Pope Francis and Gay People

[MrGongGong]

Yup, could well be .. sadly, no guarantee of anything else, tbh ... the Vatican's made up of fallible human beings just like any other institution,

and , hey presto, you are out of jail again ........ this really is a poor excuse for some terrible things that have been done and continue to be done

[scottycelt]

#179

But didn't Christ Himself appoint Peter as the first Head of the Church ... the 'Rock' in Christ's very own words? The Papacy can trace its line right back to this time and moment. Considering Christians were heavily persecuted in the early centuries and were inevitably split due to distance and poor communication it is hardly surprising that there separate branches of Christ's followers. Of course Paul played a huge and vital part in shaping the Church we have today, that goes without question.

However it is the true successor to Christ's own chosen one, St Peter, who retains the ultimate authority within the Church to this very day.

[jean]

#179

But didn't Christ Himself appoint Peter as the first Head of the Church ... the 'Rock' in Christ's very own words?

Possibly not.

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portæ inferi non prævalebunt adversus eam. (Matthew 16, 18.)

There's clearly a play on words between the name Peter and the Greek and Latin word for a rock, petra (no idea what it is in Aramaic).

But they are not the same word (different genders) and non-Catholics have always explained away the primacy of Peter by claiming (for example) that the Rock which is the foundation of the Church is actually Peter's confession - Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God - rather than Peter himself.

[scottycelt]

Because Pabmusic and others have already shown how mutable the attitudes of the church in various areas have been; another one alluded to in Pabmusic's last post is the institutionalised antisemitism of the church, which only officially stopped collectively blaming Jews for the death of Jesus at the Second Vatican Council in 1965.

Institutionalised antisemitism? How very "political" all of a sudden. Strange considering Christ and his early followers were Jews themselves!

Certainly recent Popes have acknowledged the many mistakes and blunders made by the Church in the past and that includes its previous association of 'Jews' with Christ's torture and death. That's a bit like blaming all Germans for the Nazi atrocities. Most unfair and indeed cruel.

However, the past behaviour of its followers (including even some Popes themselves) has nothing to do with the central core beliefs and dogmas of the Catholic Church which are indeed immutable.

That was my original point here, nothing else!

[scottycelt]

and , hey presto, you are out of jail again ........ this really is a poor excuse for some terrible things that have been done and continue to be done

No excuse, no condoning ... just a sad acceptance that whilst we have human beings on the planet some 'terrible things' will no doubt continue however much we hope that they won't.

The Vatican is made up of human beings just like the NHS. Some terrible things happen there as well.

That doesn't make either intrinsically 'bad'. Get the point now, MrGG?

[ahinton]

No excuse, no condoning ... just a sad acceptance that whilst we have human beings on the planet some 'terrible things' will no doubt continue however much we hope that they won't.

The Vatican is made up of human beings just like the NHS. Some terrible things happen there as well.

That doesn't make either intrinsically 'bad'. Get the point now, MrGG?

If, however, at least some of those "terrible things" have been carried out under the auspices of, or condoned within, the principles of the Church and they then cease to be so, this welcome change will surely represent a fundamental policy shift, will it not?

[Pabmusic]

#179

But didn't Christ Himself appoint Peter as the first Head of the Church ... the 'Rock' in Christ's very own words? The Papacy can trace its line right back to this time and moment. Considering Christians were heavily persecuted in the early centuries and were inevitably split due to distance and poor communication it is hardly surprising that there separate branches of Christ's followers. Of course Paul played a huge and vital part in shaping the Church we have today, that goes without question.

However it is the true successor to Christ's own chosen one, St Peter, who retains the ultimate authority within the Church to this very day.

No. It's actually St Paul who was the true 'rock', if you consider the Church's teachings. The whole idea of the Trinity and redemption for sins is late Christian (John, Acts, Paul's epistles) - not at all what Jesus seems to have taught (maybe Mark, Matthew and - possibly - parts of Luke).

As I said earlier, Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, foretelling the imminent arrival of the earthly Kingdom of Heaven. (You will infer from this that I accept that Jesus was a historical figure, even though there is no contemporary account of his existence.)

Anyway, Jean has answered this better than I could have done. The Roman Church was the winner in a power struggle - the other churches (even though they were older) were declared heretical by the winner.

[MrGongGong]

The Vatican is made up of human beings just like the NHS. Some terrible things happen there as well.

That doesn't make either intrinsically 'bad'. Get the point now, MrGG?

That's not really comparing like with like is it ?
I am (as I said before) fully aware of some people in the Catholic Church who do great things BUT the systematic way in which the organisation has covered up terrible things in a totally unaccountable way is unacceptable. Being accountable to "god" doesn't count i'm afraid.

If, however, at least some of those "terrible things" have been carried out under the auspices of, or condoned within, the principles of the Church and they then cease to be so, this welcome change will surely represent a fundamental policy shift, will it not?

absolutely

[Richard Barrett]

the past behaviour of its followers (including even some Popes themselves) has nothing to do with the central core beliefs and dogmas of the Catholic Church which are indeed immutable.

Your idea of "immutability", however, seems to be "these are the things which haven't (yet) changed, so they must be immutable". Your coreligionists would have said this about all kinds of things in the past, for example blaming all Jews for Jesus' death. Where is the ultimate authority that draws a line between the mutable and the immutable? the reported sayings of Jesus? (although we've already established that he said nothing on the subject of homosexuality, to return to the thread topic) the epistles of Paul? the Council of Nicaea in 325, before which the church had no unified doctrine at all?

[amateur51]

Why is it strange. People who feel secure in their beliefs don't need to "defend" them by attacking others. Think of famous atheists who stood on their soapboxes for years...

Such as Malcolm Muggeridge and T.S.Elliot...

Then they jumped ship.

I'm waiting for Richard Dawkins to do the same.

All this demonstrates is that unlike some there are people who constantly (or even occasionally) reflect on their apparently firmly held ideas and come to a different conclusion. Nowt wrong with that.

And of course in this instance one can cite people who 'go the other way'

[amateur51]

Institutionalised antisemitism? How very "political" all of a sudden. Strange considering Christ and his early followers were Jews themselves!

Certainly recent Popes have acknowledged the many mistakes and blunders made by the Church in the past and that includes its previous association of 'Jews' with Christ's torture and death. That's a bit like blaming all Germans for the Nazi atrocities. Most unfair and indeed cruel.

However, the past behaviour of its followers (including even some Popes themselves) has nothing to do with the central core beliefs and dogmas of the Catholic Church which are indeed immutable.

That was my original point here, nothing else!

This must confuse the faithful with busy everyday lives - is it 'do as I say' or 'do as I do' today?

[Flosshilde]

Institutionalised antisemitism? How very "political" all of a sudden. Strange considering Christ and his early followers were Jews themselves!

Certainly recent Popes have acknowledged the many mistakes and blunders made by the Church in the past and that includes its previous association of 'Jews' with Christ's torture and death. That's a bit like blaming all Germans for the Nazi atrocities. Most unfair and indeed cruel.

However, the past behaviour of its followers (including even some Popes themselves) has nothing to do with the central core beliefs and dogmas of the Catholic Church which are indeed immutable.

That was my original point here, nothing else!

No excuse, no condoning ... just a sad acceptance that whilst we have human beings on the planet some 'terrible things' will no doubt continue however much we hope that they won't.

The Vatican is made up of human beings just like the NHS. Some terrible things happen there as well.

That doesn't make either intrinsically 'bad'. Get the point now, MrGG?

As it's the popes, 'guided' in some instances by councils, committees & advisors, who define the core values & dogmas of the church, & as you say the popes are human & some have in the past been less than perfect in their behaviour, it must be that some of the values & dogmas might possibly be less than perfect (despite the recent doctrine of 'infallibility') & would benefit from being cancelled, changed or adapted.

("Popes have acknowledged the many mistakes and blunders made by the Church in the past" - note that it's 'the Church' that blunders & makes mistakes, not the pope.)

[ahinton]

Your idea of "immutability", however, seems to be "these are the things which haven't (yet) changed, so they must be immutable". Your coreligionists would have said this about all kinds of things in the past, for example blaming all Jews for Jesus' death. Where is the ultimate authority that draws a line between the mutable and the immutable? the reported sayings of Jesus? (although we've already established that he said nothing on the subject of homosexuality, to return to the thread topic) the epistles of Paul? the Council of Nicaea in 325, before which the church had no unified doctrine at all?

Pertinent and pointed questions all; I'm sadly uncertain, however, that you can expect much more than typical politican's Today programme answer.

In any case, why does or should the fact that some things may never have changed within the Church of necessity mean that they are therefore right? Things may indeed be written in stone but, as all Christians know, stones can in certain circumstances find themselves being rolled away...

[ahinton]

As it's the popes, 'guided' in some instances by councils, committees & advisors, who define the core values & dogmas of the church

Well, as the old cliché has it, "it's a tought job but someone has to do it"...

& as you say the popes are human & some have in the past been less than perfect in their behaviour, it must be that some of the values & dogmas might possibly be less than perfect (despite the recent doctrine of 'infallibility') & would benefit from being cancelled, changed or adapted.

That would certainly appear to be perfectly logical - infallibly so, even.

("Popes have acknowledged the many mistakes and blunders made by the Church in the past" - note that it's 'the Church' that blunders & makes mistakes, not the pope.)

Quite; what's "it weren't me, guv" in modern Italian?

[scottycelt]

If, however, at least some of those "terrible things" have been carried out under the auspices of, or condoned within, the principles of the Church and they then cease to be so, this welcome change will surely represent a fundamental policy shift, will it not?

Depends on what you (and MrGG) mean by 'terrible things', doesn't it? Anything that doesn't concur with your own view you might well consider a 'terrible thing'.

What I mean by 'terrible things' are acts and practices committed by members and officials of the Church that run wholly contrary to Church teaching. Of course the Church authorities should do their utmost to try and prevent such things happening in the same way as Chief Constables should try to prevent police officer corruption. No doubt there is clear room for improvement in the manner some of these things were previously handled by the Church authorities. That now seems so obvious with the comfortable benefit of hindsight and alongside a quite different secular cultural environment. However, in the case of mere mortals, 100% success in such areas can never be guaranteed. There will inevitably be "bad apples" in any organisation and, sadly, one of the largest and oldest institutions on the globe is no exception.

What do you suggest the 'policy shift' in ethics and morality should be on the part of the Church so that these terrible things suddenly 'cease to be so'. ?