Pope on gays: "Who am I to judge?"

[ringthree]

Really, if a religious movement claims to be following the Bible and isn't old-fashioned, dense and completely conservative (like the Bible), they're lying to themselves.

Times change; the Bible doesn't. Christians should just keep waiting for the new, updated orders from God and deal with it. Instead of ignoring half of the book and only picking the bits that give them more sheep to take advantage of at any given time.

You are just lumping everyone that believes in Christ together. Being religious doesn't necessarily make you a retard or sheep.

[ringthree]

Rather than whether this signifies real change in Catholicism or not, the real importance this news has, in my opinion, is how it might marginally help LGBT activism in the long run.

Discussion over whether the church is changing or not seems downright irrelevant to a non believer.

I kinda disagree. I am a non-believer, but I am effected by believers, so the direction their heading does effect me.

[Ksandra]

It's still an about face to the traditional outlook of his predecessors and other high ranking officials within the organization. Actual theology doesn't translate well to the ground level adherents so to hear the Pope is fine with chaste, homosexual priests is a big deal even if its always been buried somewhere in the rulebook Francis is familiar with. How many people have been beating down the doors with "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality!" only to be rebuffed with the same, tired OT passages?

I'm just intrigued with what Francis wants to accomplish. He's no Benedict but he's still limited by the inability to make major changes within the organization. He needs to maintain balance between traditionalists who have been bred to believe homosexuality is wrong (which justifies their discrimination) and the bleeding hearts who don't want to see LBGT individuals oppressed but need to reconcile their religious beliefs with doctrine.

I agree with your first paragraph, I am mostly trying to stress that it's been written there a long time, and really is kind of obvious. It makes me feel more like he is bringing the church BACK to its teachings, vs. changing the teachings, which I think is significant.

As to what Francis wants to accomplish, that goes back to my Jesuit comment. Jesuits are like the cream of the crop when it comes to doing good works. That has really been the backbone of Catholicism from the beginning. Don't judge, do good things for the world, and pray that people have done enough good to get into heaven (without really knowing exactly what the golden ticket is). Jesuits have that as their ultimate focus, the Vatican and the rest get bogged down in traditions and politics.

I don't really think that what he says is really all that far from what he has probably felt all those years as a Jesuit. It is just vastly different from the Vatican's PR, so it stands out.

[Meresgi]

Really, if a religious movement claims to be following the Bible and isn't old-fashioned, dense and completely conservative (like the Bible), they're lying to themselves.

Times change; the Bible doesn't. Christians should just keep waiting for the new, updated orders from God and deal with it. Instead of ignoring half of the book and only picking the bits that give them more sheep to take advantage of at any given time.

But in the second half you're told to ignore the 1st half!!

[Kuya]

By political strategizing, i mean that this kind of news could, ideally, de-energize catholic opposition to LGBT rights. In the case of anti-theists though, i think Catholicism becoming more gay friendly might not be a good thing of your goal is weakening religion.

Personally, i come from the perspective that the real goal of any politically active atheist is the de-politicizing of religion as opposed to the actual annihilation of religious belief. So this kind of news isn't necessarily negative to an atheist like me either.

[Ksandra]

I mean, that for an atheist, the church getting friendlier with gay people is not gonna make you any less of an atheist.

No but it could make you more tolerant of religion.

And in regards to homosexuals, it may make you be more open to being religious. As it stands, I think you'd have to be completely nuts to be a catholic gay because of the way people have treated gays. This could help local churches become more open to gays coming into their congregation.

[ringthree]

By political strategizing, i mean that this kind of news could, ideally, de-energize catholic opposition to LGBT rights. In the case of anti-theists though, i think Catholicism becoming more gay friendly might not be a good thing of your goal is weakening religion.

Personally, i come from the perspective that the real goal of any politically active atheist is the de-politicizing of religion as opposed to the actual annihilation of religious belief. So this kind of news isn't necessarily negative to an atheist like me either.

This is exactly right. Tolerance of religion is not antithetical to being an atheist. Since when did atheist = bigoted against religions?

[Ksandra]

de-politicizing of religion

I am 100% agreement on this, and it seems like the Pope is, too.

[ronin sparthos]

I agree with your first paragraph, I am mostly trying to stress that it's been written there a long time, and really is kind of obvious. It makes me feel more like he is bringing the church BACK to its teachings, vs. changing the teachings, which I think is significant.

It isn't obvious though because the overwhelming opposition to homosexuality comes from the religious and that includes Catholics. If anything, when Francis makes such statements it should be impetus to read through Catholic doctrine and become more familiar with the varied opinions of theologians to realize that there are religious arguments beyond whatever it is you may believe to be true. If this results in some new, more tolerant Catholics being spawned then more power to Francis and the power of educating yourself.

However, even if you spin his teachings as returning to the "true" Catholicism, it's still jarring to those who have been raised to believe what comes out of the mouth of their local priests and the Vatican on the whole and to them it is change. Their Catholicism isn't your Catholicism the same way Christianity has become a rainbow bound together by a belief in Jesus. Too many changes within a religious framework can be catastrophic.

As to what Francis wants to accomplish, that goes back to my Jesuit comment. Jesuits are like the cream of the crop when it comes to doing good works. That has really been the backbone of Catholicism from the beginning. Don't judge, do good things for the world, and pray that people have done enough good to get into heaven (without really knowing exactly what the golden ticket is). Jesuits have that as their ultimate focus, the Vatican and the rest get bogged down in traditions and politics.

I don't really think that what he says is really all that far from what he has probably felt all those years as a Jesuit. It is just vastly different from the Vatican's PR, so it stands out.

And the world will be watching.

[ronin sparthos]

This is exactly right. Tolerance of religion is not antithetical to being an atheist. Since when did atheist = bigoted against religions?

Depends on the atheist you ask. Some people have very real vendettas against what the religious have done to them or others.

All I want is some separation of church and state. Religious organizations have no business dictating their morality on people who have decided against following their faith.

And here is where the militant atheist or the anti-theist would interject that religion at its core is about securing conversions and completing God's will even if it means cannibalizing their own to bring everyone under the banner of w/e religious faith we're discussing. Islam usually gets boogeyman'd here but it also applies to Judaism and Christianity equally.

[Kuya]

Depends on the atheist you ask. Some people have very real vendettas against what the religious have done to them or others.

And i respect that. Evangelism is borderline harassment. And i know from experience that you're never gonna convince a pissed off atheist to simmer down by telling them to respect religion. No, you're gonna get the exact opposite reaction. In those instances, it's best to just let the rage subside on its own.

[Ksandra]

It isn't obvious though because the overwhelming opposition to homosexuality comes from the religious and that includes Catholics.

I meant the catechism is obvious in regards to the stance on homosexuals, just people have chosen to ignore it for their own prejudices.

[ringthree]

I meant the catechism is obvious in regards to the stance on homosexuals, just people have chosen to ignore it for their own prejudices.

Well, lets be clear here, it is the people sending the message AND receiving the message that have perpetuated the prejudice. It's not like the lay people are the only ones to blame. Also, it should be noted that while I agree with your proposition that it is the act that is the sin, it is defined separately and distinguished as different from the "regular" sin of premarital sex. This distinction is probably the source of the difference in how they are treated and that can be blamed on how the catechism is written.

[Ddz]

Thoughts aren't sins. Only when you decide to act on that sinful thought. I think the Pope is reflecting this belief quite well with his response in it being not any man's place to judge, especially if that person with homosexual tendencies is living a life of celibacy. All premarital sex (and even masturbation) is considered sinful to the Church and should be reconciled, but marital sex is encouraged (barring birth control and other unnatural contraception).

[Blubbartron]

And i respect that. Evangelism is borderline harassment. And i know from experience that you're never gonna convince a pissed off atheist to simmer down by telling them to respect religion. No, you're gonna get the exact opposite reaction. In those instances, it's best to just let the rage subside on its own.

Religion doesn't deserve respect; it's an idea, and a moronic one at that. Even people don't deserve respect. They deserve civility.

Tolerance of religion is not antithetical to being an atheist. Since when did atheist = bigoted against religions?

Depends on what you mean by tolerance. People with stupid beliefs should be tolerated (i.e. they're equals under the law and deserve all the rights and privileges granted by the law). However, the stupid beliefs themselves should most certainly not be tolerated. If someone tells you their stupid belief, educating them on why their belief is stupid is not intolerance. Most atheists treat religious people the same way we treat people who believe UFOs are abducting people and cows for anal probing - is anyone saying we should stop being bigoted against UFO-believers? Laughing at/mocking people is entirely different from grabbing a machete and hacking away at the apostate. How's that for tolerance?

[Lucavi]

Thoughts aren't sins. Only when you decide to act on that sinful thought. I think the Pope is reflecting this belief quite well with his response in it being not any man's place to judge, especially if that person with homosexual tendencies is living a life of celibacy. All premarital sex (and even masturbation) is considered sinful to the Church and should be reconciled, but marital sex is encouraged (barring birth control and other unnatural contraception).

Not to be that guy, but does the Bible really say that anywhere? That's pretty interesting if it does.

[Ddz]

Everyone has temptations...it's whether or not you act on them that decides the sin factor. At least that's what I was taught. Not sure about a particular bible verse.

[Meresgi]

Not to be that guy, but does the Bible really say that anywhere? That's pretty interesting if it does.

I think its in there somewhere? Honestly not 100% sure but that's how I always viewed it. Thinking "I wanna kill that guy" and stabbing someone 40x with a pencil are different things in terms of sin lol

[ringthree]

Religion doesn't deserve respect; it's an idea, and a moronic one at that. Even people don't deserve respect. They deserve civility.

Depends on what you mean by tolerance. People with stupid beliefs should be tolerated (i.e. they're equals under the law and deserve all the rights and privileges granted by the law). However, the stupid beliefs themselves should most certainly not be tolerated. If someone tells you their stupid belief, educating them on why their belief is stupid is not intolerance. Most atheists treat religious people the same way we treat people who believe UFOs are abducting people and cows for anal probing - is anyone saying we should stop being bigoted against UFO-believers? Laughing at/mocking people is entirely different from grabbing a machete and hacking away at the apostate. How's that for tolerance?

Yeah, you are the kind of person that gives atheism a bad name.

[ronin sparthos]

Thoughts aren't sin?

Matthew 5:27-28
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

7th Commandment, Exodus 20:14
"You shall not commit adultery.