Pope Francis: Church could support civil unions

[afleitch]

And one day there will be. Me, what I see, it's a pope who is much less conservative on this issue than the last, it's a big improvement and the Catholic Church is going much more "opened" towards homosexuals. That's why I'm happy to be Catholic! I

And if it actually happens, given how helpful that would be to LGBT people in the developing world I will fly to Rome and kiss his ring But it hasn't happened yet and it doesn't help getting carried away.

Be careful Afleicht, I will remember your post

I'm not joking The difficulties in Africa are close to my heart.

[Small L]

I feel pretty confident that 20 years from now the Catholic Church will have same-sex blessings (probably not called "marriage") like the Episcopal Church has.

This is not going to happen. The Catholic Church does not operate the same way as the Episcopal Church.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There has been no doctrinal change in the Church's position.

But the change in its political position is significant.

[DemPGH]

"I see better than I hear."

We'll see, but the fact that he has shown this much audacity to change the tone of the conversation on the issue is "maybe kind of sort of possibly" promising. There's just so much bad tradition standing in the way, though. You don't just trash it when it's your calling card.

It's still FAR too heavily qualified to mark a substantive shift.

[Gustaf]

While what Afleitch says is true, I think he's being a bit too negative. A change in tone is often the first step and I'd say it marks a clear shift. Francis is shaking things up on several fronts and this may pave the way for the real changes later down the line.

[afleitch]

While what Afleitch says is true, I think he's being a bit too negative. A change in tone is often the first step and I'd say it marks a clear shift. Francis is shaking things up on several fronts and this may pave the way for the real changes later down the line.

The problem for the Church is that if nothing happens, then Francis will be a greater disappointment than a more conservative pope would have been for those who wish to see a greater degree of humanism within the Church. That in itself would be extraordinarily damaging. If the pope seeks change but is 'blocked' by the inert institutions of the Church then that too will be damaging. He's therefore left himself with no real choice but to follow through.

[afleitch]

Someone gets it

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/09/rick-santorum-to-gop-sell-the-anti-lgbt-far-right-agenda-by-talking-like-the-pope/

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What's actually the most absurd about that is he even refers to economic issues as well. Santorum basically flat out states Republicans should talk about cutting Social Security and benefits for working people to pay for tax cuts for the rich...but talk like Francis while doing it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Anyway, I'll admit Francis probably isn't much more significantly opposed to gay marriage than your average 77-year old. But I don't expect much to come out of this. How much you want to bet the local Catholic church doesn't spend millions of dollars in a campaign opposing gay marriage in the next state where it's an issue or there's a vote on it?

The Catholic Church is also WAY different than the Episcopal church on this in that it's not really just about homosexuality to them. The Catholic Church holds all non-procreative sexual acts to be sinful. This is something no Protestant denomination that's evolved has had to deal with. The Catholic Church would have to repeal this first before even thinking of tolerating homosexuality. And it's a bit too embedded and rooted in Catholic doctrine for now, I don't expect it within 30-40 years. The most change I can see happening during Francis' term is the church might state that it's OK for married couples to use condoms if pregnancy would pose health risks to the woman. That doesn't go anywhere near enough to even start of talking about saying homosexual unions are OK.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The most change I can see happening during Francis' term is the church might state that it's OK for married couples to use condoms if pregnancy would pose health risks to the woman.

I may be wrong since I don't pay much attention to Catholic doctrine, but I thought was already the case, but that the use of condoms for the primary purpose of birth control was not.  It could more spartanly be just to prevent STDs rather than health risks from pregnancy, but unless my memory is playing me false, the Catholic church has approved the use of condoms in limited circumstances so as to enhance health.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The most change I can see happening during Francis' term is the church might state that it's OK for married couples to use condoms if pregnancy would pose health risks to the woman.

I may be wrong since I don't pay much attention to Catholic doctrine, but I thought was already the case, but that the use of condoms for the primary purpose of birth control was not.  It could more spartanly be just to prevent STDs rather than health risks from pregnancy, but unless my memory is playing me false, the Catholic church has approved the use of condoms in limited circumstances so as to enhance health.

Yes, you are mistaken. You're thinking of birth control pills, which are allowed as long as they are taken for a reason other than birth control. Condoms are considered sinful in all circumstances (unless you poke holes in them ).

I could be wrong too but I think what Ernest is describing might be the case in at least parts of Eastern Orthodoxy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The most change I can see happening during Francis' term is the church might state that it's OK for married couples to use condoms if pregnancy would pose health risks to the woman.

I may be wrong since I don't pay much attention to Catholic doctrine, but I thought was already the case, but that the use of condoms for the primary purpose of birth control was not.  It could more spartanly be just to prevent STDs rather than health risks from pregnancy, but unless my memory is playing me false, the Catholic church has approved the use of condoms in limited circumstances so as to enhance health.

Yes, you are mistaken. You're thinking of birth control pills, which are allowed as long as they are taken for a reason other than birth control. Condoms are considered sinful in all circumstances (unless you poke holes in them ).

I could be wrong too but I think what Ernest is describing might be the case in at least parts of Eastern Orthodoxy.

I found what I was looking for, and in 2010 Benedict XVI basically stated that if you're going to fornicate anyway, it would be a first step towards good behavior to use a condom while doing so if the purpose of the condom was to prevent the transmission of HIV when you knew you had the disease.  He still considered it better to abstain in that circumstance.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Proud to be a Catholic once again.

So am I

Why this? Nothing is actually changing and his remarks, as all his remarks seem to be, have been 'clarified'. LGBT people are still in the eyes of the church guilty of a 'moral evil'.

Actually, I think you're bit off here. The Church believes LGBT people are probably guilty of a moral evil in God's eyes, but it is also slowly coming to the conclusion that it is not the Church's place to judge. I think that is a marked and clear improvement. It's that type of thinking that could eventually make homosexuality a non-issue in the Church and realign the institution's focus down a path that indiscriminately offers its love to everyone.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Relevant:


(Click to enlarge)

Again, the way churches treat LGBT people may not be the only thing that plays into why people are abandoning Christianity, but it certainly has a significant role.  I don't find think this should be particularly surprising to anyone, though.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No it isn't surprising.  Part of the problem facing Christianity today is that Christians, especially Protestants, have often treated the Bible as a fourth member of the Trinity.  While that did mean that evolution became a stumbling block to those who held to a literal historical interpretation of Genesis, for those who saw the Bible as including mythical passages in addition to the historical passages evolution was not a barrier to belief if one still considered the Bible to be the revealed truth of God with all the ethical teachings therein being uncorrupted. Whether or not one believed in evolution did not affect the ethical validity of the text.  However, there are passages in the canon that are difficult to reconcile with gender equality and impossible to reconcile with homosexuality.

For all its faults, Complementarianism is an attempt to reconcile an infallible canon with modern notions of the equal worth of men and women. Obviously it doesn't appeal to those who hold to not merely equal value but to outright egalitarianism in which save for the biological functions of reproduction, men and women are both equally capable of any role in society.

When it comes to homosexuality, while many of the Biblical passages that have been used to condemn it, such as the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah and the references to that tale in the rest of the Bible, can (and I think should) be interpreted in a way that does not make them a condemnation of all homosexuality, there really is no way to reconcile homosexuality and the passages in the Holiness Code of Leviticus dealing with it while maintaining a belief in an ethically inerrant Bible.  One cannot both worship the Biblical canon as an infallible incarnation of God and be tolerant of homosexuality.  Since I respect but do not worship the Bible, this doesn't cause me a problem, but as I said, most Christians treat the Bible as the fourth member of the Trinity.

[Frodo]

It's interesting that he decided to make his compromise on this issue, but hasn't (as of yet) made any concessions on contraception which -judging by polling- is the least likely to cause friction among his more zealous and conservative flock in the southern hemisphere. 

[Middle-aged Europe]

Given that the Roman Catholic Church is an archconservative, reactionary institution, Francis is the best possible Pope one could hope for in the sense that he's still archconservative, but no reactionary.

[DC Al Fine]

It's interesting that he decided to make his compromise on this issue, but hasn't (as of yet) made any concessions on contraception which -judging by polling- is the least likely to cause friction among his more zealous and conservative flock in the southern hemisphere. 

I'm not an expert in Catholic theology, but accepting contraception opens up a big can of worms that homosexuality does not.