• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Pope Francis removes from Vatican doctrine office archbishop who is believed to have banned same-sex

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Either Catholicism is false and it will compromise and therefore defect or Catholicism is true and secular modernity will become a historical footnote. (Or Christ will come and end the world).
So, do you believe Vatican II was and is evil?
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
ROME (AP) — Pope Francis took the first step Monday to reorganize the Vatican’s powerful doctrine office, removing the No. 2 official widely believed responsible for a controversial document barring blessings for same-sex couples because God “cannot bless sin.”

He was widely seen as being behind the March 2021 document that outraged the gay community, which Francis has made pains to welcome into the church fold.The document declared that the Catholic Church won’t bless same-sex unions because God “cannot bless sin.” The document said Francis had been informed of the document and “gave his assent” to its publication, but Francis was apparently taken by surprise by its impact.

Francis has since made several gestures of outreach to the gay Catholic community and their advocates, including a recent letter congratulating an American nun once sanctioned by the CDF, Sister Jeannine Gramick, on her 50 years of LGBTQ ministry.

Pope Francis removes from Vatican doctrine office archbishop who is believed to have banned same-sex blessings | America Magazine

The Christian religion is a religion of hatred (not love). They hate Gays (among others). Anyone, like pope Francis, who sticks up for Gays, becomes an instant target of the hate-filled people that he tends. They might assume that anyone who supports Gays is Gay themselves.

This "guilt by help" association was also apparent in the deep south when people came to the rescue of Blacks, only to be called N-lovers, and thoroughly despised.

Hatred spreads. This is why it is so important not to hate in the first place.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that happening, to be honest. I think it's a possibility based upon the apathetic and prejudicial attitude I've witnessed in most evangelical right-wing Christians towards undocumented migrants from Mexico. I can envision Jesus being called an 'illegal immigrant,' and told to go back to where he came from.
That and many Christians - particularly in the U.S. - presume Jesus to have been a lily white blue-eyed guy. Also, a lot of American Christians embrace a political ideology that's completely antithetical to the teachings and examples of Christ.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
So, do you believe Vatican II was and is evil?
What a non-sequitur. Vatican II has nothing to do with this discussion.

What I do say is this. Should the Catholic Church renounce its teaching on the proper use of the sexual faculty in regards to the natural law, it would by logical necessity renounce its claim to indefectibility and prove the falsity of its religion. God does not contradict himself. A contradictory religion cannot be divinely revealed.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
What a non-sequitur. Vatican II has nothing to do with this discussion.

What I do say is this. Should the Catholic Church renounce its teaching on the proper use of the sexual faculty in regards to the natural law, it would by logical necessity renounce its claim to indefectibility and prove the falsity of its religion. God does not contradict himself. A contradictory religion cannot be divinely revealed.
If god created homosexuals and then declared it "an unnatural sin", then he would be contradicting himself. But since he wouldn't we can dismiss the presumptions made about god by ancient primitive goat herders via the bible as incorrect. God isn't beholden to manmade books and religions.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
What a non-sequitur. Vatican II has nothing to do with this discussion.
It very much does, as Catholic theology is not static. When Vatican II came about, many Catholics were terribly angry. including one of my neighbors. And it just wasn't the changes we saw at mass that changed.

Thus, it wasn't just the change there that was quite dynamic as the lessons from the Holocaust led to changes, especially to end the demonization of the Jewish people that had existed and been perpetrated for centuries. Ever sense we have had popes that had been very cooperative without being condescending, not only towards Jews but also Muslims and others. We no longer judge them, which was done a lot before!

There are many other changes that have taken place, such as with a more recent change in the Catechism whereas now capital punishment is no longer justifiable and also Pope Francis' encyclical on climate change.

And we also need to remember that the "good old days" really weren't so good at times, so the Church has made adjustments and will continue to do so.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
What a non-sequitur. Vatican II has nothing to do with this discussion.

What I do say is this. Should the Catholic Church renounce its teaching on the proper use of the sexual faculty in regards to the natural law, it would by logical necessity renounce its claim to indefectibility and prove the falsity of its religion. God does not contradict himself. A contradictory religion cannot be divinely revealed.

Catholicism has a pillar that makes it unique.
That is free will.
And a consequence of free will is that not all sins are equal.

So therefore...I was raised Catholic and my catechist taught me that in God's eyes there are amendable sins and not amendable sins.

What two homosexuals do in the privacy of their own bedroom is nothing compared to what certain bankers do.
Certain bankers destroy countries, destroy families, led people to commit suicide.

All this focusing on something which is the speck of dust compared to the log in some people's eyes...is not that Catholic-like imho.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Because the archbishop gave a misleading statement that did not represent the pope's position.

Which means that Pope thinks he is someone to judge. Which then means, Pope saying "Who am I to judge" is not convincing.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I know what he has said. If it doesn't come from his head, then I don't know what is in his head.
Since you wrote "Brave pope, seems to fear gay community, but not God...", then you have assumed as such, so no song & dance on your part changes that. For you to even make a statement like that is blatantly unethical. If you "don't know what was in his head" then you wouldn't have written what you did. It is never moral to assume the worse in a person.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Which means that Pope thinks he is someone to judge. Which then means, Pope saying "Who am I to judge" is not convincing.

Not the same thing at all. The archbishop deliberately misled, lied, when he attributed his own statement to that of the pope. Not a moral judgment but one of discipline.
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
What a non-sequitur. Vatican II has nothing to do with this discussion.

What I do say is this. Should the Catholic Church renounce its teaching on the proper use of the sexual faculty in regards to the natural law, it would by logical necessity renounce its claim to indefectibility and prove the falsity of its religion. God does not contradict himself. A contradictory religion cannot be divinely revealed.
What is obvious is that your church has always believed in improvement. It should never have claimed indefectibility I think and that this claim to perfect knowledge or speech was corruption. Its not needed in a revealed religion. NT writings say things like "We have this treasure in vessels of clay." If it was held in vessels of gold that would be different.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
And we also need to remember that the "good old days" really weren't so good at times, so the Church has made adjustments and will continue to do so.

What I find both sad and indefensible is the mistaken, out of a chosen ignorance, position that Catholics who long for the 'good old days' don't or refuse to realize that the 'old days' did not begin with Trent but a thousand years prior to.

If god created homosexuals and then declared it "an unnatural sin", then he would be contradicting himself. But since he wouldn't we can dismiss the presumptions made about god by ancient primitive goat herders via the bible as incorrect. God isn't beholden to manmade books and religions.

We would be stating that God was as ill-informed on sexuality as the 'goat herders.

If Sister Lucia is an authentic seer then our current state of affairs is very much driven by an invisible puppet master who (at least for now) must be laughing with glee.

Fortunately private revelations do not belong to the deposit of faith and Catholics nor required to believe them.

I think the real heresy gripping the Church these days (gripping both clerics and laity) is the idea that one can compromise between the world and God. Not so I say. Christ was clear. The world is his enemy. Either Catholicism is false and it will compromise and therefore defect or Catholicism is true and secular modernity will become a historical footnote. (Or Christ will come and end the world).

I think what you yearn for is the return of an exclusive Church and are unable to accept the Church as inclusive to those you think unacceptable to ever be members of the Kingdom. One either believes the Holy Spirit is a reality in guiding the Church through the centuries or just something to drag out when you agree. The Church is sanctified and guaranteed by God.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
No we wouldn't because scripture wouldn't actually be speaking for god, unless you believe he was a ventriloquist dummy.

I fully believe that Scripture relates what God has inspired. The problem arises in the attempt to relate, pass on, that inspiration in a way understood by a particular culture at a particular time.
 
Top