and lawsuits, they paint the flagpole….
As a former Catholic, a gay man and victim of a pedophile priest, I just want to say that the pope, the church and all its apologists can go fuck themselves.
That would certainly help.
That way they could get their sexual gratification and leave the children alone.
(Reading your comment literally works too!)
he Pope is peddling an ancient book. The only respect I have is that he came out for evolution and climate change.