Pope Francis Causing Waves in the Catholic Church

[classhandicapper]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/p...-peter-vacant/

[HUSKER55]

welp, there goes the church.

[TJDave]

Is buggering boys still OK?

[johnhannibalsmith]

If I had realized early on that I was reading Pat Buchanan, I would have spared myself from reading exactly what I would expect to read from him.

[Robert Goren]

Pat must not be a very good Catholic. Papal Infallibility is a basic tenet of the Church. He will have some explaining to do.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

Pat must not be a very good Catholic. Papal Infallibility is a basic tenet of the Church. He will have some explaining to do.

Papal Infallibility only applies when the pope formally issues a statement saying that a specific matter of faith must be accepted by Catholics.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

If I had realized early on that I was reading Pat Buchanan, I would have spared myself from reading exactly what I would expect to read from him.

My thoughts exactly.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

If I had realized early on that I was reading Pat Buchanan, I would have spared myself from reading exactly what I would expect to read from him.

You mean truthful things that everyone else is afraid to say?

Pat must have dirt on more people than anyone else on the planet. He's the only guy I know that can get away with telling politically incorrect truths on a regular basis with total recklessness and not get destroyed and put out of business by the PC police.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Is buggering boys still OK?

The church is like every other extremely large institution. An extremely small percentage of a very large institution will produce quite a few bad apples. In the churches case however, it had a very poor recruiting strategy for the specific responsibilities of male priests that would spend a lot of time alone with post pubescent boys. It also had leadership that was clueless on the subject and made some inexcusably poor moral decisions.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

You mean truthful things that everyone else is afraid to say?

...

The guy is 200 years old and founded the television camera detection school that Al Sharpton studied at. Anything he has to say, he's said as many times as someone will give him the air time, print space, or radio waves to say it.

His "truthful things that everyone else is afraid to say" are obviously only as true as the person watching, reading, or listening believes it to be and they've heard it from about half of the population on a daily basis when it comes to these subjects. His message is fine, but hardly novel. And he's been essentially saying it since Jesus first designated him spokesperson right after the whole cross thing.

Just the same old, same old is all.

[jballscalls]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

The guy is 200 years old and founded the television camera detection school that Al Sharpton studied at. Anything he has to say, he's said as many times as someone will give him the air time, print space, or radio waves to say it.

His "truthful things that everyone else is afraid to say" are obviously only as true as the person watching, reading, or listening believes it to be and they've heard it from about half of the population on a daily basis when it comes to these subjects. His message is fine, but hardly novel. And he's been essentially saying it since Jesus first designated him spokesperson right after the whole cross thing.

Just the same old, same old is all.

yeah I agree with everything you've said in this thread.

Why is it bad for a church to change as society changes? And how is disliking homosexuals "moral"? It seems terribly immoral to dislike someone for being how god created them.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

In the churches case however, it had a very poor recruiting strategy for the specific responsibilities of male priests that would spend a lot of time alone with post pubescent boys. It also had leadership that was clueless on the subject and made some inexcusably poor moral decisions.

It has apparently had this problem for centuries.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by TJDave

It has apparently had this problem for centuries.

I would say the problem has plagued humanity for centuries but for a brief period accelerated at the Catholic because of recruiting standards that can't be discussed publicly without adding to its woes.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by jballscalls

Why is it bad for a church to change as society changes? And how is disliking homosexuals "moral"? It seems terribly immoral to dislike someone for being how god created them.

1. IMO there is nothing wrong with a Church changing some customs, ceremonies, or even rules that were applicable to the times in which they were written. IMO, there is everything wrong with ignoring clear scripture on issues of sin because those are believed to be intrinsic. That people are more accepting of porn, premarital sex, adultery, sodomy, homosexuality etc.. does not and IMO should not change the Church's rules (even when I break a couple of them).

2. There is nothing in Christianity that suggests people not like homosexuals or any other sinners along the lines of #1. The people that have hostile feelings like that are being UN-Christian and the people that accuse all Christians of feeling that way are simply trying to advance a political agenda. (I would suggest that some of the hostile feelings are in response to perceived cultural attacks on religious freedoms and freedom of speech. What comes around goes around).

Being Christian means loving everyone equally, but loving a person does not equate with loving everything they do. I don't love everything I do.

The official position is that there is nothing wrong with homosexual or lustful feelings. The sin is acting upon them. Of course one usually follows the other and that's the problem. But the church has a long list of acts that almost all of us participate in that it considers sinful. They are considered a sin because they go against what the church believes was God's given intention for men and women. It was not supposed to be primarily about pleasure and satisfying lustful desires (homosexual or heterosexual). It was supposed to be about love, commitment, and reproduction. It's that last one, in the Church's eyes, that makes loving and committed relationships among homosexuals not meet the test of the "natural order of things".

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

...that makes loving and committed relationships among homosexuals not meet the test of the "natural order of things".

Seems to me that the natural order of things would be the way things actually exist in practice. As in, nature created the circumstances and the conduct. The test that is being applied is "the order dictated by those who believe that they are speaking on behalf of God". I think that being gay probably follows a more natural order than having a heart transplant or a knee replaced. And if getting a pile of titanium to keep you mobile and a monkey heart to keep you alive is an example of natural order because God set the parameters to make it happen, then I'd have to say God is okay with gayness too. Maybe the writers blew it.