A thousand years since the East-West schism. Five hundred years ago since the Reformation.
It’s about time for some more mitosis.
Hey, they would have had me on board if the term for a legal union between consenting adults was called a civil union. They lost me when they said it would only be such for same-sex couples. I don’t do separate but equal before the law. Conservatives fucked that up forever ago.
People get lost in the bolded part all the time.
Yes, the Catholic Church regards homosexuality as a sin. Along with things like taking advantage of the poor and depriving the working man of his wages, belief in false gods, atheism, divination, magic, sorcery, blasphemy, perjury, failure to attend Mass, disobeying your parents, murder, abortion, euthanasia (of people), suicide, leading others into temptation, drug abuse, gluttony (what’s the obesity rate these days?), alcoholism, terrorism, anger, hatred, extortion, adultery, divorce, sex outside of marriage, pornography, prostitution, rape, incest, masturbation, theft, cheating, unfair wages, false witness, lying, lust, greed, envy, heresy, apostasy, and I’ve probably left a few out of that list, what with not being Catholic myself.
In my imperfect understanding, from the viewpoint of Catholic doctrine horoscopes are just as evil as homosexual sex but people who read (or even cast) horoscopes are not barred from the church building or ostracized as homosexuals are. Horoscopes are legal, but don’t ask your local priest (or the Pope) to approve of them
The thing is, homosexuality is mixed up with social condemnation in a way that horoscopes aren’t. Not just the Catholic Church but a lot of other segments of society have long been opposed to homosexuality.
Again, my understanding is that, just as people who eat too much or read their daily horoscope can be part of the church the Pope wants things to be such that homosexuals can also show up and be part of the church… except the church is not going to OK gay sex. It doesn’t approve of gluttony or horoscopes either, but for some reason sex sins are viewed as a different level of horror than some other sins. Different sex sins are also held to different levels of horror - divorce and fornication, for example, are pretty rampant outside the Catholic world, and even within the Catholic world people have always been busy having sex outside of marriage and seeking annulments to marriages, yet homosexuality is seen as more horrific than those.
I think the Pope wants to bring the “OH NO THE GAYS ARE DOING GAY OH HORRORS ICKY ICKY ICKY!” down to the level of Mr. and Mrs. Smith having lived apart for 10 years with entirely separate everything (i.e. divorced) and everyone knowing both of them are bedding other people yet they’re allowed to show up in the pews without everyone recoiling in horror.
Personally, I don’t see how that’s going to happen.
I also don’t expect the Catholic Church to change much, no matter who is Pope. Folks are free to be members of the institution if that’s what they want, but we should not be making law to keep the College of Cardinals happy. We have same-sex marriage. The Catholic Church is free to say they won’t perform them or approve, but they are NOT free to say those outside their church can’t have them. And if they have a problem with members of their church getting married to people of the same gender well, that’s their problem. The rest of us are marching onward.
It seems to me that the Pope is pushing the Church’s views on homosexuality in the right direction as fast as it can go, which is not very fast at all. The usual oil tanker analogy applies - he’s changed the course of the ship by four or five degrees at most in the right direction, but he was never going to get it to do a full 180 on a dime without the whole thing catastrophically falling to pieces.
Which is not to say that I support the Church’s current position on homosexuality. I am merely acknowledging that there is at least some slow movement in the right direction.
France already has the two as separate steps - IIRC, started in France during the French Revolution. The legal portion of it is (if desired) followed by the religious ceremony.
I don’t think there’s any “separate but equal” issue here with gay marriage vs a traditional church marriage - either is as legally binding, it’s just a matter of who signs the paperwork.
I hadn’t heard that the Pope condoned civil unions - but good for him! I also don’t have huge angst over his saying that priests cannot bless same-sex unions; many (most?) mainstream churches have the same attitude.
If the legal aspects of marriage were ENTIRELY removed from the religious (as in France) then that would be a complete non-issue. I think we’re a few decades away from attitudes changing though.
ANY sex outside of marriage is considered a sin.
Yeah, until the Church allows marriage between two gays, any gay couple is, thus, sinning. As are heterosexuals who are not married in the eyes of the Church. As such a sinner (civil ceremony), I’m perfectly welcome to go to Mass any time I like and it’s unlikely lightning would strike me dead - hasn’t yet, anyway. Though if a priest were asked, I would be strongly discouraged from taking Communion (and I do not do so).
I infer that a gay person would also be welcome to attend Mass - though s/he might get some Nasty Looks from people who know and are not on board with it - and I would imagine that the s/he would want to find a community that was more welcoming.
I concur that the Church is unlikely to bless gay marriage. Someone who is gay is, I hope, of the attitude that gayness is NOT sinful, and thus is not likely to feel that the Catholic Church’s attitude reflects God’s will, and so is not going to identify as Catholic. S/he would have to be willing to be part of a group that considers him/her to be in a nonstop state of sin.
speaking of catholics in France I found out after it burned Notre Dame cathedral is state owned.
The first purpose of marriage is to combine properties and at one time, to own women - that’s why they’re identified as Mr’s aka Mrs, and the second purpose is romance. The second can be conducted in whatever ceremony one wants but holly sheeeeet, that first is a nightmare to disantangle aka divorce. I think gay people should be careful of that they wish for. For example, married couples divorce when one is criticallly I’ll to save the other from financial ruin, or stay unwed to get scholarships to finish their education, or not mess with retirement funds, or be heads of a household, etc…Combining properties and credit scores is rarely necessary in my opinion - especially now when so many businesses recognize domestic partners to get some discount.
Do you mean mainline Protestant churches? Because in the mainline, only the UMC denies same sex marriage these days, IIRC. Or do you mean Southern Baptists and the such?
(UMC member here)
And, that issue has been the subject of intense debate and dispute within the denomination for the past few years, with the liberal wing of the church (much of North America and Europe) looking to permit SSM, as well as allowing Methodist clergy to be openly gay, while the conservative wing (primarily the southern U.S., and Africa) fighting against all of the above. It appears that a schism is likely (and might have happened last year, if the General Conference hadn’t been postponed due to COVID).
It’s okay, God will still bless the marriages, despite the misguided schemes of St. Peter’s usurper.
Yeah, really.
There should be no surprise, disappointment or sense of gotcha. From the very start it has been clear Francis supports the established theological-moral teachings of the Church, just that he’s not a prickly ass about it.
Said it before: no Pope is going to turn the RCC into the ELCA with a better art collection in one lifetime. Not gonna happen.
Heck, consider that to this day there are still people butthurt about the whole Latin thing…
I may well be wrong on this (I hope so!!).
I’ve never looked into Presbyterian, Episcopal etc. doctrine on the topic - I just assumed that it was, at the least, somewhat discouraged.
There doesn’t seem to be a recent list of “who allows it”; the most recent is from Pew Research, from 2015. I was surprised that conservative Judaism permits it (though that may vary by congregation); I was unsurprised by Islam and a number of Christian religions (as noted, the Methodists and the Baptists).
Oh, and I do consider the Southern Baptists etc. “mainstream” churches, if for no other reason than they have such an enormous following. Doesn’t mean I agree with their doctrine, of course.
I do think the way to go is more like France (and any other countries that have gone this route; Monaco being one): the marriage (for legal purposes) should be completely separate from the marriage for religious purposes. Legal marriage is a contract that gives both parties certain rights and responsibilities. Religious marriage means you subscribe to that religion’s belief in what marriage means. If your country allows the contractual marriage to be witnessed by someone with “Reverend” in front of his/her name, that’s cool but should not (and is not, in the US) a requirement.
Naw, he is doing what he can.
And before we get all patting ourselves on the back, showing how progressive we are here in the uSA, Gay Marriage has only been legal since 2015.
My limited understanding is that he condoned civil unions in the sense of making a family, and thus would not be opposed to same-sex civil unions, but still wants the people in such unions to adhere to Catholic rules… which still maintains any sex outside of a Catholic-recognized marriage to be a sin. So in his mind a civil union would, ideally, has celibate adult because they aren’t, in the eyes of the church, married.
Basically, civil unions to raise kids, tax purposes, immigration, mutual support (financial, household, etc.) but no sex 'cause it’s outside of the “sacrament of marriage”.
Which is a bit different understanding of “civil union” than most of us have.
Who cares what Catholics think? They’re still stuck in the first century.
The Episcopal Church have allowed for the blessings of same sex marriage as well as same sex pastors (or priests) and bishops for almost 2 decades, IIRC. The Presbyterian Church USA has allowed it since 2014. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has allowed it since 2009.
The PCUSA and ELCA’s more conservative Presbyterian and Lutheran counterparts are still against - but those conservative counterparts are far more Southern Baptist than they are mainline Protestant.
I’m pretty sure that’s an urban legend. “Mrs.” is an abbreviation of “mistress”, which was used for married and unmarried women. The split of Mrs for married and Miss for unmarried started during the 17th century.
Earlier than that, Goodwife/Goody was used, too.
Exactly so. The “mainline” Protestant denominations are typically defined as:
- United Methodist Church
- Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
- Presbyterian Church (USA)
- Epsicopal Church
- American Baptist Churches
- United Church of Christ
- Disciples of Christ
As you note, there are considerably more conservative denominations and groups with names that sounds similar to the above, including:
- Presbyterian Church in America
- Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
- Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
- Southern Baptist Conference
Thanks!