will the Roman Catholic Church 'accept LGBT' on/before August 15, 2067?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The Catholics will as soon as the Assembly of God and that's never. I also see the likelihood of a split as well.

It'll be a glorious day when everyone like you is dead and can't impede progress by stepping on people's freedoms that bring no harm or immorality to the world.

[SNJ1985]

freedoms that bring no harm or immorality to the world.

Homosexuality does bring harm and immorality to the world.

[JohnRM]

The Catholics will as soon as the Assembly of God and that's never. I also see the likelihood of a split as well.

It'll be a glorious day when everyone like you is dead and can't impede progress by stepping on people's freedoms that bring no harm or immorality to the world.

I think that was rather uncalled for. Be a gentleman; else you've already lost the argument.

[TJ in Oregon]

I think that was rather uncalled for. Be a gentleman; else you've already lost the argument.

No, he's won the argument in this place before he posted anything. He's aware of it too.

The Catholic Church, however, does not care particularly much what smilio, JCL, you, or myself thinks. That is sort of the point in believing in something that includes teachings received by divine revelation passed down through scripture and Tradition (as opposed to tradition) in a Magisterium. The Catholic Church is not going to change its teachings on marriage even if no one left in the world actually follows them. The pastoral approach taken to try and lead people to the truth may change somewhat in really rough circumstances (which is what is meant by gradualism). Different popes and bishops may emphasize different aspects of the Church's teachings but the teachings remain. Now, that's not to say new circumstances and situations can't arise that haven't been considered yet. When they do, the theology behind them may develop. But settled questions cannot change.

As for the schism option, that one is a reasonable possibility. The main reason why I think so is simply the vast historical precedent. We now have circa 33,000 Christian denominations. Schism is not new and I doubt we've seen the last of them.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The Catholics will as soon as the Assembly of God and that's never. I also see the likelihood of a split as well.

It'll be a glorious day when everyone like you is dead and can't impede progress by stepping on people's freedoms that bring no harm or immorality to the world.

Preach.

[afleitch]

freedoms that bring no harm or immorality to the world.

Homosexuality does bring harm and immorality to the world.

That website is hilarious.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The Catholics will as soon as the Assembly of God and that's never. I also see the likelihood of a split as well.

It'll be a glorious day when everyone like you is dead and can't impede progress by stepping on people's freedoms that bring no harm or immorality to the world.

Hold on here. You are aware the Assemblies of God is one the fastest growing Christian denominations in the world. We (I say we because I'm part of the fellowship) are growing faster than the U.S. population.

@afleitch just read Romans 1 and ponder what it says on the subject. 

[afleitch]

@afleitch just read Romans 1 and ponder what it says on the subject. 

Go meet people. That's where you find the 'subject' to which you refer. If you meet a gay couple together for decades, together at a time when you could be thrown in jail or poked and prodded by doctors, who have been abused but stay together to support and love each other and today one is being nursed by the other through sickness and inevitable death; if you do that then you will see that Paul knew jack sh!t about love and human relationships.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The Catholics will as soon as the Assembly of God and that's never. I also see the likelihood of a split as well.

It'll be a glorious day when everyone like you is dead and can't impede progress by stepping on people's freedoms that bring no harm or immorality to the world.

I think that was rather uncalled for. Be a gentleman; else you've already lost the argument.

JCL is a terrible poster, you see. It was rather called for. I would never have said that to TJ for instance because he is the best Republican poster on the forum even if I disagree with him on the matter.

The Catholics will as soon as the Assembly of God and that's never. I also see the likelihood of a split as well.

It'll be a glorious day when everyone like you is dead and can't impede progress by stepping on people's freedoms that bring no harm or immorality to the world.

Hold on here. You are aware the Assemblies of God is one the fastest growing Christian denominations in the world. We (I say we because I'm part of the fellowship) are growing faster than the U.S. population.

Wonderful news for us Christians! I can only hope the rest of them aren't homophobic like yourself. You do realize majorities of both Catholics and Protestants are in favor of gay marriage legalization.

[VPH]

Well, I think it is a matter of where you are. I was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church by an openly gay priest. In Europe, some of South America, and Canada, there is a lot more LGBT acceptance within church circles than in the US or Africa.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Well, I think it is a matter of where you are. I was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church by an openly gay priest. In Europe, some of South America, and Canada, there is a lot more LGBT acceptance within church circles than in the US or Africa.

There is no way you can lump the US with Africa when like 60% of Catholics support SSM and the Church doesn't talk about it. We are not located in the south.

[DemPGH]

Hmm, well, the Latin Church did not accept the tenets of Copernicus/heliocentrism until 1822 (Galileo disproved geocentrism in 1610 with The Starry Messenger). They didn't bother to say, "Yeeeeah, we were wrong about Galileo" until something like 1992!

It's about 300 years or a little more for them to catch up to reality.

So, when will they accept something that their books say is wrong? When they absolutely have to.

They need to understand homosexuality as a biological fact, and not a personal taboo of someone who wrote a letter or a book in antiquity.

[SNJ1985]

You do realize majorities of both Catholics and Protestants are in favor of gay marriage legalization.

So? That doesn't change what the Scripture says, and the Scripture clearly says that homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:10). God destroyed entire cities for fornication and homosexuality (Jude 1:7). If you are a Christian, you are supposed to base your morality on what the Bible teaches, not what people around you say. Only God has any moral authority. Love not the world (1 John 2:15).

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

It always perturbed me that that is such a common understanding of what is meant by 'going after strange flesh' in the context of Jude 1.7. It seems like the distinctly less obvious type of 'strangeness' to get out of that part of the Sodom and Gomorrah story.

[7,052,770]

You do realize majorities of both Catholics and Protestants are in favor of gay marriage legalization.

So? That doesn't change what the Scripture says, and the Scripture clearly says that homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:10). God destroyed entire cities for fornication and homosexuality (Jude 1:7). If you are a Christian, you are supposed to base your morality on what the Bible teaches, not what people around you say. Only God has any moral authority. Love not the world (1 John 2:15).

Who cares? The only evidence of the Bible's authority is from within its own pages.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That "other flesh" in Jude v.7 refers to homosexuality or indeed to any form of sexuality is far from obvious. Indeed, given how "flesh" is used in the rest of the NT, to me the best interpretation of that passage is "having gone after harlotry and all other carnal desires".

[DC Al Fine]

Hmm, well, the Latin Church did not accept the tenets of Copernicus/heliocentrism until 1822 (Galileo disproved geocentrism in 1610 with The Starry Messenger). They didn't bother to say, "Yeeeeah, we were wrong about Galileo" until something like 1992!

It's about 300 years or a little more for them to catch up to reality.

So, when will they accept something that their books say is wrong? When they absolutely have to.

Not this old canard again. You have had this explained to you over and over again without even a vaguely relevant counter argument in response.

Now, one could ask oneself how Copernicus proposed his theory, had it explained to the freaking Pope and yet encountered no problems. Ignorance is bliss.

To the depths of bad history hell with you.

[DemPGH]

Hmm, well, the Latin Church did not accept the tenets of Copernicus/heliocentrism until 1822 (Galileo disproved geocentrism in 1610 with The Starry Messenger). They didn't bother to say, "Yeeeeah, we were wrong about Galileo" until something like 1992!

It's about 300 years or a little more for them to catch up to reality.

So, when will they accept something that their books say is wrong? When they absolutely have to.

Not this old canard again. You have had this explained to you over and over again without even a vaguely relevant counter argument in response.

Now, one could ask oneself how Copernicus proposed his theory, had it explained to the freaking Pope and yet encountered no problems. Ignorance is bliss.

To the depths of bad history hell with you.

Unfortunately for you, it's not a canard - Galileo's forced abjuration of 1633 happened, and too bad you don't know or acknowledge that. But dismissing people to hell is pretty much all people like you are good at. Have at it from the dustbin that modern times have relegated you to.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm pretty sure it will just be pontiff-endorsed doublethinkery - continued antigay rhetoric is non-verbally acknowledged as bunk by all parties. That said, I do think the celibacy for priests requirement is living on borrowed time, so we may some gay married priests that may be a target for excommunication.

[Skill and Chance]

We'll see.  The likeliest possibilities are circa 2500 A.D. or never.  I would answer this question no with some confidence.

EDIT: I do think there is a chance of option 2 circa 2050, but not ordaining gay priests or officiating gay weddings.

[DC Al Fine]

Hmm, well, the Latin Church did not accept the tenets of Copernicus/heliocentrism until 1822 (Galileo disproved geocentrism in 1610 with The Starry Messenger). They didn't bother to say, "Yeeeeah, we were wrong about Galileo" until something like 1992!

It's about 300 years or a little more for them to catch up to reality.

So, when will they accept something that their books say is wrong? When they absolutely have to.

Not this old canard again. You have had this explained to you over and over again without even a vaguely relevant counter argument in response.

Now, one could ask oneself how Copernicus proposed his theory, had it explained to the freaking Pope and yet encountered no problems. Ignorance is bliss.

To the depths of bad history hell with you.

Unfortunately for you, it's not a canard - Galileo's forced abjuration of 1633 happened, and too bad you don't know or acknowledge that. But dismissing people to hell is pretty much all people like you are good at. Have at it from the dustbin that modern times have relegated you to.

You're completely missing the point.

Of course Galileo's abjuration happened. The error you and many others make is imposing a modern era dichotomy on a 17th century debate.

The simplistic church v science view is complicated by

a) Copernicus managed to say similar stuff without getting into trouble
b) Galileo was friends with the Pope, but literally called him retarded when invited to present his views

and most importantly:

c) Galileo's hypotheses were incorrect according to the observable data of the time

In the 1600's, the lack of an observable stellar parallax was strong evidence against Galileo's claims, which in turn causes a pretty big issue in the "Galileo disproved geocentrism and the church hated him for it" theory.

[DemPGH]

Hmm, well, the Latin Church did not accept the tenets of Copernicus/heliocentrism until 1822 (Galileo disproved geocentrism in 1610 with The Starry Messenger). They didn't bother to say, "Yeeeeah, we were wrong about Galileo" until something like 1992!

It's about 300 years or a little more for them to catch up to reality.

So, when will they accept something that their books say is wrong? When they absolutely have to.

Not this old canard again. You have had this explained to you over and over again without even a vaguely relevant counter argument in response.

Now, one could ask oneself how Copernicus proposed his theory, had it explained to the freaking Pope and yet encountered no problems. Ignorance is bliss.

To the depths of bad history hell with you.

Unfortunately for you, it's not a canard - Galileo's forced abjuration of 1633 happened, and too bad you don't know or acknowledge that. But dismissing people to hell is pretty much all people like you are good at. Have at it from the dustbin that modern times have relegated you to.

You're completely missing the point.

Of course Galileo's abjuration happened. The error you and many others make is imposing a modern era dichotomy on a 17th century debate.

The simplistic church v science view is complicated by

a) Copernicus managed to say similar stuff without getting into trouble
b) Galileo was friends with the Pope, but literally called him retarded when invited to present his views

and most importantly:

c) Galileo's hypotheses were incorrect according to the observable data of the time

In the 1600's, the lack of an observable stellar parallax was strong evidence against Galileo's claims, which in turn causes a pretty big issue in the "Galileo disproved geocentrism and the church hated him for it" theory.

Okay, that's better. And I didn't mean not to respond to some of this in the past - I either didn't see it, didn't have the time, etc.

First, I only brought this up because I had thought of it as I read the topic headline. My first response was, well, look what they did to Galileo. It may not be 300 years, but I think it'll be a long time until they accept SSM. The Roman Church is usually among the last of the holdouts and the diehards against new findings, ideas, etc.

Now, I'll respond.

My hang-up, and it's a hang-up, is not that the Roman Church opposed an idea or challenged a discovery, but the extraordinary lengths they went to to squash it. I mean, they disagree with a guy's findings, so they put him under house arrest and take away his telescope? If slavery is/was objectionable, I dare say that is too.

Copernicus wasn't trying to challenge anyone, firstly. The Church said that his proposed system was okay so long as it was only viewed as a hypothetical and helped mathematicians explain things that the Ptolemaic system could not. Copernicus left it at that. I mean he had to go through them to get it published anyway.

Galileo did not. He pushed it, especially when he observed several moons orbiting Jupiter, and he had every right to. The Roman Church declared the heliocentric model "erroneous" in 1616 which was around the time that it started to gain widespread acceptance. So they tried to squash it. They didn't take it off their ban list until the early 19th century when it was way past accepted. I've read most of Galileo's Dialogue, and it's a vast stretch to say that he called the pope retarded. He did not. He illustrated the many errors in the Roman Church's position on the issue, which largely fell back on Ptolemy and Aristotle, NOT anything they were observing.

I would disagree that Galileo's findings were not supported, but at that point we probably need to take it to the History Department board.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit3/response.html
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit3/galileo.html
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileochronology.html

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, at the time of Copernicus and Galileo, Protestants were if anything more negative about heliocentrism than the Roman church was. Yet we never seem to feel the need to have Reformed or Lutheran churches apologize for Calvin and Luther deeming Copernicus to be a foolish heretic spouting unbiblical nonsense.