Pope Endorses Same-Sex Civil Unions

[Nearly Sane]

Progress from Frankie


https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5f904704c5b6b005f5f1ac35/amp?__twitter_impression=true

[Owlswing]

Progress from Frankie

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5f904704c5b6b005f5f1ac35/amp?__twitter_impression=true

About bloody time!

Talk about dragging Catholicism kicking and screaming into the 21st Century!

[Roses]

Frankie is the best Pope the RCC has had since Pope John XX111. Frankie wants to watch his back there were rumours that Pope John was taken out as he was too liberal for the RCC's liking.

[Robbie]

Rumours,rumours. Where owuld we be without conspiracy stories?
I agree with you about Francis, he's a good egg.

[Roses]

I am not saying those rumours are true, however the unpleasant reputation of the RCC over the centuries has given them some credibility, imo.

[ippy]

The debate about 'Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good in the World' is available on YouTube, Steven Fry's contribution is enough of a summing up on its own.

Geoffrey Robertson QC's book 'The Case of the Pope' is a very good read too.

Both of these summings up of Catholicism together tell most people who will listen and will take it all in all they need to know about this disreputable organisation.

ippy.

[Owlswing]

The debate about 'Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good in the World' is available on YouTube, Steven Fry's contribution is enough of a summing up on its own.

Geoffrey Robertson QC's book 'The Case of the Pope' is a very good read too.

Both of these summings up of Catholicism together tell most people who will listen and will take it all in all they need to know about this disreputable organisation.

ippy.

This debate is brilliant - the Archbishop and Anne Widdicome could not have done the Catholic stance more damage if they had tried! Fry and Hitchins destroyed them! The looks and their faces when the voting was announced at the end were priceless!

Owlswing

)O(

[ippy]

This debate is brilliant - the Archbishop and Anne Widdicome could not have done the Catholic stance more damage if they had tried! Fry and Hitchins destroyed them! The looks and their faces when the voting was announced at the end were priceless!

Owlswing

)O(

I was there Owl and just after Steven Fry demolished them about forty to fifty, I assume they were Catholics, all walked out en bulk, it was a terrific occasion what an evening.

ippy 

[Nearly Sane]

I was there Owl and just after Steven Fry demolished them about forty to fifty, I assume they were Catholics, all walked out en bulk, it was a terrific occasion what an evening.

ippy

As ever those who rejoice in 'debate victories', enjoy a shallow idea. I could easily post a number of debates where Willian Lane Craig wins and wins the audience but you would, and should conclude that that doesn't give any evidence of something being true.

[Owlswing]

 As ever those who rejoice in 'debate victories', enjoy a shallow idea. I could easily post a number of debates where Willian Lane Craig wins and wins the audience but you would, and should conclude that that doesn't give any evidence of something being true.

I don't agree.

The points made that were stated in order to show that the "bad" eclipsed "good" quite clearly changed the views of a significant number of those who, in the beginning, agreed with the subject of the debate.

OK, they were, the total audience, a minimal percentage of the population of the UK, of the city of London, of Catholics and/or non-Catholics in those same locations, but that does not change the fact that the alteration in entry votes and the end of debate vote was in favour of the 'No's' and not the 'Yes's' which, by my way of thinking indicates a striking win for the 'No's'!

The vote stated that as far as the audience was concerned the statement that "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the World" was NOT true!"

Owlswing

)O(
 

[Nearly Sane]

I don't agree.

The points made that were stated in order to show that the "bad" eclipsed "good" quite clearly changed the views of a significant number of those who, in the beginning, agreed with the subject of the debate.

OK, they were, the total audience, a minimal percentage of the population of the UK, of the city of London, of Catholics and/or non-Catholics in those same locations, but that does not change the fact that the alteration in entry votes and the end of debate vote was in favour of the 'No's' and not the 'Yes's' which, by my way of thinking indicates a striking win for the 'No's'!

The vote stated that as far as the audience was concerned the statement that "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the World" was NOT true!"

Owlswing

)O(

Debate is, in the main, a skill, a trick. The same argument you have made can, as I pointed  out and you ignored  be made about debates with William Lane Craig. It shows nothing other than the skill of those debating.

As for the numbers voting for something, that's just  an ad populum argument.

[Roses]

I wonder if the Pope might consider the possibility of Catholic priests marrying, be they gay or straight? That  would be a huge step forward.

[SteveH]

Frankie is the best Pope the RCC has had since Pope John XX111. Frankie wants to watch his back there were rumours that Pope John was taken out as he was too liberal for the RCC's liking.

What nonsense. He was 81, ffs!

[Nearly Sane]

What nonsense. He was 81, ffs!

I think LR may be thinking about JP1 as regards rumours  of his 'removal'

[Roses]

I think LR may be thinking about JP1 as regards rumours  of his 'removal'

WHOOPS thanks for that NM, yes did I mean John-Paul 1st.

[SteveH]

WHOOPS thanks for that NM, yes did I mean John-Paul 1st.

 

[Owlswing]

    (In response to LR)

And, of course, you have never, in your entire life, made a mistake!

Owlswing

)O(

[SteveH]

And, of course, you have never, in your entire life, made a mistake!

Owlswing

)O(

Of course I have - and if someone put a rolling-eyes emoji in response, that'd be fair comment.

[Robbie]

It's still a nasty rumour about the demise of JP1. Why on earth would anyone have wanted to murder him hoenstly. He was a good man by all accounts.

I don't think Francis is endorsing same sex unions but he is not bothered about them, doesn't consider them sinful. I agree that he is the right pope for the times, very compassionate and not bothered about the letter of the law.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think Francis is endorsing same sex unions but he is not bothered about them, doesn't consider them sinful. I agree that he is the right pope for the times, very compassionate and not bothered about the letter of the law.

But on so many issues within the RCC it is actions needed, not words. And this is where Francis seems to fail - regularly he comes out with comments that appear progressive and a prelude to change, but this is rapidly followed by the church hierarchy dismissing them as merely personal opinion not papal dictate etc and nothing changes.

He seems to have very little authority and nothing seems to change. In a weird way I'd prefer a pope who is overtly conservative who will therefore mean critics of the RCC wont take their eye off the ball. The notion that he seems to be a nice, compassionate guy stands for nothing if he changes nothing, which seems to be the case. Worse if it means that people stop being critics of the RCC and challenging the organisation to change simply because the pope seems popular. We've been here before - JPII gained popularity way beyond core catholics and many saw him as modern and a breath of fresh air - yet his actual record was one of obdurate conservatism and as a road-block to reform, progress and change. Don't go down the same route with Francis - judge him on his record of changing things not on warm words which are a smokescreen masking no progress.

[Owlswing]

But on so many issues within the RCC it is actions needed, not words. And this is where Francis seems to fail - regularly he comes out with comments that appear progressive and a prelude to change, but this is rapidly followed by the church hierarchy dismissing them as merely personal opinion not papal dictate etc and nothing changes.

He seems to have very little authority and nothing seems to change. In a weird way, I'd prefer a pope who is overtly conservative who will therefore mean critics of the RCC won't take their eye off the ball. The notion that he seems to be a nice, compassionate guy stands for nothing if he changes nothing, which seems to be the case. Worse if it means that people stop being critics of the RCC and challenging the organisation to change simply because the pope seems popular. We've been here before - JPII gained popularity way beyond core Catholics and many saw him as modern and a breath of fresh air - yet his actual record was one of obdurate conservatism and as a road-block to reform, progress and change. Don't go down the same route with Francis - judge him on his record of changing things, not on warm words which are a smokescreen masking no progress.

Too bleedin' right!

Owlswing

)O(

[Robbie]

We could do with one or two practising Catholics, preferably moderate, on here to give their points of view, they would understand it better than any of us.

I know plenty of Catholics and always have some of whom I count as friends since childhood, a couple of clergy and a Justice & Peace group, but we've never talked about popes :-), neither would it occur to me to raise the subject. I expect they have opinions on the papacy though.

[ProfessorDavey]

We could do with one or two practising Catholics, preferably moderate, on here to give their points of view, they would understand it better than any of us.

I know plenty of Catholics and always have some of whom I count as friends since childhood, a couple of clergy and a Justice & Peace group, but we've never talked about popes :-), neither would it occur to me to raise the subject. I expect they have opinions on the papacy though.

As someone married to a practicing catholic (as are her family) I can give some insight, at least from a UK catholic perspective.

First I think the view of catholics on popes is perhaps a bit similar to the view of monarchists on the monarch. What I mean is that you get the person you get and there isn't much debate about whether they are good or bad as it isn't going to change (unless the pope chooses) so discussion is rather pointless. So the pope you have at the moment is the best (or worst) you can have - end of story.

But there is another point - the views of UK catholics on issues such as homosexuality, contraception, abortion, women priests etc etc is far, far closer to the mainstream views of non catholics than it is to the orthodox teaching of the RCC. So rank and file catholics routinely disagree and ignore the teaching of the church on those matters, in which case it makes little difference whether the current pope is more liberal or more conservative as it isn't going to change the views and actions of individual catholics.

[Alan Burns]

There is a worrying modern trend for pandering to popular opinion instead of seeking the truth of God's will through prayer and scripture.  This is seen even in the Roman Catholic church with the RC bishops of England and Wales endorsing the compulsory teaching of LGBT issues in primary schools, and even in the Bishop of Rome's recent comments.  My wife and I, along with many of our local congregation and our local priest feel deeply concerned about this.

The teachings of Jesus were not popular - He was crucified for them.
The posts on this thread certainly confirm that Pope Francis current proclamation is very popular, but is it God's will or the will of the people?  The Christian bible warns us that the ways of the world are not God's ways.

[Aruntraveller]

The teachings of Jesus were not popular

And yet Jesus is not recorded as having uttered one word about homosexuality.

Education about LGBT issues is necessary to combat some of the prejudice still rife in society.

You need proof, read your post.