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

[Valteron]

QUOTE=Guinastasia;16527479]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.
[/QUOTE]

You may have issues, but I am willing to bet you have no fuckin’ idea what it is like to be a gay teen who received 14 years of Catholic brainwashing, and who sees the RC Church using its power and money to oppose gay rights in the 21st Century. They even oppose access to civil marriage for same-sex couples, even though they do not recognize civil marriage. Does somebody want to tell me how to explain that one apart from sheer, homophobic malice by the RC Church? “It isn’t a real marriage, but we don’t want gays to have it! (???)”

Your smug willingness to shrug and accept that things take the time they take reminds me of this YouTube (take 3 minutes to watch it) in which Robert E. Lee smugly and “wisely” says that God will abolish slavery in His own good time, even if it takes 1000 years. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRdeZSleWHI

This is the sort of stoic patience that is easy when you are not a slave. As a black friend of mine said, it would have been interesting to see how patient Lee would have been if he had to haul his own gray ass out to a cotton field (as well as his descendants for 1000 years). And stoic patience with the Catholic Church is easy when you are not a gay person who was trauimatized by their homophobic brainwashing (aka Catholic Schools).

And while you are on YouTube, watch this 35-second clip by gay, former Catholic British actor Stepen Fry, in debate with Roman Catholics in London. I could not have said it better!

@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.

You may have issues, but I am willing to bet you have no fuckin’ idea what it is like to be a gay teen who received 14 years of Catholic brainwashing, and who sees the RC Church using its power and money to oppose gay rights in the 21st Century. They even oppose access to civil marriage for same-sex couples, even though they do not recognize civil marriage. Does somebody want to tell me how to explain that one apart from sheer, homophobic malice by the RC Church? “It isn’t a real marriage, but we don’t want gays to have it! (???)”

Your smug willingness to shrug and accept that things take the time they take reminds me of this YouTube (take 3 minutes to watch it) in which Robert E. Lee smugly and “wisely” says that God will abolish slavery in His own good time, even if it takes 1000 years. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRdeZSleWHI

This is the sort of stoic patience that is easy when you are not a slave. As a black friend of mine said, it would have been interesting to see how patient Lee would have been if he had to haul his own gray ass out to a cotton field (as well as his descendants for 1000 years). And stoic patience with the Catholic Church is easy when you are not a gay person who was trauimatized by their homophobic brainwashing (aka Catholic Schools).

And while you are on YouTube, watch this 35-second clip by gay, former Catholic British actor Stepen Fry, in debate with Roman Catholics in London. I could not have said it better! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGFS_hkHfCc

[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.

You have missed a third possibility. That they were perfectly willing to let almost every Catholic in the world who was not an expert on Church doctrine believe that Limbo was a doctrine like any other, and then, when the concept of this “land of lost babies” became so revolting, ridiculous and irrelevant that it was no longer defensible, they invoked the escape clause of noting that it was never really a doctrine.

[Bricker]

@Valteron

You have missed a third possibility. That they were perfectly willing to let almost every Catholic in the world who was not an expert on Church doctrine believe that Limbo was a doctrine like any other, and then, when the concept of this “land of lost babies” became so revolting, ridiculous and irrelevant that it was no longer defensible, they invoked the escape clause of noting that it was never really a doctrine.

Yes, I suppose a third possibility is: those who instructed you were well aware that the Church’s teaching was that Limbo was simply a theory, but deliberately taught it to you as an established doctrine.

It’s unclear to me what possible motive they may have had, but I grant you that this is a possibility.

@Valteron

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.

I know you’re speaking sarcastically, but there are absolutely beliefs that many people – even those with Catholic educations – seem to be confused about. One classic example is the Immaculate Conception, which many believe refers to Mary’s pregnancy with Jesus; another is the Pope’s supposedly infallible nature.

[Valteron]

@levdrakon

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.

Please show me where he promises to change the Church’s policy of opposing gay rights initiatives with its political and financial clout. He said gays should be “integrated”. That can mean anything. The Catholic hierarchy in Dominican Republic who protested the appointment of a gay American Ambassador could easily say that they were not opposing his integration into society, just that they did not want such an example before young people in the DR.

Once again, smooth Frank uses a few nice words like “integration” and you jump to the conclusion that this means full acceptance of gay rights.

[Valteron]

@Bricker

Yes, I suppose a third possibility is: those who instructed you were well aware that the Church’s teaching was that Limbo was simply a theory, but deliberately taught it to you as an established doctrine.

It’s unclear to me what possible motive they may have had, but I grant you that this is a possibility.

How is this for a motive: Because at the time the “doctrine that was not a doctrine” of Limbo served to underline the absolute importance of being baptised to get into Heaven. The idea that even innocent babies incapable of sin could not get in without baptism to wash away original sin underlined the majesty and salvation-granting power of the Church and its sacraments, and the universality of original sin. I remember that Limbo was presented in this context by priests and nuns. And since I received 14 years of Catholic education, I am not talking about inaccurate memories of a five-year-old. I was a yopung adult when I received my last Catholic instruction.

In recent years, as more and more people began to be revolted by this idea of the “land of lost babies” that allegedly prove the necessity of the sacraments, the fact that it was a speculative idea and not a doctrine was dusted off and used.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

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.

Well, boy, that really . . .

. . . lowers the bar.

I’m sorry. But if I didn’t someone else would. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

[wonky]

I don’t think Francis is saying anything that wasn’t already doctrine in the RCC, except the part about allowing gay priests. But since he’s contradicting something that Benedict said, and since the next pope can contradict what Francis says, I don’t see why any gay priests or wanna be priests would trust what he says.

I found this article interesting, for those who want to see a pro-SS marriage relevant to Catholicism: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/07/31/a-catholic-case-for-same-sex-marriage/

[Valteron]

@Bricker

Yes, I suppose a third possibility is: those who instructed you were well aware that the Church’s teaching was that Limbo was simply a theory, but deliberately taught it to you as an established doctrine.

It’s unclear to me what possible motive they may have had, but I grant you that this is a possibility.

I know you’re speaking sarcastically, but there are absolutely beliefs that many people – even those with Catholic educations – seem to be confused about. One classic example is the Immaculate Conception, which many believe refers to Mary’s pregnancy with Jesus; another is the Pope’s supposedly infallible nature.

The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s conception by HER parents, free of original sin, yes. And the Pope is reputed infallible when speaking *ex cathedra *on matters of faith and morals. If you are willing to believe me, I know these facts by heart. I did not just look them up in some Catholic encyclopedia. Indeed, a 2010 survey that measured Americans’ knowledge of religion found atheists and agnostics knew more, on average, than followers of most major faiths.

[Bricker]

@Valteron

The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s conception by HER parents, free of original sin, yes. And the Pope is reputed infallible when speaking *ex cathedra *on matters of faith and morals. If you are willing to believe me, I know these facts by heart. I did not just look them up in some Catholic encyclopedia. Indeed, a 2010 survey that measured Americans’ knowledge of religion found atheists and agnostics knew more, on average, than followers of most major faiths.

I believe you – but surely you agree that there’s rampant confusion on both these matters.

[BrainGlutton]

Well, did you read the encyclical written by the Pope?
He says folks with private property ain’t got no hope
The rich ain’t welcome in the Heavenly Palladium –
The Knights of Columbus own Yankee Stadium!
Now, I ain’t sayin’ that the Pope was wrong
But he can easily afford to sing that song
If you want to call him up when you need some dough
His number’s Et Cum Spiri-220!

– Don McLean

[Valteron]

[quote=“Bricker, post:63, topic:664946”]

Yes, I suppose a third possibility is: those who instructed you were well aware that the Church’s teaching was that Limbo was simply a theory, but deliberately taught it to you as an established doctrine.

It’s unclear to me what possible motive they may have had, but I grant you that this is a possibility.QUOTE]

I doubt if the nuns and priests who delivered the idea really knew the entire pedigree of that concept, so I can’t say they intentionally presented it as a doctrine when it was not.

The reason I doubt it is because they were generally ignorant and stupid people who had put their critical faculties into neutral and were ready to assault with a strap any student who questioned what the Church “said”.

(Unfortunately, my poor parents paid considerable sums to have me exposed to these mentally inbred fanatics. It was only when I went to a secular, public school in Ontario for grade 13 that I realized what a quality education was.)

To make a long story short, being strapped for doubting something later revealed to be an optional doctrine or being strapped for doubting a core doctrine would have hurt just as much.

[Valteron]

@Der_Trihs

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.

Nobody says it better than gay British Actor Stephn Fry in this YouTube clip

It is just 35 seconds. If you want to see the whole debate, it is also on YouTube. Fry and the late Christopher Hitchens took on a Catholic Bishop and an RC Member of Parliament in London, on the subject of the Catholic Church. The audience voted before and after to show how many minds had been changed. Fry and Hitchens wiped up the floor with them!!!

[tomndebb]

@Valteron

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.

Well, one way would be to actually read the published works of the RCC over the last couple of millennia and see the actual statements that were made. (In that way, I knew that Limbo was philosophical speculation based on a specific and not universally accepted interpretation of Scripture even before I entered high school nearly 50 years ago.)
Your response is to make up nonsense that claims the church “dusted off” an “old document” to change its teachings, (what teachings? the ones in the “old document,” perhaps?), simply because you were too lazy to go find out what the actual teaching had been–and then blame the church for your failure to actually read the church documents.
::: shrug :::

[Valteron]

@tomndebb

Well, one way would be to actually read the published works of the RCC over the last couple of millennia and see the actual statements that were made. (In that way, I knew that Limbo was philosophical speculation based on a specific and not universally accepted interpretation of Scripture even before I entered high school nearly 50 years ago.)
Your response is to make up nonsense that claims the church “dusted off” an “old document” to change its teachings, (what teachings? the ones in the “old document,” perhaps?), simply because you were too lazy to go find out what the actual teaching had been–and then blame the church for your failure to actually read the church documents.
::: shrug :::

So students have a responsibility to do special research after every religion class to find out when something presented as a church doctrine is or is not really one? I admit I was a nerd, but how much free time do you think I had in high school? And I would have loved to see tyou walking into my religion class with a document contradicting what those fanatics had taught. You would have picked yourself up off the floor!

[Valteron]

@tomndebb

Well, one way would be to actually read the published works of the RCC over the last couple of millennia and see the actual statements that were made. ::: shrug :::

What would you estimate the volume of “the published works of the RCC over the last couple of millennia”, just in case I bump into high school students inclined to read them all some weekend when they don’t have a date?

[akennett]

@Bricker

I know you’re speaking sarcastically, but there are absolutely beliefs that many people – even those with Catholic educations – seem to be confused about. One classic example is the Immaculate Conception, which many believe refers to Mary’s pregnancy with Jesus; another is the Pope’s supposedly infallible nature.

You have to admit, though, that the confusion over the IC is fairly reasonable. I mean, it takes less than 3 seconds worth of thought to go from understanding what that doctrine really is to understanding that it totally negates the need for Jesus.

[wonky]

@akennett

You have to admit, though, that the confusion over the IC is fairly reasonable. I mean, it takes less than 3 seconds worth of thought to go from understanding what that doctrine really is to understanding that it totally negates the need for Jesus.

Shh. The one-time-only special magic was special and one-time-only!

[Inner_Stickler]

@Valteron

So students have a responsibility to do special research after every religion class to find out when something presented as a church doctrine is or is not really one? I admit I was a nerd, but how much free time do you think I had in high school? And I would have loved to see tyou walking into my religion class with a document contradicting what those fanatics had taught. You would have picked yourself up off the floor!

Yeah, the argument seems to be predicated on the idea that the RCC sucks at educating their religious instructors. Which is a novel method of defense.

[BrainGlutton]

Dig these toons! Valteron will appreciate some of them!

[tomndebb]

@Valteron

So students have a responsibility to do special research after every religion class to find out when something presented as a church doctrine is or is not really one? I admit I was a nerd, but how much free time do you think I had in high school? And I would have loved to see tyou walking into my religion class with a document contradicting what those fanatics had taught. You would have picked yourself up off the floor!

The suggestion to read all the church documents was facetious. However, it was never a secret that Limbo was not doctrine. As I noted, I already knew that before I entered high school, and that was before the Second Vatican Council opened. Paying a little more attention to one’s world can reap great benefits, even at a young age.

@Valteron

What would you estimate the volume of “the published works of the RCC over the last couple of millennia”, just in case I bump into high school students inclined to read them all some weekend when they don’t have a date?

Actually, I think you should probably always simply ignore anything spoken or published by anyone in the RCC. Regardless whether you misunderstand what they said, (a frequent occurrence), or understand them perfectly, (which happens occasionally), it always raises your blood pressure and has no real bearing on either your life or the church.