Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
Wed Apr 30, 2014, 09:46 PM Apr 2014

Vatican to debate teachings on divorce, birth control, gay unions

Source: Los Angeles Times

Contraception, cohabitation, divorce, remarriage and same-sex unions: They're issues that pain and puzzle Roman Catholics who want to be true to both their church and themselves. Now those issues are about to be put up for debate by their leader, a man who appears determined to push boundaries and effect change.

On Pope Francis' orders, the Vatican will convene an urgent meeting of senior clerics this fall to reexamine church teachings that touch the most intimate aspects of people's lives. Billed as an "extraordinary" assembly of bishops, the gathering could herald a new approach by the church to the sensitive topics.

The run-up to the synod has been extraordinary in itself, a departure from usual practice that some say is a mark of the pope's radical new leadership style, and a canny tactic to defuse dissent over potential reforms.

Within a few months of his election last year, Francis directed every diocese in the world to survey local attitudes on family and relationships and report back to the Vatican, a canvassing of a sort that few of the faithful can recall previously. The results are being tallied and synthesized behind the walls of the Vatican.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-vatican-family-20140430,0,1501699,full.story

72 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Vatican to debate teachings on divorce, birth control, gay unions (Original Post) onehandle Apr 2014 OP
I will not be holding my breath. if something resembling thinking of the 21st century occurs, niyad Apr 2014 #1
"meeting of senior clerics" - no changes will come from that group rurallib May 2014 #27
It makes you wonder what there is to "debate" skepticscott Apr 2014 #2
and here is a bit of education on how the church actually works kwassa Apr 2014 #6
Yes, we get it skepticscott May 2014 #16
And all of these old men Kelvin Mace May 2014 #24
he is pushing an iceberg in a row boat. That is what is happening roguevalley May 2014 #14
Who's "he" and what does this have to do skepticscott May 2014 #17
Grand farce, just like everything in the Catholic church MANative Apr 2014 #3
+1. Will generate good publicity for a deeply corrupt institution marred closeupready May 2014 #31
"Grand farce, just like everything in the Catholic church" rug May 2014 #36
Ask me if I care what you think. n/t MANative May 2014 #50
I must repeat myself. rug May 2014 #55
Nothing about equality mikeyDE Apr 2014 #4
They will not have anyone outside their clergy having any direct input. LiberalFighter Apr 2014 #5
Didn't read the article, did you? kwassa May 2014 #7
I did read it. LiberalFighter May 2014 #12
This is a very positive step. kwassa May 2014 #8
An exercise in public relations, nothing more. closeupready May 2014 #32
Talk is not change Kelvin Mace May 2014 #9
Change Begins with a Conversation rpannier May 2014 #11
For Francis, any conversation that does not start with a strong condemnation Bluenorthwest May 2014 #20
The Catholic Church has been talking about its child molestation problem Kelvin Mace May 2014 #21
John Paul II covered for the notorious pedophile Marcial Maciel. olegramps May 2014 #28
I can just see the panel Warpy May 2014 #10
Exactly LiberalFighter May 2014 #13
Sounds like Vatican III is afoot. ucrdem May 2014 #15
God willing! otherone May 2014 #18
This looks to go far beyond Vatican II. ucrdem May 2014 #26
So let us review what Francis' 'bishops' are saying and doing right now: Bluenorthwest May 2014 #19
Oh, yes, my apologies I overlooked this Kelvin Mace May 2014 #22
I want to know where the OP and the others who promote these bigots Bluenorthwest May 2014 #23
Agreed Kelvin Mace May 2014 #25
To be honest, I can't believe people post this stuff while Uganda is raging Bluenorthwest May 2014 #30
This hypocrisy was what drove me to atheism Kelvin Mace May 2014 #33
Oh, but there's that "change from within" thingy skepticscott May 2014 #34
They can't change the Catholic Church from within Kelvin Mace May 2014 #40
The problem is, the more people leave skepticscott May 2014 #44
True, Kelvin Mace May 2014 #46
We can only hope skepticscott May 2014 #57
Agree. pinto May 2014 #52
What will you do when you encounter hypocrisy in atheism? rug May 2014 #38
Atheism isn't a religion, or an institution. Kelvin Mace May 2014 #41
"Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them” rug May 2014 #42
Ah, so this view is endorsed Kelvin Mace May 2014 #43
You're the one claiming that. rug May 2014 #56
Again, apples and oranges Kelvin Mace May 2014 #61
You don't need an "institution" to have hypocrisy in a movement. Politic 101. rug May 2014 #62
Again, not comparable Kelvin Mace May 2014 #66
This is about hypocrisy and hypocrites. rug May 2014 #67
Hypocrisy exists within institutions Kelvin Mace May 2014 #68
Why are you so concerned about analogues? The phenomenon stands on its own. rug May 2014 #71
You are claiming that the RCC is NOT a monolithic intistution/beliefe system? Kelvin Mace May 2014 #72
*hypocrisy in atheists NYC Liberal May 2014 #63
Thank you Kelvin Mace May 2014 #69
They realize they need to be more inclusive in their money making scam snooper2 May 2014 #29
The loathing for the Catholic Church is strong here. Comrade Grumpy May 2014 #35
+1 rug May 2014 #37
What other surviving institution sanctioned torture of dissidents? closeupready May 2014 #39
The CIA? Seriously, are you referring to the Inquisition? That was 400 years ago. Comrade Grumpy May 2014 #48
I don't want to argue, but agree with your point about urging Democratic votes closeupready May 2014 #49
"their support for the US GOP party and its pro-war policies" jberryhill May 2014 #53
Why wait? theHandpuppet May 2014 #45
It's a 2000-year-old institution. He's been pope for about a year. Comrade Grumpy May 2014 #47
He's the Pope RIGHT NOW theHandpuppet May 2014 #51
Francis does not "promote progressive change", NYC Liberal May 2014 #64
+1 theHandpuppet May 2014 #65
Looks like the haters are gonna hate. Kingofalldems May 2014 #54
It's all about the wimmin, isn't it? CTyankee May 2014 #58
"An urgent meeting... this fall" dorkulon May 2014 #59
I think this is an important step, and also think the Pope needs to speak on Uganda. kwassa May 2014 #60
Kind of hilarious. . . . BigDemVoter May 2014 #70

niyad

(112,434 posts)
1. I will not be holding my breath. if something resembling thinking of the 21st century occurs,
Wed Apr 30, 2014, 09:51 PM
Apr 2014

if there is actually some true, real movement toward a more equal and just worldview, then I will be impressed. until then. . . conferences do not necessarily mean progress.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
2. It makes you wonder what there is to "debate"
Wed Apr 30, 2014, 10:12 PM
Apr 2014

about depriving a segment of the population of their full rights as human beings. One would have thought the issue had already been settled among decent people not mired in medieval thinking.

And of course, Catholic church doctrine comes down from "god", and has been adamantly declared as not subject to majority opinion or the shifting winds of societal change, so one also has to wonder what arguments could be made to change existing doctrine that don't hypocritically contradict that.

kwassa

(23,340 posts)
6. and here is a bit of education on how the church actually works
Wed Apr 30, 2014, 11:59 PM
Apr 2014
Although he's unquestionably the man at the top, disgruntled underlings can ignore or seek to thwart his injunctions. Conservative bishops in the U.S., most of them appointed by Francis' conservative predecessors, have grumbled about the direction Francis is taking and oppose relaxation of traditional strictures on marriage and family, said Massimo Faggioli of the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota.

"The Catholic Church is not a military dictatorship where, if they don't obey, you can send the army. It's very difficult for a pope to force bishops to do what you want them to do," Faggioli said.


http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-vatican-family-20140430,0,6157008.story#ixzz30QtvrF7m
 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
16. Yes, we get it
Thu May 1, 2014, 06:31 AM
May 2014

the church is filled with stubborn, bigoted old men, led by the same.

Were you going to actually address any of the points I raised?

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
24. And all of these old men
Thu May 1, 2014, 08:45 AM
May 2014

are coercing this new pope from saying what is right and just how exactly?

When you just canonized a man who covered up institutional sexual abuse of children and you are completely silent about the tacit endorsement of murdering gays in Uganda, your "moral authority" is pretty much non-existent.

Jesus wasn't a dictator either, yet some how, he didn't let it stop him from speaking justice to the bigoted old men of his day.

MANative

(4,105 posts)
3. Grand farce, just like everything in the Catholic church
Wed Apr 30, 2014, 10:42 PM
Apr 2014

Nothing will change, and I'll always be an ex-Catholic.

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
31. +1. Will generate good publicity for a deeply corrupt institution marred
Thu May 1, 2014, 11:53 AM
May 2014

by pedophila committed by priests, and the ensuing cover-up.

kwassa

(23,340 posts)
7. Didn't read the article, did you?
Thu May 1, 2014, 12:03 AM
May 2014
Within a few months of his election last year, Francis directed every diocese in the world to survey local attitudes on family and relationships and report back to the Vatican, a canvassing of a sort that few of the faithful can recall previously. The results are being tallied and synthesized behind the walls of the Vatican.

The exercise reflects Francis' desire for less centralized and more responsive decision-making, mirroring his own self-described evolution from a rigid, authoritarian leader as a young man into one who consults and empathizes. His training as a Jesuit has taught the pope to cast as wide a net for information as possible, analysts say.

Taking the public temperature also brings tactical advantages. Nobody at the Vatican will be surprised to learn that vast numbers of Catholics disobey its ban on premarital sex and birth control, or that some are in gay partnerships. Setting down those realities irrefutably on paper, however, could strengthen a bid by Francis to soften the church's official line and put pressure on bishops inclined to resist, including some in the United States and many in Asia and Africa, conservative areas where the church has been growing.


http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-vatican-family-20140430,0,6157008.story#ixzz30Qv4sKym

LiberalFighter

(50,496 posts)
12. I did read it.
Thu May 1, 2014, 01:31 AM
May 2014

What I noted was that no one from outside the clergy would be present during discussion. They were only compiling data. There is a big difference between tabulating data and attempting to analyze it vs. also including discussion from outside the clergy that can better express what it really means.

A lot can be lost when their followers are not directly included.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
20. For Francis, any conversation that does not start with a strong condemnation
Thu May 1, 2014, 08:31 AM
May 2014

of the actions in Uganda, actions being taken by his own subordinates in the name of his Church is just more self indulgent bullshit from Francis. I have zero respect for him or anyone who remains aligned with that group while the attack gay people and shout hail Mary. The blood of Ugandan gay people is on many hands, rpannier/.

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
21. The Catholic Church has been talking about its child molestation problem
Thu May 1, 2014, 08:36 AM
May 2014

since 2002 (publicly), through THREE popes. The church still shelters Cardinal Bernard Law who should be in prison for conspiracy, aiding and abetting, obstruction of justice and accessory before and after the fact.

This past week it made John Paul II, a man also complicit in the sexual abuse of children and in covering up for these monsters, a SAINT.

Then there is Joseph Ratzinger, another man who should be in prison.

Again, I see no change, only talk. And once you have created a patron saint for pedophiles, the conversation is pretty much over.

olegramps

(8,200 posts)
28. John Paul II covered for the notorious pedophile Marcial Maciel.
Thu May 1, 2014, 09:46 AM
May 2014

It was well known that he had molested numerous young boys and fathered children, yet the saintly John Paul choose to ignore it. He was finally removed as head of the pedophile recruiting club, Legions of Christ, by Joseph Ratzinger when he was made pope. I think that it would be appropriate to name John Paul II Patron Saint of Pedophiles.

Warpy

(110,903 posts)
10. I can just see the panel
Thu May 1, 2014, 12:13 AM
May 2014

They will be all men and most of them will be wearing funny hats. They will decide that church doctrine is set in stone and go on about their business.

The last people they will ever bother listening to are women. They won't even listen to nuns.

They will conclude the discussion without reform, secure in their ignorance and their feelings of innate male superiority.

Sensible Catholics, of course, will continue to ignore them when they're talking about things they know nothing about.

LiberalFighter

(50,496 posts)
13. Exactly
Thu May 1, 2014, 01:34 AM
May 2014

It also doesn't help when they won't have enough representation from any of the needed groups. Women especially and the younger.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
26. This looks to go far beyond Vatican II.
Thu May 1, 2014, 08:59 AM
May 2014

Sounds like its going to be a pretty big deal although you wouldn't know from the announcement would you?

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
19. So let us review what Francis' 'bishops' are saying and doing right now:
Thu May 1, 2014, 08:27 AM
May 2014

Uganda: "In Tororo District, Bishop Emmanuel Obbo, the Archbishop of Tororo Archdiocese, urged every citizen who supported the anti-homosexuality law to lay down greed, corruption and “put them to death and let generosity rise up within us and flow out in abundance”.

The following are the words of a young gay man in Uganda, currently in hiding due to the pogrom being urged by Francis' monster/bishops:

"“The Bishop of Jinja Diocese – Bishop Rt. Rev. Fr. Charles Wamika, in today’s Easter Message delivered at St. Chalres Lwanga Catholic Church, praised the Members of Parliament for taking a stand to see to it that the Anti-homosexuality bill passed into law, he went ahead and called on the faithful to vote for President Museveni in 2016 general elections for signing the bill into law.

He reminded the Christians that, it has been a law and he sent blessings to all Christians who have been working so hard to make Jinja a land free of gay persons. He said throughout human history the catholic church has fought evil and blood has been shed, he called on all the Christians to do whatever they can in their own means to clean this city.

I am surprised that a well educated bishop, well traveled and studied in different western countries uses his position to justify killing. He asked parents with gay suspected children to handle them over to authorities and their reward is in heaven. This is too much hatred. I wonder if we will hear from the Pope on this. If not, I lose all hope.”
http://oblogdeeoblogda.me/2014/04/20/ugandan-catholic-easter-message-calls-for-genocide-of-gays/


Those of you who promote the leaders of this pogrom without bothering to mention the pogrom itself are assisting genocide. It is wrong.
To the OP: Do you support the killing and jailing of gay people in Uganda or do you oppose it?

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
22. Oh, yes, my apologies I overlooked this
Thu May 1, 2014, 08:40 AM
May 2014

when listing the current crimes of the Catholic church in my post above.

As the song says, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." This one just has better PR and the press is kissing his ass as well as his ring.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
23. I want to know where the OP and the others who promote these bigots
Thu May 1, 2014, 08:45 AM
May 2014

stand on the actual crimes against humanity being practiced by their Bishops and other leaders. They seem to support the elimination rhetoric, because they never post a word against these horrors and they continue to behave as if those in charge of the horrors are great people. 'Look, Himmler bought a used car, it's so charming!'

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
25. Agreed
Thu May 1, 2014, 08:58 AM
May 2014

I had just taken someone to task for papal apologia and saw your post. I had forgotten to mention the Uganda situation, thus my post.

You come close to my own response to people who insist that monsters are suddenly good because of all the happy talk they spout. My observation is "Yeah, and Hitler liked dogs, so I guess that makes it all right."

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
30. To be honest, I can't believe people post this stuff while Uganda is raging
Thu May 1, 2014, 11:03 AM
May 2014

it is in my view exactly like posting praise for Scott Lively. It comes off as a tacit approval of the pogrom or at very least as a total dismissal of the value of the lives being destroyed by the evils in Uganda.
If I was a part of a club that was running bigoted attacks on any minority group in any place I would not remain in that club or I would dedicate every moment to cleaning that house, to stopping the evil. I would not engage in promotions for that club nor attempt to distract from what other members were doing in other places. I can't believe they do this. Would they do the same if the victims were a racial minority? Would they continue to praise and support a leadership that was running a pogrom against any other group of people?

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
33. This hypocrisy was what drove me to atheism
Thu May 1, 2014, 11:56 AM
May 2014

How can anyone belong to an organization which enables this behavior? How can anyone allow their money to support such an institution? Why would any "God" allow his name to be used to justify this?

Once you start asking questions, it pretty much all falls apart.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
34. Oh, but there's that "change from within" thingy
Thu May 1, 2014, 11:59 AM
May 2014

which is basically a cover-up and an excuse for moral cowardice.

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
40. They can't change the Catholic Church from within
Thu May 1, 2014, 04:12 PM
May 2014

They can only leave the church in droves until it decides to change to get people to come back.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
44. The problem is, the more people leave
Thu May 1, 2014, 04:40 PM
May 2014

the less likely those who are left will be to change. The remaining core just gets more and more conservative. I could see a split happening, but an essentially monolithic change is not nearly as likely, certainly not until an awful lot of current Catholics have passed beyond the veil.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
57. We can only hope
Thu May 1, 2014, 06:18 PM
May 2014

The interesting thing if there were an actual split in the Catholic Church would be to see the fight over who left who, and which one was the "real" Catholic Church after the dust settled.

pinto

(106,886 posts)
52. Agree.
Thu May 1, 2014, 05:41 PM
May 2014

A monolithic change is unlikely. And I think there is already an ongoing split in the church.

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
41. Atheism isn't a religion, or an institution.
Thu May 1, 2014, 04:14 PM
May 2014

So, could you give me an example of what that would look like?

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
42. "Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”
Thu May 1, 2014, 04:17 PM
May 2014

Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp.52-53.

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
43. Ah, so this view is endorsed
Thu May 1, 2014, 04:39 PM
May 2014

by some organized body of atheists who set "dogma" that other atheists must adhere to?

There is a big difference between the hypocrisy of an individual and the hypocrisy of an institution.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
56. You're the one claiming that.
Thu May 1, 2014, 06:02 PM
May 2014

You also would be the one ignoring the evidence of the position of Harris in the community.

You would also be ignoring the evidence that those stirring words of his are found in his apologia for atheism. What's that title again? oh yes, The End of Faith.

You asked for an example. You got one. Reality sometimes hurts but it is still reality.

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
61. Again, apples and oranges
Thu May 1, 2014, 09:25 PM
May 2014

There is no comparable institution amongst atheists to the Catholic Church. There is no monolithic institution with one guy in charge and another bunch of elites making rules about what is, or is not, orthodox among atheists. The fact that you can point to any one individual and say, "Well, he was a hypocrite because..." is not the same as the head of the largest Christian sect on the planet deciding who is, or is not, a member, or what they must say or do, or how they must think.

Harris can say "Hey, these people are dangerous and it should be OK to kill them." and it means NOTHING. Popes on the other hand, have decided individuals and groups of people have to die, and the machinery was put in motion to make it happen, for real, you know, as in people dying by the millions.

I have never heard of the man or his book, yet you point it out like it is some holy text that I should be ashamed of. Don't know him, never read him, and now that I see that quote, never will. That's the advantage of atheism over theism, we don't have any sacred text which we all must obey in order to be in the club, because there is NO club. I don't rely on any other atheist to inform my thoughts, attitude or ethics.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
62. You don't need an "institution" to have hypocrisy in a movement. Politic 101.
Thu May 1, 2014, 09:47 PM
May 2014

Sexism was rampant in the anti Vietnam War movement even absent an overarching institution.

Nevertheless, there are some "institutions" within this movement.

American Atheists, Incorporated (would you consider that an atheist institution?) opposed the Star of David on a Holocausr Memoorial in Ohio less than a year ago.

http://politix.topix.com/story/7219-atheists-oppose-star-of-david-on-holocaust-memorial

None of us are monads forming opinions in splendid isolation. We all learn from and rely on each other. Yet when some in a given community act and speak as if they are the face of that community they will in short order be seen as representative of that community.

Hypocrites and assholes abound everywhere including this movement. Atheism does not provide a magic inoculation against this very human behavior.

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
66. Again, not comparable
Fri May 2, 2014, 10:50 AM
May 2014

Last edited Fri May 2, 2014, 11:39 AM - Edit history (1)

Sexism was rampant in the anti Vietnam War movement even absent an overarching institution.

Hypocrisy in an anti-war movement would be to advocate war as a means of achieving your anti-war goals. Sexism, while deplorable, would not be hypocritical in an anti-war movement. It would be hypocritical in a civil rights movement.

That said, there was NEVER an institutional anti-war movement in the same way that there were "pro-war " institutions (The War Department, the U.S. Navy, Army, Air Force and Marines, the State Department, etc. Arguably the Peace Corps would count as an anti-war institution were it not for the deep suspicion that it was simply a propaganda arm of the pro-war U.S. government).

American Atheists, Incorporated (would you consider that an atheist institution?) opposed the Star of David on a Holocausr Memoorial in Ohio less than a year ago.

Once again, a group of people setting themselves up as an atheist organization does not in any way mean they speak for all atheists. The Catholic Church, especially the Pope, speaks for, and makes the rules for, ALL Catholics, since being Catholic involves agreeing to be subject to the rules, dogmas, leaders and teachings of the Church. Once you disagree with that view, you are subject to expulsion from the Church, denial of sacraments, and, according to dogma, eternal damnation.

The actions of this particular group of atheists is boorish, stupid, and non-sensical, rather than hypocritical. They believe, and arguably are, cleaving to their view that religion has no business in a "public" facility. This view is illogical since the religion, specifically Judaism, was a key reason for the Holocaust in the first place, and therefore entirely appropriate contextually to history, and thus a museum of history.

I disagree with their action. The penalty for my disagreeing with them (or conversely their disagreeing with me), is purely academic. One atheist (or atheist group) disagreeing with another atheist (or atheist group) rarely, if ever, has any repercussion on life, limb or liberty.

An atheist disagreeing with a religious faction, or a disagreement among religious factions on the other hand, has ALL of those potential repercussions.

Certainly, anyone can be a hypocrite to their beliefs. However, the hypocrisy of institutions is a different matter, since an ethical person who is a member of that institution must call out that hypocrisy and risk retaliation up to, and including, death. A policeman who points out lawbreaking within the law enforcement institution risks a bullet in the back. A minister who disagrees on racial equality risks having his church burnt to the ground or lynching at the hands of his fellow believers.

The impetus to this discussion was the actions of individual Catholics in regard to the hypocrisy of their Church's actions as an institution acting in their name. I stated that it was this hypocrisy that drove me from the church (since I could not be part of their unethical and immoral acts in contradiction to their professed teachings) and embracing of atheism. Atheism has no "institutions" thus there can be no "institution" that can legitimately claim to speak for me. By rejecting the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church, I chose to remove myself from the institution rather than be expelled/disciplined according to their rules. Most importantly, by leaving and repudiating the institution, its teachings and beliefs, I denied them the right to speak for me.

Within atheism, there is no "institutional hypocrisy" since there is no actual institution as there is with Catholicism, or indeed Christianity as a whole. My repudiation of the ignorant actions/beliefs of a particular atheist, or group of atheists, does not preclude my being an atheist. whereas my repudiation of ignorant actions/beliefs within the Catholic Church, or indeed the vast majority of Christian sects, precludes my belonging to those institutions.

Yet when some in a given community act and speak as if they are the face of that community they will in short order be seen as representative of that community.

The Pope, along with the cardinals, bishops, etc, ARE the LEADERS of that community, in fact. There is no ambiguity.

There is no "Pope of atheism" or equivalent.
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
67. This is about hypocrisy and hypocrites.
Fri May 2, 2014, 03:40 PM
May 2014

Institutions can't be hypocrites any more than they can be painters.

Like it or not, "within atheism" there is indeed hypocrisy and there are indeed hypocrites.

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
68. Hypocrisy exists within institutions
Fri May 2, 2014, 06:14 PM
May 2014

since institutions can be run by hypocrites. Again, their is NO analogue to the Catholic Church in atheist circles. Atheism cannot be hypocritical as an institution since it is NOT an institution like Catholicism is. The view point of any one atheist or group or atheists, no matter how hypocritical does NOT make atheism hypocritical since none of those people speak for atheism.

The Pope speaks for the Catholic Church and all of its members since he makes the rules and decides the dogma. This ONE person decides the faith and morality of the whole institution of the Catholic Church. In fact, simply disagreeing with this doctrine concerning his power is grounds for excommunication.

"If anyone says that the blessed Apostle Peter was not established by the Lord Christ as the chief of all the apostles, and the visible head of the whole militant Church, or, that the same received great honour but did not receive from the same our Lord Jesus Christ directly and immediately the primacy in true and proper jurisdiction: let him be anathema.

If anyone says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema.

If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.

We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God, our Saviour, the elevation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation of the sacred Council, teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians by his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema."

Again, while individuals may be hypocrites, atheism cannot be hypocritical in the sense that Catholicism can be hypocritical, as a monolithic institution/belief system, since atheism is neither an institution nor a belief system.
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
71. Why are you so concerned about analogues? The phenomenon stands on its own.
Fri May 2, 2014, 07:23 PM
May 2014

See, you want to simultaneously be free to castigate the RCC for the statements and/or actions of any of its members or leaders because it's a "monolithic institution/belief system", (which it isn't), while simultaneously immunizing whatever you consider to be atheism from the outlandish statements and actions of prominent self-declared atheists and atheist institutions, supra, because you contend "atheism is neither an institution nor a belief system."

You can't have it both ways, Kelvin. You're ignoring both the evidence and the objective reality of the situation.

That itself is hypocrisy.

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
72. You are claiming that the RCC is NOT a monolithic intistution/beliefe system?
Sun May 4, 2014, 06:32 PM
May 2014

Dude, I just quoted your from the rule book that established the doctrine of Papal infallibility on matters of doctrine/dogma. To question the Pope's infallibility on that specific issue is to be subject to excommunication.

Atheism has NO belief system, as it is the REJECTION of belief. There is absolutely NO comparable situation in atheism. Just because the asshole you quoted thinks it should be OK to kill the religious, does NOT make atheism hypocritical, it just makes him hypocritical.

I notice you did not respond to NYC Liberal who also rebutted your view, and I must say, far better than my poor efforts, so I will quote him here:

There is no "hypocrisy in atheism, "since "atheism" is simply a descriptor for a disbelief or lack of belief in gods. "Atheism" has no other tenents, makes no other claims, and takes no positions on any other issue.

A person can be an atheist and anti-gay; these two have nothing to do with one another, and it is not hypocritical for an atheist to be a homophobe. Or for an atheist to be a sexist. "Atheism" makes no claims about homosexuality or women.

The Catholic Church, however, has official dogma and teachings that are written down and published. A member of the Catholic Church is expected to support all of these. Thus, it is hypocritical for one to claim to support gay rights and to support equality and also be a member of the Catholic Church and support the Church.


NYC Liberal

(20,132 posts)
63. *hypocrisy in atheists
Fri May 2, 2014, 01:45 AM
May 2014

Fixed your post for you.

There is no "hypocrisy in atheism, "since "atheism" is simply a descriptor for a disbelief or lack of belief in gods. "Atheism" has no other tenents, makes no other claims, and takes no positions on any other issue.

A person can be an atheist and anti-gay; these two have nothing to do with one another, and it is not hypocritical for an atheist to be a homophobe. Or for an atheist to be a sexist. "Atheism" makes no claims about homosexuality or women.

The Catholic Church, however, has official dogma and teachings that are written down and published. A member of the Catholic Church is expected to support all of these. Thus, it is hypocritical for one to claim to support gay rights and to support equality and also be a member of the Catholic Church and support the Church.

 

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)
35. The loathing for the Catholic Church is strong here.
Thu May 1, 2014, 01:00 PM
May 2014

I'm not a Catholic, or even a believer, but I see a religious institution that represents more than a billion people and more than 75 million Americans now being led by a man who seems to want to promote progressive change.

Yes, of course, the Church has some big issues, but I cheer this apparent movement in the right direction.

People who see a thread about potential change in the Church and can only dump negativity on it should think again. Or start their own thread to protest the injustices they see.

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
39. What other surviving institution sanctioned torture of dissidents?
Thu May 1, 2014, 03:54 PM
May 2014

As the Vatican did? Not only historically, but recently with their support for the US GOP party and its pro-war policies?

 

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)
48. The CIA? Seriously, are you referring to the Inquisition? That was 400 years ago.
Thu May 1, 2014, 05:17 PM
May 2014

Catholic bishops urging the flock to vote Republican is not cool, though. Those bishops could emphasize the social justice teachings and urge the flock to vote Democratic.

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
49. I don't want to argue, but agree with your point about urging Democratic votes
Thu May 1, 2014, 05:20 PM
May 2014

of the Catholic laity, since Democrats are far more about peace than the GOP is.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
53. "their support for the US GOP party and its pro-war policies"
Thu May 1, 2014, 05:43 PM
May 2014

I can't recall the Catholic church being particularly "pro-war" in recent times.

They are also anti-death penalty.

theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
45. Why wait?
Thu May 1, 2014, 04:46 PM
May 2014

He can prove right freaking now that he's serious about "progressive change" by recalling the bishops and archbishops of Uganda, Nigeria, Cameroon and Kenya, for starters. As it stands, his silence speaks volumes.

 

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)
47. It's a 2000-year-old institution. He's been pope for about a year.
Thu May 1, 2014, 05:14 PM
May 2014

It ain't gonna happen overnight, but this looks like a step in the right direction.

theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
51. He's the Pope RIGHT NOW
Thu May 1, 2014, 05:34 PM
May 2014

He's spoken out on many issues, why so silent on the collusion of his bishops and archbishops in the imprisonment, torture, and genocide being committed against LGBT persons in Nigeria, Uganda, Cameroon and Kenya? Suddenly lost his voice? Well, when all else fails, lower the bar. He found time to twitter his support to anti-choice activists who marched on Washington. He's found time to reiterate his stance that marriage should be between a man and a woman and to condemn gay adoption. He's found time to blast contraception and reproductive choice as part of a "throwaway culture". He had time to attack the UN report on child abuse and the Vatican's own investigation. He had time to investigate the abuses of the Vatican bank and ended up giving them a pass.

Please do let us know when its not too much trouble for His Holiness to utter a word about the atrocities being committed against LGBTs with the blessings of his own bishops and archbishops. No doubt he will find time to twitter his support to Archbishop Cordileone, who will be a guest speaker at NOM's march on Washington this June... NOM, the National Organization for Marriage recognized as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In the meanwhile, I eagerly await the decision of a group of celibate old men on whether women and LGBTs are deserving of their basic human rights.

NYC Liberal

(20,132 posts)
64. Francis does not "promote progressive change",
Fri May 2, 2014, 01:51 AM
May 2014

unless you consider continuing the hateful, bigoted policies of his predecessors vis–à–vis equality for women and LGBT men and women.

It's funny how we criticize ulta-conservative organizations and leaders every day here; but if one of those organizations happens to call itself a religion, and its leader happens to call himself a pope or a priest, "criticism" suddenly becomes "hating".

theHandpuppet

(19,964 posts)
65. +1
Fri May 2, 2014, 06:55 AM
May 2014

Well said.

As for hating, women and LGBTs know quite well what hating really is. Hate is dragging suspected LGBTs from their homes in the middle of the night and whipping them in the streets. Hate is throwing acid in the face of a young girl all because she wanted to go to school. It's young Matthew Shepard beaten, tortured and left to die on a fencepost. Its millions of women and little girls sold into sexual slavery. Hate is turning away a gay person from the bedside of their dying loved one... when rape is considered a cure for lesbianism... it is there with every woman forced to seek a back-alley abortion and every child made homeless simply because they are gay. Oh, there's plenty of hate to go around in this world but criticizing the Pope for being an avowed misogynist and homophobe and the leader of a religious organization that actively lobbies for and funds bigotry against women and LGBTs, that is criticism well deserved.

CTyankee

(63,769 posts)
58. It's all about the wimmin, isn't it?
Thu May 1, 2014, 07:21 PM
May 2014

A bunch of old, white guys deciding what wimmin should do or not do, be or not be, get or not get.

I won't hold my breath to hear the outcome. Will it be in this century?

dorkulon

(5,116 posts)
59. "An urgent meeting... this fall"
Thu May 1, 2014, 07:33 PM
May 2014

Well I hope he'll be wearing Kevlar... whatever Popes wear until then.

kwassa

(23,340 posts)
60. I think this is an important step, and also think the Pope needs to speak on Uganda.
Thu May 1, 2014, 08:08 PM
May 2014

It is outrageous that he has not. It is outrageous that Archbishop of Canterbury has not, as the Anglican bishops in Uganda are part of this too.

For any Pope to ask what the members in the provinces are thinking is quite a break from tradition, too, in this top-down hierarchy. Part of speaking back to the Pope it to talk about Uganda and other countries that are oppressing gays.

here is a great commentary from the National Catholic Reporter

http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/uganda-opportunity-pope-francis-act-his-words

An estimated 44 percent of Uganda is Catholic, which suggests that the Roman Catholic hierarchy holds significant influence over the beliefs of the people and the development of public policy. By offering public praise of Museveni's signing of this law, Lwanga has given his blessing to legislation that violates the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which teaches that homosexual orientation is not a choice and that gays and lesbians should not be subjected to violence or social discrimination.

The situation in Uganda mirrors recent developments in Nigeria where, in January, President Goodluck Jonathan enacted a law that mandated 14 years in jail for anyone entering a same-sex union and a 10-year sentence for "a person or group of persons who ... supports the registration, operation and sustenance of gay clubs, societies, organizations, processions or meetings."

Though the law ignited a steep rise in attacks on LGBT people in the country, Nigerian Catholic bishops applauded Jonathan's "courageous" decision and called his law "a clear indication of the ability of our great country to stand shoulders high in the protection of our Nigerian and African most valued cultures of the institution of marriage."

In other African countries, some members of the hierarchy have attempted to defend the basic human rights of gays and lesbians. An editorial in The Southern Cross, a newspaper run by the bishops of South Africa, Botswana and Swaziland, criticized Nigeria's law and encouraged African Catholics to "sound the alarm at the advance throughout Africa of draconian legislation aimed at criminalizing homosexuals." But the Vatican itself has remained silent.

In late January, a new movement called No More Triangle Nations was created to encourage Pope Francis to speak out against these laws. The initiative urges Twitter users to employ the hashtag #PopeSpeakOut to ask Pope Francis to condemn anti-LGBT legislation not only in Nigeria and Uganda, but Russia, Jamaica and India as well. New Ways Ministries and Call to Action are part of the coalition.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Vatican to debate teachin...