I don’t think this properly characterizes Benedict’s remarks, despite the very wide reporting of them as such. His original statement:
In other words: although the use of condoms by male prostitutes remains morally vincible error (in his view), it could at least have the upside of indicating a desire to avoid spreading HIV. In any event he nowhere says “Go ahead, male prostitutes, use condoms.”
Honestly, I didn’t even see much backlash from conservative elements (beyond that unavoidable and vocal contingent of “bring back the Latin mass!” quasi-sedevacantists). But I did notice a lot of comment that Benedict now sanctioned condom use, sufficient to explain the Vatican’s speedy clarification.
…
Others are correct that you misunderstand papal infallibility. It’s also true that there are a lot of (minor) positions with which it is expressly okay to disagree with the Church. Nevertheless you’re quite right that the Church is meant to be regarded as a lasting institution, above the vagaries of popular opinion; and that its leaders intend it to evolve only insofar as it does not contradict prior established dogma. If the Church did state tomorrow that artificial conception were perfectly acceptable, it would mean the end of the Catholic Church as we know it.
I disagree. It’s my understanding that the process is unacceptable because it usually involves the creation of fertilized eggs which are not implanted. Rejection of a fertilized egg for any reason, even danger to the Mother (if there were 10 for example) or obvious deformity (if they could tell the resulting fetus would have substantial malformations) is considered murder. The doctors won’t perform the process under these requirements, so the whole thing has been deemed unacceptable.
I do think though, that there’s plenty of room for acceptance by the church if the process should become so precise and reliable that every fertilization would result in a pregnancy.
I dunno man, he survived being thrown down an apparently bottomless pit by his top-level manager without any repercussions. He’s obviously in good health.
Er, oops. Somehow I mistyped; I meant contraception and not artificial conception. For what it’s worth I agree that there’s a little more wiggle room in that particular example, although there’ll always be persons who cast weary eyes on any mucking with human reproduction.
Yep I agree that they are bigots but they can still be right in their own eyes, just as any group or person can. If your religious belief runs against secular law then we have a problem, but holding a view is not in itself morally wrong.
An reverse example might be capital punishment, I find morally bankrupt for someone to take a life in this way but a lot of religious folk will say “hang 'em high” and people vote for it. So again if enough people get active about something we can change it.
No, the Pope being infallible on certain things didn’t really become a defined thing until the 1870s. Before then, it was a maybe thing, with some people saying yes, and some people saying no.
Beyond that, I think it’s a Catholic vs Protestant thing. When their church teaches something they can’t stand, good Protestants find a church they agree with. Good Catholics just ignore the teaching.
And I believe that there have been only two ex cathedra statements since then, both dealing with the Immaculate Conception of Mary*. In order for a statement to be considered infallible, I believe the Pope has to say it is so, and there probably has to be some specific ceremoney to it. I’m guessing he can’t just come out tomorrow and say, “I declare, infallibly, that green is an evil color, and any Catholic who wears it is going to Hell.”
*The Immaculate Conception does NOT refer to the virgin birth, but the belief that Mary was born without Original Sin. It’s uniquely a Catholic teaching.
I would have thought the same thing happened there that is happening now with homosexuality - people didn’t agree with parts of the Bible that justified the practice decided to ignore it. But I’m certain that at the time there were probably a ton of people who just wouldn’t shut the fuck up with saying “but it’s okay for me to own niggers, the Bible says so!”.
The difference between then and now is that our societies differ - theirs was almost entire Christian so it wasn’t true believers vs non-believers and believers lite, it was a disagreement between those who agreed with the practice of slavery and those that didn’t. Religious justification was just one part of the debate.
Now we have a society in which religion can be a dimension, but only for people who actually have it, and that isn’t everyone. But within that section who aren’t religious, there are people who hold that religious belief is a valid exception when it comes to holding views at odds with society, no matter how strange (have you met a Hassidic Jew or extreme Ahmish? I mean come on!). You also have the counteraction of a religious segment that feel the need to rely on the religious argument that much more because it’s becoming less relevant - it’s going out of fashion, they know it and so they’ve just turned up the volume. The tide continues to move against them and we’ll have normalisation of views on homosexuality eventually, and we’ll look back on it being illegal and there not being legal equality as a sad an unenlightened time (it’s already happening in many countries).
No it doesn’t. You justify it by showing how it doesn’t violate the law. In the U.S., the church is effectively subservient to the law. I don’t know why people pretend it isn’t.
Now, of course, you can, via your new religion, advocate for changing the law. But the idea that you can still break the law because your religion tells you you can is not found in our legal system.
As for our moral system: how many people do you know that break the law because of their religion? I’m not aware of any, but surely you have some in mind, Because, apparently, this is supposed to be accepted by the majority as being okay.
Faith being the foundation of our morality and thereby legal system is pure fiction anyway:
Just for Christianity (the religion in which I’m told our nation was founded on)
10 Commandments:
‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’ LEGAL TO BRAKE
‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.’ LEGAL
‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.’ LEGAL TO BRAKE
‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’ LEGAL TO BRAKE
‘Honor your father and your mother.’ LEGAL TO BRAKE
‘You shall not murder.’ YEAH GOT ME, THAT’S ONE
‘You shall not commit adultery.’ STILL LEGAL, ASK NEWT
‘You shall not steal.’ 2 for 8
‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’ IN COURT ITS PURGERY, ANYWHERE ELSE ITS LEGAL.
‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.’ LEGAL
The only two statements made by a pope that are considered infallible are the Assumption of Mary to heaven and the Immaculate Conception. Every other statement regarded as infallible was promulgated by a council of bishops representing the vast majority of the church. (That is why the issue of papal infallibility is still argued inside the church–it was only declared at the end of 1869, (in reaction to Pius IX’s declaration about the Assumption), and has only been invoked one more time, in 1950. It does not have any long tradition of acceptance, first being suggested, but not actually stated, at the Council of Florence.)