Pope Endorses Same-Sex Civil Unions

[Nearly Sane]

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.

Homophobic drivel

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There is a worrying modern trend for pandering to popular opinion instead of seeking the truth of God's will through prayer and scripture.

“God's will through prayer and scripture” is just a faith belief you happen to have. So far at least, you’ve provided no sound reasons to think there’s any such thing. 

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.

The “compulsory teaching of LGBT issues in primary schools” is just the explanation to children that these “issues” exist and that there’s nothing to be ashamed of by those who experience them.     

My wife and I, along with many of our local congregation and our local priest feel deeply concerned about this.

Really? Why? First, what consenting adults choose to do in private is none of your (or your wife’s or your congregation’s) business, and second what possible difference would the fact of LGBT issues make to your lives?

The teachings of Jesus were not popular - He was crucified for them.

So the story goes, but in any case so far as I know Jesus was entirely silent on LGBT issues in any case.

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.

Other supposedly “holy” books are available. 

[Roses]

I wonder if Jesus didn't condemn homosexuality because he was gay? It is stated that he had a specific disciple whom he loved, presumably male.  Some Christians will claim it was referring to his brother, but there is no verifiable evidence he had any siblings.

[Nearly Sane]

....
Other supposedly “holy” books are available.

They are mostly filled with homophobic drivel too, though

[Stranger]

The Christian bible warns us that the ways of the world are not God's ways.

By condoning slavery, genocide, and homophobic bigotry...

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

They are mostly filled with homophobic drivel too, though

True enough, though some denominations at least do seem to be a bit more enlightened than others on this issue:

"At the same time, in the past two decades, several other religious groups also have moved to allow same-sex couples to marry within their traditions. This includes the Reform and Conservative Jewish movements, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ."

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/21/where-christian-churches-stand-on-gay-marriage/

Maybe AB should consider changing allegiance?   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

True enough, though some denominations at least do seem to be a bit more enlightened than others on this issue:

"At the same time, in the past two decades, several other religious groups also have moved to allow same-sex couples to marry within their traditions. This includes the Reform and Conservative Jewish movements, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ."

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/21/where-christian-churches-stand-on-gay-marriage/

Maybe AB should consider changing allegiance?

Yep, they have moved but they then cherry pick from their holy books which are filled with homophobic drivel. And I assume AB does too, unless he thinks it was ok to beat slaves as long as they didn't die

[Harrowby Hall]

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.

But if God made the world, then the way the world behaves must be God's way.

The RC view of sex and sexual behaviour is essentially developed from the writings of a 13th century monk named Thomas Acquinas, whose inspirational sources were from Aristotelian natural philosophy not the bible.  The RC view of sexual behaviour has been that the sole purpose of coitus is reproduction (encouraged to ensure that the pews would always be full) and that coitus for any other purpose is sinful. After all, if you look at any other type of creature, sexual activity is followed by pregnancy.

The way the human world behaves is different from the animal world. Coitus, in fact sexual behaviour generally, serves a totally different purpose: it provides a mutual reward to the participants and encourages the maintenance of a close, affective relationship. From a purely procreational point of view, what purpose does sex serve for a post-menopausal woman?

Unlike any other animal on Earth, homo sapiens takes the best part of 20 years to reach full adulthood. The purpose of sexual behaviour can also be to ensure that human offspring are given the opportunity to develop in a relatively protective environment so that they stand a good chance of reaching adulthood. This, surely, is more likely to have been "God's way" than "be fruitful and multiply".

And as for non-reproductive, same sex, relationships? Mutual reward brings security, safety and fulfilment. Two people of the same sex may also have parental responsibilities. Their relationship affords stability for children in just the same way as a heterosexual relationship does. For a "loving God" this seems to be much more likely to me.

And how do we know that Jesus wasn't gay, anyway?

[Owlswing]

I don't know if he was gay or not, but in the opinion of at least half a dozen girls in my Second Form R E class stated that they considered him a total wanker!

[Robbie]

I didn't know you taught RE Owlswing! Would love to be a fly on the wall.

[Owlswing]

I didn't know you taught RE Owlswing! Would love to be a fly on the wall.

Oh, I wish!

My RE teacher at the time was a little lady named Mrs Williams - Full-blown no-nonsense Chapel!

Owlswing

)O(

[Nearly Sane]

Oh, I wish!

My RE teacher at the time was a little lady named Mrs Williams - Full-blown no-nonsense Chapel!

Owlswing

)O(

I was quite lucky because I went to a Jesuit school they didn't actually bother with much of that. They were much more interested in exam results

[Robbie]

Owl, I wuz teazing u.

NS agree the Jes are highly academic. I have friend who was at Jesuit school with his brother and their dad went to prison. The Jesuits refused to take any school fees for the rest of the time they were there. Both brothers went to Oxford and did well, have fond memories of their school. Their sister on the other hand had to leave her posh convent school, other parents objected. Huh!

Back to pope - I bet Francis would have had a few words to say to that convent if he'd been the Pope then & known about it.

[Alan Burns]

The RC view of sexual behaviour has been that the sole purpose of coitus is reproduction (encouraged to ensure that the pews would always be full) and that coitus for any other purpose is sinful.

You are wrong, Harrowby.
The RC church teaches that sex within marriage has a twofold purpose.  To quote from item 2363 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"... the good of the spouses themselves, and the transmission of life"
and from item 2362:
"Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure"

[jeremyp]

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.

I think, if you are going to argue that homosexuality is wrong or should have restrictions placed on it e.g. not allowing same sex marriage, you should at least have an understanding of the thing you are against.

What are you frightened of? That people might realise you are wrong?

[ProfessorDavey]

A case in point of his timidity in action:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55617851

While he might talk the talk of being more progressive - in terms of actions they are either zero or, as in this case, so mind-bogglingly limited as to be almost insulting. Either he is terrified of the uber-traditionalist and uber-conservatives or he is, in reality totally uninterested in reforming and modernising the RCC but merely wants to be seen as a progressive by making the occasional pronouncement.

Lets not forget he's been pope for nearly 8 years now - in all that time what has he actually done (deeds not words) to move the RCC forward.

[Robbie]

You make good point there NearlyS even allowing for the fact that the wheesl of Rome turn slowly. He's not entirely his own man though is he, can't just change protocols because he wants to. From what I understand a dogma cannot be pronounced without an international survey taking place first so probably similar for changing church teachings.

I suppose you could say he is laying the ground work. He's very popular at present so will have some effect in time but we don't know how long he will last.

[ProfessorDavey]

You make good point there NearlyS even allowing for the fact that the wheesl of Rome turn slowly. He's not entirely his own man though is he, can't just change protocols because he wants to. From what I understand a dogma cannot be pronounced without an international survey taking place first so probably similar for changing church teachings.

I suppose you could say he is laying the ground work. He's very popular at present so will have some effect in time but we don't know how long he will last.

I think there is a further issue, which is that society is moving on. If the RCC moves to modernise at a snail's pace or not at all then all the time it becomes further and further detached from mainstream norms in society.

So I'd argue that the RCC is more out of touch with mainstream society today than it even has been (or certainly in centuries) as its failure to change means it is left behind by a rapidly changing society. So back in the 1950s then the RCC would have been fairly mainstream in its attitudes to women and gay people - now it is polls apart. And the notion that somehow allowing women to serve as lay alter-servers (but not deacons let alone priests) just seems so out of touch in 2021, not just with mainstream societal positions, but I suspect the mainstream views of rank and file catholics.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You are wrong, Harrowby.
The RC church teaches that sex within marriage has a twofold purpose.  To quote from item 2363 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"... the good of the spouses themselves, and the transmission of life"
and from item 2362:
"Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure"

Except of course it's a rigged deal because the RCC also teaches that marriage can only be heterosexual, so the "source of joy and pleasure" should be denied to homosexual couples. Does anything strike you as unreasonable about that?

Anything at all? 

 

[ProfessorDavey]

AB,

Except of course it's a rigged deal because the RCC also teaches that marriage can only be heterosexual, so the "source of joy and pleasure" should be denied to homosexual couples. Does anything strike you as unreasonable about that?

Anything at all? 

 

And also catechism 2358 described homosexuality as 'objectively disordered' - for something to be objectively anything their must be an objectively justified approach to determining this. In this case there is clearly not - what they mean is that in the opinion of the RCC homosexuality is disordered - there is no objectivity whatsoever to this claim, merely a subjective opinion.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are wrong, Harrowby.
The RC church teaches that sex within marriage has a twofold purpose.  To quote from item 2363 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"... the good of the spouses themselves, and the transmission of life"

Nice bit of selective quoting AB.

Sure 2363 indicates that sex has a twofold purpose, but it goes one to indicate that those two purposes cannot be separated, as follows:

'These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family. The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.'

So in effect you are not allowed to simply just enjoy sex as a pleasurable act as to do so would separate it from the other 'purpose' - fertility, i.e. the transmission of life. Presumably from this edict flows the non-sense of considering contraception to be a no-no, as it separates the pleasure of sex from its perceived purpose of fertility. Nonsense on stilts and also hugely damaging to societies across the world, whether by preventing condom use to stop the spread of HIV or preventing couples from making sensible and responsible decisions (for them and the planet) about the number of children they choose to have.

[Robbie]

Prof Davey post 42
I think you are probably right about that, Prof.

[Owlswing]

Prof Davey post 42

I think you are probably right about that, Prof.

Only probably. Robbie?

I would say it is an absolute racing certainty!

Owlswing

)O(

[Robbie]

Entirely possible, Owl  .

[Owlswing]

Entirely possible, Owl  .

Bloody Hell! Did I actually get something right!

Where the F's my diary, I just gotta note this!

Thanks Robbie!

Owlswing

)O(