A Pope for our time?

[keefe]

Thank god you were you using the Zoomie personality as a form of birth control.  It is of course a natural form acceptable to the church

The Zoom Bag is like catnip, man. Dropping panties since 1926!

[muwarrior69]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/10/13/bishops-say-gays-have-gifts-to-offer-church-positive-aspects-civil-unions/?intcmp=latestnews

Looks like change is coming.

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/10/13/bishops-say-gays-have-gifts-to-offer-church-positive-aspects-civil-unions/?intcmp=latestnews

Looks like change is coming.

Looks like the media jumped the gun and didn't translate very well.  It's always amazing to me how many stories come out in the first hours after he speaks that are so dead wrong or go way too far on what wasn't said, but implied to have been said.  Makes me think SixStrings is writing this stuff.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390228/great-catholic-cave-wasnt-george-weigel

http://www.newsweek.com/what-did-vatican-really-say-about-gay-marriage-yesterday-catholics-disagree-277360

[brandx]

I guess their love for gays only extends as far as the priesthood, huh?

[WellsstreetWanderer]

I guess their love for gays only extends as far as the priesthood, huh?

That went well.
However, I support inclusion of all in Catholicism and think the Pope is moving the creaking, sagging old wagon incrementally forward.

[ChicosBailBonds]

That went well.
However, I support inclusion of all in Catholicism and think the Pope is moving the creaking, sagging old wagon incrementally forward.

I don't understand Brand's comments as that isn't the case at all, but whatever.   I'm not aware of a major religion in the world that supports gay marriage, so this is hardly surprising that Catholicism doesn't either.

The question becomes what do institutions stand for and if they change at every whim, does that mean the institutions require any rigidity at all?  That is a general question that can be applied to many institutions. 

My nephew is gay, going to his gay wedding next Summer.  Looking forward to it.  On the other hand, I don't hold it against the Catholic church either if they adhering to 1000's of hears of church dogma in setting doctrine.   

[Coleman]

I don't understand Brand's comments as that isn't the case at all, but whatever.   I'm not aware of a major religion in the world that supports gay marriage, so this is hardly surprising that Catholicism doesn't either.

The question becomes what do institutions stand for and if they change at every whim, does that mean the institutions require any rigidity at all?  That is a general question that can be applied to many institutions.  

My nephew is gay, going to his gay wedding next Summer.  Looking forward to it.  On the other hand, I don't hold it against the Catholic church either if they adhering to 1000's of hears of church dogma in setting doctrine.  

Many Christian denominations support gay marriage. Episcopalians/Anglicans are an example. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has spoken in favor of marriage equality. There have even been openly gay (as in, with partners) bishops.

Outside of Christianity, it is a mixed bag. Ask a reformed Jewish rabbi and he may be in full support of it. An Orthodox Jew may not. Many Buddhists support gay rights. Most Muslims do not.

It's a mixed bag, but many religions do in fact support it or at least have nothing against gay marriage. Just wanted to educate you since you said you were not aware of any.

The Catholic Church has changed its position on moral issues many times. Slavery is an obvious example. Many popes released papal bulls endorsing slavery by Catholic nations, such as Spain. They realized their mistake centuries later. Religious freedom is another example. Up until Vatican II the official position of the church was that people could be forced to become Catholic, and that was ok. Now that is universally recognized as a violation of human rights. So, it would certainly not be unprecedented for the Church to change its position on an issue such as marriage equality or welcoming gays in the Church.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Many Christian denominations support gay marriage. Episcopalians/Anglicans are an example. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has spoken in favor of marriage equality. There have even been openly gay (as in, with partners) bishops.

Outside of Christianity, it is a mixed bag. Ask a reformed Jewish rabbi and he may be in full support of it. An Orthodox Jew may not. Many Buddhists support gay rights. Most Muslims do not.

It's a mixed bag, but many religions do in fact support it or at least have nothing against gay marriage. Just wanted to educate you since you said you were not aware of any.

The Catholic Church has changed its position on moral issues many times. Slavery is an obvious example. Many popes released papal bulls endorsing slavery by Catholic nations, such as Spain. They realized their mistake centuries later. Religious freedom is another example. Up until Vatican II the official position of the church was that people could be forced to become Catholic, and that was ok. Now that is universally recognized as a violation of human rights. So, it would certainly not be unprecedented for the Church to change its position on an issue such as marriage equality or welcoming gays in the Church.

Appreciate the response.  Maybe a better clarifying statement by me, "I'm not aware of any major religion performing gay marriages".  If there is, I'll need further education.  Presbyterians are the only one I'm aware of, though I'm not sure I would classify them as a major religion.  Some of those in the table below that support it and listed as "major", I think they're being a bit generous with their sizing.  Will things change?  Probably.

[Eldon]

One thing to add in all of this is the distinction between being pro gay marriage generally and pro gay marriage within the Church.

There are many devout religious people I know who don't care to much about the gay marriage issue (some even support it), but only in a secular setting; they are opposed to gay marriage happening in the Church however.  So the position would be one of 'why should I care what the state "blesses," so long as it is not happening in my parish/other parishes in the Church'.

[Coleman]

Appreciate the response.  Maybe a better clarifying statement by me, "I'm not aware of any major religion performing gay marriages".  If there is, I'll need further education.  Presbyterians are the only one I'm aware of, though I'm not sure I would classify them as a major religion.  Some of those in the table below that support it and listed as "major", I think they're being a bit generous with their sizing.  Will things change?  Probably.

That's a good chart. It pretty much exactly expresses what I was trying to say. Pretty mixed bag.

I find it extremely interesting that many, many Christians use the Old Testament as justification of their prohibitions of same sex marriage when Reform and Conservative Jews have embraced it without issue.

[tower912]

 I recognize that many religions may never do anything other than condemn gay marriage.    IMO, though, the equal protection clause of the constitution should make it legal.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United Stantes and of the State wherein they reside.   No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[GGGG]

The question becomes what do institutions stand for and if they change at every whim, does that mean the institutions require any rigidity at all?  That is a general question that can be applied to many institutions.

Simply, put those institutions can be wrong.  They have been wrong previously.  They most certainly can be wrong again.

Maybe I am being too simple, but I tend to try to think about these things through the "Greatest Commandment" from Matthew 22.

"34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"

37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

So when I think of issues like gay marriage, I ask myself "OK, where am I showing the most love, compassion and empathy?"  And when I see church policies that exclude rather than include, regardless if they are Catholic, Protestant or even Christian, I think that Jesus Christ may have had a problem with it.

In summary, perhaps we are more like the Pharisees and Sadducees than we would like to admit.

[muwarrior69]

And Jesus said to him: Why dost thou call me good? None is good but God alone. Lk:18:19 KJV

We should all take pause in that.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Simply, put those institutions can be wrong.  They have been wrong previously.  They most certainly can be wrong again.

Maybe I am being too simple, but I tend to try to think about these things through the "Greatest Commandment" from Matthew 22.

"34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"

37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

So when I think of issues like gay marriage, I ask myself "OK, where am I showing the most love, compassion and empathy?"  And when I see church policies that exclude rather than include, regardless if they are Catholic, Protestant or even Christian, I think that Jesus Christ may have had a problem with it.

In summary, perhaps we are more like the Pharisees and Sadducees than we would like to admit.

"Everyone is welcome in the kingdom of God... well, except for dudes who like dudes." - Jesus.

[Lennys Tap]

The question becomes what do institutions stand for and if they change at every whim, does that mean the institutions require any rigidity at all?  That is a general question that can be applied to many institutions. 

Well, if the Catholic Church continues to "stand for" the idea that living a homosexual lifestyle is sinful and punishable by eternal damnation its relevancy in the USA will continue to diminish. This is a basic civil rights issue to our children and the "this is what we've held for centuries" line won't cut it with them.

[Coleman]

Well, if the Catholic Church continues to "stand for" the idea that living a homosexual lifestyle is sinful and punishable by eternal damnation its relevancy in the USA will continue to diminish. This is a basic civil rights issue to our children and the "this is what we've held for centuries" line won't cut it with them.

Yup

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/17/young-catholic-gay-pew_n_6006328.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000051

[ATWizJr]

Well, if the Catholic Church continues to "stand for" the idea that living a homosexual lifestyle is sinful and punishable by eternal damnation its relevancy in the USA will continue to diminish. This is a basic civil rights issue to our children and the "this is what we've held for centuries" line won't cut it with them.

It's not important to the Catholic Church to be relevant. Or fashionable.  Or hip.

[g0lden3agle]

Well, if the Catholic Church continues to "stand for" the idea that living a homosexual lifestyle is sinful and punishable by eternal damnation its relevancy in the USA will continue to diminish. This is a basic civil rights issue to our children and the "this is what we've held for centuries" line won't cut it with them.

I'm going to take this a step closer to locksville - You can think something is sinful and punishable by eternal damnation but still support someone's right to conduct themselves in that manner.

[brandx]

I'm going to take this a step closer to locksville - You can think something is sinful and punishable by eternal damnation but still support someone's right to conduct themselves in that manner.

Not lockable at all - sounds like plain old, common sense to me.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Not lockable at all - sounds like plain old, common sense to me.

And to me too.

[GGGG]

It's not important to the Catholic Church to be relevant. Or fashionable.  Or hip.

The last two I agree with.  But the first?  I am sure that the Catholic Church wants to be relevant. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well, if the Catholic Church continues to "stand for" the idea that living a homosexual lifestyle is sinful and punishable by eternal damnation its relevancy in the USA will continue to diminish. This is a basic civil rights issue to our children and the "this is what we've held for centuries" line won't cut it with them.

That may be the case, but I suspect that doesn't matter to many.  I'm guessing most young Catholics don't believe in going to church, giving to the church, etc, etc, either.  That also makes them less relevant.  Secondly, how does civil rights have anything to do with the Church's stance?  The church cannot stop two people of the same sex from marrying, so their civil rights aren't in question or in any way held back. 

Back to my statement, is the church's role to guide the flock or have the flock guide the church.  I don't know the answer to that, but if it is the former they aren't going to particularly care.  They aren't here to be popular.  The priests in our parrish are supportive of gay rights, but don't believe the church should be marrying gays.  Seems to me, you can do both.  It is simply a question of religion, gay people can get married by the gov't.

[Eldon]

That may be the case, but I suspect that doesn't matter to many.  I'm guessing most young Catholics don't believe in going to church, giving to the church, etc, etc, either.  That also makes them less relevant.  Secondly, how does civil rights have anything to do with the Church's stance?  The church cannot stop two people of the same sex from marrying, so their civil rights aren't in question or in any way held back. 

Back to my statement, is the church's role to guide the flock or have the flock guide the church.  I don't know the answer to that, but if it is the former they aren't going to particularly care.  They aren't here to be popular.  The priests in our parrish are supportive of gay rights, but don't believe the church should be marrying gays.  Seems to me, you can do both.  It is simply a question of religion, gay people can get married by the gov't.

Very well put

[ATWizJr]

The last two I agree with.  But the first?  I am sure that the Catholic Church wants to be relevant. 

semantics, but i see your point.

[g0lden3agle]

Thoughts on this?

http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/20/news/companies/porsche-sistine-chapel/