Religion
Related: About this forumThe Vatican breaks its silence at UN gender equality conference
Had the Holy See, which has a seat on the UN as a non-member permanent observer state, and which in 2013 proposed more amendments to the outcome text than any other member, decided to stay out of the discussions this year? Was it quietly influencing the actions of countries with a strong Catholic population without putting its head above water? Would it come into the negotiations late? It appears to have opted for the latter.
This week, the Holy See weighed into the discussions with demands to remove from the CSW outcome document references to sex workers, lesbian, gay, transsexual and bisexual rights, and some of the wording around sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) – specifically those related to abortion and sex education. It is also understood to want the document to include explicit references to the importance of the family – and when the Vatican talks about family, it means in the traditional, nuclear sense: a man, woman and their children.
Although there is no reason to believe these demands will derail the negotiations – the Vatican issued similar statements around SRHR last year, but, after a battle, a strong document still emerged from CSW – the particular reference to the "family" has set off some alarm bells.
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2014/mar/20/vatican-un-gender-equality-conference-csw-women
New pope, same as the old pope.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Warpy
(111,163 posts)plus the inability to admit they are the least qualified people in the world to be dictating the terms of sexuality to women.
Fortunately, most Catholics are sensible people who realize this and will duly ignore them.
Fix The Stupid
(947 posts)And not personally asking you this, but this line:
"Fortunately, most Catholics are sensible people who realize this and will duly ignore them"...
When the LEADER of your organization espouses certain opinions, dogma, rules, etc, and then the FOLLOWERS ignore them, are they still considered "catholic"?
How can one remain in this organization, fill the collection plates, attend church, but not follow the teachings of said church, but they still count themselves as members?
I will never wrap my head around that.
Warpy
(111,163 posts)They really have to be since all he holy books were written so long ago that trying to live 100% according to the precepts contained within would have them hauled off to the loony bin. Imagine sacrificing a lamb on your backyard altar. It's not a BBQ, the neighbors would smell the roasting hair first and it don't smell nice and then you'd be cited for animal cruelty, and so on and so forth.
Ignoring the guy with the funniest hat is a short step away.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"Change from within" thingie. And they've been well programmed not to leave the collective.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)The fact that you can even THINK that the Pope and the Vatican have anything to do with each other, or that the former has any control or sway over the latter just shows how much you've already made your mind up about this Pope and that nothing he does will ever be good enough for you.
I mean, did you even SEE the pictures of him hugging the guy in the wheelchair???
srsly!11!!!1!!
btw, fuck dawkins
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that the Vatican was not going to place so much emphasis on sexual issues. That little bait-and-switch had its desired effect…it gulled "liberal" and "progressive" Catholics into believing that things were changing, but as predicted by those less addled, the RCC is as bigoted as ever, and Francis is the enthusiastic leader of that bigotry.
rug
(82,333 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Frankly, they don't belong on the commission as well, but what relevance does this have to the discussion at hand? Oh yeah, its your Church being criticized, man the battalions, rug, you must defend them at all costs, especially at the cost of what little humanity you have left.
rug
(82,333 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=118197
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=116783
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=116699
Go tell your fellow basher what you think is relevant.
And if you want to make this purely personal, just tell me. I'm all ears.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)as should all organizations that oppose legal protections for LGBT people, and/or endorse discriminatory practices, that includes your church, rug, or do you wish to deny it?
rug
(82,333 posts)Now tell me more about this little gem of yours.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)at the expense of others, that costs a lot.
rug
(82,333 posts)You actually think you are in a position to comment on another person's - any person's - humanity?
Do yourself a favor, don't confuse your prejudices with self-styled "observations".
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)everything from homophobia in your church to the abuse scandals? And I do mean everything. People seem to forget that what they post on the internet is most likely there forever, unless the mods get to it first, of course.
You make light of so many things your church does and advocates, while failing to condemn, you also fail to support those causes that many hear consider foundational to being progressives or leftists, such as marriage equality. So I'll ask a direct question, do you advocate for marriage equality?
rug
(82,333 posts)Don't forget to find one that supports this "'observation" of yours:
The difference, one of many, thank God, between you and me is that you find the cheering of ill-informed, agenda-driven posts to be a worthwhile activity. I don't.
It's too bad factual corrections ruin your smug, insulated world view.
Go for it. If you had been paying attention, which I doubt, you'd already have your answer.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)instead of calling out everyone else's, unless you feel that talking about your beliefs would get you banned...
rug
(82,333 posts)Although, in your case, that might not be prudent.
Response to rug (Reply #17)
Post removed
rug
(82,333 posts)I'll tell you this Humanist "Activist", you have all the debating skills of Roy Cohn with a third the charm.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)The Vatican has been emphasizing itself as a state in recent decades. And has been increasingly acknowledged as one by other states. But rumor is that its Sec. of State - Cardinal Bertone (pronounce Beartonni) - and his aggressively statist actions with the Vatican bank and so forth, angered both the Vatican and the new pope. So it now seems that Cardinal Bert is out? http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1332689/pope-francis-replaces-scandal-hit-cardinal-tarcisio-bertone
In the meantime however, our apparently rather liberal Pope is still up against a still religiously conservative Vatican or its staff, the "Curia." Its language is increasingly surfacing in the Pope's pro-forma, boilerplate speeches.
Most of the Popes speeches of course, are written by Vatican ghost writers. Who are still using the old formulas. Moreover, they represent a very real political power. One that could defeat a liberal Pope.
