The Pope's Bullshit attempt to appear liberal about gays!

[Czarcasm]

@Valteron

One person (me) says that the Pope’s comments are not a sincere attempt to change his position on gays, but merely a rhetorical trick to make himself sound tolerantl when he is not.

VERSUS

Possible disagreement from those who believe that his comments signal an important change of attitude towards gays.

How is that not a debate?

Looking at the title, all I’ve got to say is cut the crap.

[marshmallow]

I don’t get it. They’re not exactly hurting for members. Why even pretend?

[BrainGlutton]

@marshmallow

I don’t get it. They’re not exactly hurting for members. Why even pretend?

Force of habit.

[ITR_champion]

@Valteron

Just to answer your question, I think it is your personal dislike for me that makes you judge that almost anything I post is a rant rather than a debate. I do not deny that I express my viewpoint in strong language, but that does not automatically change it from a debate to a rant. If you look at my OP you will see that I am clearly inviting others to debate whether the Pope’s declaration is a move towards tolerance and a more liberal attitude, or whther he is just using an old bait-and-switch trick to make people believe he is more accepting when he is not.

I believe that tom is entirely correct in classifying your rants as rants and moving them to the Pit. Your OP does not “invite others to debate”. Your OP is a long string of insults aimed at the Pope and Catholics. The difference is blindingly obvious to everyone on the board except, apparently, yourself.

[yellowjacketcoder]

This thread brings up an excellent question we’re all dancing around: What’s an appropriate pace of change?

Several people seem to indicate that anything other than a full acceptance of gays and lesbians, including the right marry and adopt, expressed yesterday, is not enough.

Others point out that the RCC is exceedingly slow in changing anything related to doctrine, and hopefully this is the first of 7,458 steps towards full acceptance.

To me, neither is quite right - it’s ludicrous to think the Church will do a 180 overnight, but at the same time waiting decades for acceptance of a human right is a bit slow. The question then is: how fast should the church move towards acceptance, if indeed it is doing so under Francis?

[BrainGlutton]

Great segment on this on The Daily Show just now!

[Mighty_Girl]

Maybe now he can send a memo to these guys:

The James “Wally” Brewster controversy
His successful business professional life has been ignored, the focus locally has been on political appointee James “Wally” Brewster’s role as a leading LBGT rights activist in the USA. Dominican Cardinal and head of the Roman Catholic Church Nicolas Lopez Rodriguez has publicly strongly disapproved the nomination. Legal advisor to the President Medina, Cesar Pina Toribio says it’s a done deal. Charge d’Affaires Daniel Foote of the US Embassy says that Brewster is coming as an ambassador, not a gay activist.

The legal advisor to the Executive Branch, Cesar Pina Toribio said that the government already gave the placet. As part of standard procedures, prior to the nomination of an ambassador to the Senate, he said the US State Department consulted with the Ministry of Foreign Relations that gave its assent to the nomination, as reported in El Caribe.

Pina Toribio said it would be a lack of courtesy if the Dominican government were to reject the nomination now. He said that Brewster’s being gay is not a condition that in any way limits his exercising the role to which he is appointed.

Rev. Cristobal Cardozo, leader of the Dominican Evangelical Fraternity, said he worried about the message that Brewster’s presence might send.

“It’s an insult to good Dominican customs,” he said.

Cardinal Nicolas de Jesus Lopez, president of the Conference of the Dominican Episcopate, echoed similar sentiments.

“You can expect anything from the U.S.,” said Lopez, who is also the archbishop of Santo Domingo.

Meanwhile, Vicar Pablo Cedano criticized the nomination as “a lack of respect, of consideration, that they send us that kind of person as ambassador.”

“If he arrives, he’ll suffer and will be forced to leave,” Cedano warned, without elaborating.

Catholic groups were organizing a Black Monday, which thankfully everybody else ignored on account of not caring one fuck about the whole thing.

Source
Source

[JRDelirious]

@Guinastasia

Keep in mind that the Catholic church moves at the pace off a snail on valium. There are still people bitching about Vatican II, (who think that the church should go back to saying Mass in Latin). In the context of the Vatican, this is actually a pretty big step.

As I commented in an earlier thread, none of us reading this are ***ever ***going to see a papacy during which the RCC is transformed into the ELCA. It’s just not going to happen in our lifetimes – and neither is the withering away of the various religions, as BrainGlutton pointed out (and my money is on that even if in X number of centuries one of the Big Monotheisms withers away, something that still involves nonrational devotion to a certain set of rules for living and relating to the world and others will take its place).

[TriPolar]

Isn’t the RCC falling in the religious ratings? Not just number of households, but in viewer loyalty too. They’re getting almost no coverage in the critical demographics, or even from kids. Seriously folks, if they ever want to rule the world again they have to start changing to meet market demand. Nobody wants one of those old fashioned uptight about the rules type religions anymore.

[Guinastasia]

I’m not saying that I wouldn’t like the church to be more progressive. However, I’m a realist, and I know that ain’t gonna happen any time soon.

@Valteron

I walked out of the Catholic Church about 50 years ago when I realized there was no room for a gay person. I am now an atheist, BTW. Changing the Church from within is one of the biggest crocks there is. As long as they have you in their church attending mass and giving them money, you can try and change things all you want. They don’t care.

You see, the whole trick of the Catholic Church is that by being ultra-reactionary and conservative, they give people the impression they must be in posession of some eternal and unalterable truth.

Then if you’re not Catholic, why the hell do you give a shit about this? (The Pope’s latest comments, that is) At least to the degree you’re screaming about.

[Der_Trihs]

@yellowjacketcoder

This thread brings up an excellent question we’re all dancing around: What’s an appropriate pace of change?

Given that they claim moral superiority and a direct pipeline to God, they should change faster than society in general.

Thing is, given how blatantly and pointlessly evil homophobia is, the appropriate rate of change is “instant”; or really, “get in a time machine and make it never have existed”. It’s never been a good idea. Not now, not a century ago, not a thousand years ago.

[Inner_Stickler]

Guin, I’m going to say this as politely as I can.

You haven’t any clue what it is like to grow up gay and catholic and you should probably shut up and sit this one out.

[BrainGlutton]

@Inner_Stickler

Guin, I’m going to say this as politely as I can.

You haven’t any clue what it is like to grow up gay and catholic and you should probably shut up and sit this one out.

Nobody but a gay Catholic can have an opinion here?!

[Inner_Stickler]

Not if they’re going to be telling people who’ve had extremely negative experiences with catholicism that they shouldn’t care about how catholicism might be negatively affecting other new (gay) people.

[Guinastasia]

Did I say that? No. I said if Valteron hates the church so much, and he’s not a member, and has no plans to try and work for any change, then why should he give a shit?

It’s not like I don’t have my own (major) issues with the Church. HOWEVER, I’m not expecting anything the church to change over night. Sadly, it’s not happening.

[Merneith]

@yellowjacketcoder

This thread brings up an excellent question we’re all dancing around: What’s an appropriate pace of change?

Several people seem to indicate that anything other than a full acceptance of gays and lesbians, including the right marry and adopt, expressed yesterday, is not enough.

Others point out that the RCC is exceedingly slow in changing anything related to doctrine, and hopefully this is the first of 7,458 steps towards full acceptance.

To me, neither is quite right - it’s ludicrous to think the Church will do a 180 overnight, but at the same time waiting decades for acceptance of a human right is a bit slow. The question then is: how fast should the church move towards acceptance, if indeed it is doing so under Francis?

It will take as long as it takes. There aren’t any rules about these sorts of things.

I’m guessing it’s going to take long enough so that little kids today who are growing up with gay marriage being old news (to them) start becoming eligible for the Big Hat. Probably not before that and certainly not until all the people who entered the seminary before Vatican II die off.

Also note: The Catholic church is not an American institution. It’s an international institution and big chunks of the world are not as evolved on civil rights. So when I’m talking about the little kids and gay marriage - I don’t just mean American or European kids.

[levdrakon]

There are three things Catholics need reminding of once in awhile: don’t judge, love thy neighbor, and don’t judge. Reminding the flock he’s specifically talking about gays is important. There are a lot of scary true-believers out there who really really need reminding about their religion’s foremost tenets. A lot.

He could just stick with church policy about resisting all gay rights initiatives because gays are sinful and then let the homophobia and hate crimes continue.

[Bricker]

@Valteron

Limbo was sure as Hell (pardon the pun) not presented to me as a place that “might” exist when I received 14 years of Roman Catholic education in the 50s and 60s. What this sounds like to me is that the Church realized what idiots they would sound like for suddenly declaring it did not exist after saying it did for all those years, so all of a sudden the existence of Limbo becomes an optional belief.

I am pretty sure that if I had told one of the brutal nuns and priests of my childhood that I chose not to believe in Limbo, I would have gotten a few more strappings and other forms of child assault in addition to the ones I was already getting.

There are two factual possibilities in play:

1. Those who instructed you were themselves ignorant, and thus mistakenly conveyed to you that Limbo was a doctrine, as opposed to a hypothesis that had been debated in the church since at least St. Augustine’s day.

2. You failed to correctly understand what you were being taught.

Neither of those justifies the erroneous conclusion that the Church has pulled a fast one and changed Limbo from a doctrine to an optional belief. It was never a doctrine.

[Valteron]

I’m not saying that I wouldn’t like the church to be more progressive. However, I’m a realist, and I know that ain’t gonna happen any time soon.

You remind me of Robert E. Lee’s pre-bellum opinion on slavery (you can find it on YouTube) where he says that God will take care of abolishing slavery in his own good time even if it takes a thousand years. This is fine if you happen not to be a slave. As someone said: “I woulda liked to see him and his descendants haul their asses out and pick cotton for a slave master for 1000 years and see if he was still as stoically philosophical about it!”

Then if you’re not Catholic, why the hell do you give a shit about this? (The Pope’s latest comments, that is) At least to the degree you’re screaming about.

You think the Pope’s opinion carries no weight anywhere? There are some 76 states that criminalize gays. Some 12 states have the death penalty or life in prison (yes, I know almost all of them are Muslim, but the Pope’s opinion has an effect.) Ort else read the posting above this by Mighty Girl on the US Ambassador appointee to the Dominican Republic who is gay and whose appointment is being fought by the RC hierarchy. The Pope’s words have consequences on the lives and dignity of people.

Right now there is a world-wide movement to protest the Winter Olympics in Russia because of Putin’s ruthless persecution of gays (yes, I know Russia is Eastern Orthodox, but the Pope’s opinion can still be used by homophobes to shore up their bigotry.)

Gay and Lesbian teachers who remain terrified of being “found out” in Catholic schools, some of which are state-supported as in Ontario, care what the Pope says. I find your comment about why I care to be rather short-sighted.

[Valteron]

@Bricker

There are two factual possibilities in play:

1. Those who instructed you were themselves ignorant, and thus mistakenly conveyed to you that Limbo was a doctrine, as opposed to a hypothesis that had been debated in the church since at least St. Augustine’s day.

2. You failed to correctly understand what you were being taught.

Neither of those justifies the erroneous conclusion that the Church has pulled a fast one and changed Limbo from a doctrine to an optional belief. It was never a doctrine.

Gee, I wonder what other RC beliefs are thought to be firm doctrines by 99.9999% of Catholics but can simply and easily be renounced by dusting off an old document and saying it has always been an optional belief. I guess we will find out as this escape clause gets used at various times that the RC hierarchy wishes to drop a virtual doctrine without looking foolish.