Pope Francis and Gay People

[ahinton]

Well, of course, the Church itself originates from Christ and the very first Pope, St Peter.

If the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church 'shifts' in moral matters (based on its interpretations of the teachings of Christ) it simply becomes another Protestant sect or even secular.

That sounds as though you're being unwittingly or intentionally patronising towards Protestantism, even if that is not your actual intention; the apparent suggestion being that you believe the Catholic Church to have, for some reason, a greater rôle as the messenger and perpetuator of the teachings of Christ than as the Protestant Church.

Converts are attracted by this very consistency and refusal to yield to fashionable moral trends.

Consistency and constancy is one thing; an unrealistic, unwelcome and unconstructive cocktail of inflexibility, intractability and obduracy is quote another. No one in his/her right mind is seriously expecting or perhaps even wanting the Catholic Church to turn itself completely upside down and into something entirely unrecognisable as a representative of Christian teachings but, once again, you persist in hiding behind this notion (or your own making) of "fashionable moral trends", the implication being that "fashionable" is a pejorative and synonymous in such a context with "ephemeral". As others have pointed out to you here (albeit to no avail so far), society metamorphoses and is thus by nature and definition in a constant state of flux; this happens for many reasons, not least developments in science and technology, social and industrial changes, education, communications and travel. Inevitably, the world today is one that Christ Himself could not possibly have recognised (although I do not suggest that He would not have been capable of getting to grips with it, given time); I therefore have no doubt that He would expect the morals of today to differ in nature, though not in principle, with those of his own day for those very reasons.

That is not to suggest that the Church cannot and shouldn't reform in other areas. It sorely needs to and I feel sure nobody is more aware of that than Pope Francis.

Fine - so let this take its course, as we hope that it will, but please bear in mind that all such changes and reforms might not necessarily be in total accord with the scottyceltist view of Catholicism and may not necessarily eschew the subtle shifts in moral matters of which you are clearly wary!

[ahinton]

I don't think Christ ever said anything about 'homosexual acts', did he?

I am no Christian scholar, so I cannot be sure, but I'm certainly not aware that he did so; Pope Francis, on the other hand, has spoken of them and, whilst he still currently seem to perpetuate the traditional Catholic stance on them, he has at the same time expressed what appears to be a consdierably more lenient and sympathetic view of homosexuals themselves than have his predecessors.

[MrGongGong]

If the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church 'shifts' in moral matters (based on its interpretations of the teachings of Christ) i.

So please do remind me, as it's been many many years since I was a choir boy ! Which part of the "teachings of Christ" encourage wealth ? Which part allow for killing other people ? which part of "the teachings of Christ" suggest that it's somehow OK to abuse children and oppress women ?

[ahinton]

I don't think he did
our Caledonian McBrain

Is that by chance an empty vessel?...

[MrGongGong]

Is that by chance an empty vessel?...

Or even a Klingon Wessel ?

[scottycelt]

Your school must have been thought quite progressive at the time if it taught the kind of thing about homosexuals that Pope Francis is talkking about now!

The Jesuits I knew were certainly not afraid to discuss broader matters of sexual morality and other issues quite openly. In fact, boys being boys, we took some delight in making sure that they did! Homosexuality was just one of many issues that would have been discussed though you are correct that there was not the same obsessive concentration on the subject as there is today.

So you think that it's just a deceptive front then?

No, that would be the view of an incorrigible cynic. It's simply his personality. We are all different and Popes are human-beings as well.

Head. Sand. Nothing. Changed. Have you not actually heard what the Pope has said? No, of course he has not overturned the entire panoply of Church teaching as Jesus is reported as having done with the moneylenders. but there can surely be no doubt that what he has said represents a change of a kind -and one which may well lead to more.

You seem to be agreeing with me on the issue of no change on the 'substance'. There may well be changes to peripheral matters and if that keeps everyone happy, fantastic! Somehow, though, I have my grave doubts about that.

You seem to be providing a hefty does of pessimism but, never mind, it may turn out to have been unwarranted.

Unlike others, I'm not looking for or expecting any particular change so I certainly don't feel engulfed by much pessimism!

Indeed - but, for some, presumably provided only that doing those things doesn't include being nice enough to gay men to welcome them to the priesthood or to give women opportunities that the Church does not give them now or to endorse the use of contraception or &c. &c.

Yes, your 'niceness' means the Church yields to your idea of morality and changes accordingly. That is not my idea of 'niceness' and it certainly won't be that of the Church!

Try and find a rather more achievable 'niceness', ahinton!

[ahinton]

So please do remind me, as it's been many many years since I was a choir boy ! Which part of the "teachings of Christ" encourage wealth ? Which part allow for killing other people ? which part of "the teachings of Christ" suggest that it's somehow OK to abuse children and oppress women ?

...and if the Catholic Church revises its stance on this and practises as it then preaches, which part of these reforms could credibly be exonerated from the description "a shift in the orthodoxy of its moral stance"?

[ahinton]

The Jesuits I knew were certainly not afraid to discuss broader matters of sexual morality and other issues quite openly. In fact, boys being boys, we took some delight in making sure that they did! Homosexuality was just one of many issues that would have been discussed though you are correct that there was not the same obsessive concentration on the subject as there is today.

Well, that speaks well for the enlightened attitude of your school, especially considering that you are talking about at least half a century ago when the laws on homosexuality and society's views on it that were largely as a consequence of the establishment of those laws was very different then to what they are today; that said, there is no particular "obsessive concentration" on the subject of homosexuality today beyond that fact that more laws are changing that have a bearing on it and there must accordingly be appropriate levels of concentration upon the subject for that to happen.

You seem to be agreeing with me on the issue of no change on the 'substance'. There may well be changes to peripheral matters and if that keeps everyone happy, fantastic! Somehow, though, I have my grave doubts about that.

That's a matter of individual opinions and interpretation of what the Pope has said and what else it might lead to in the future; the appropriate and proportionate addressing of such issues may signify to you "no change on the 'substance'" until such time as it does so and you may consider the only changes that might be made to be "peripheral" ones until you are no longer able to regard them as such, but let's just wait and see what happens and then analyse the extent and significance of any changes and reforms retrospectively before we jump to conclusions on the ways in which they represent a fundamental rethink of Catholic practice.

Unlike others, I'm not looking for or expecting any particular change so I certainly don't feel engulfed by much pessimism!

Well, that's your lookout, scotty!

Yes, your 'niceness' means the Church yields to your idea of morality and changes accordingly.

Of course not! I have no more desire than I have ability to foist my ideas of morality on the Church and, in any case, I would much prefer to witness the Church implementing changes and reforms as a consequence of its own perceptions, discoveries and realisations than by being forced or lobbied to make them.

Try and find a rather more achievable 'niceness', ahinton!

What you may mean by that is unclear, at least to me.

[scottycelt]

I don't think he did
but maybe our Caledonian McBrain would enlighten us :-)

I never quote from the Bible ... I leave that to knowledgeable biblical scholars like you, Mr GG :-).

Anyone can check the words for themselves by Googling the question. It is up to them how they interpret the words.

Just don't blame me for the words however you interpret them!

[ahinton]

I never quote from the Bible ... I leave that to knowledgeable biblical scholars like you, Mr GG :-).

Anyone can check the words for themselves by Googling the question. It is up to them how they interpret the words.

Just don't blame me for the words however you interpret them!

If that's your best shot at an answer to the qeustion posed about Christ's references or otherwise to homosexual acts, it seems to tell us more about how you'd make a better civil servant than you would a Catholic than it does about the subject!

[MrGongGong]

I never quote from the Bible ... I leave that to knowledgeable biblical scholars like you, Mr GG :-).

Anyone can check the words for themselves by Googling the question. It is up to them how they interpret the words.

Just don't blame me for the words however you interpret them!

Had a look and Jesus didn't say ANYTHING (that I can find anyway ?) about homosexuality
so please where is the "teaching of Christ" on this ?
and don't give me the whole "saint" Paul nonsense ..............

[Richard Barrett]

Jesus didn't say ANYTHING (that I can find anyway ?) about homosexuality

I believe that's correct, although of course the apostle Paul did.

[Tony Halstead]

From MrGongGong:

and don't give me the whole "saint" Paul nonsense ..............

[scottycelt]

If that's your best shot at an answer to the qeustion posed about Christ's references or otherwise to homosexual acts, it seems to tell us more about how you'd make a better civil servant than you would a Catholic than it does about the subject!

I respond in my own way, ahinton, and not the way others so obviously fervently wish I would so then they call me all sorts of nasty names, you see.

Unlike your goodself I do believe in a degree of sensitivity in such difficult matters. Take it or leave it.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The way some members attack people with religious beliefs with such passion and venom suggests to me they have doubts in their stance. Why else do they protest too much?