In the coming Catholic utopia, when I make a stupid crack like that a nun will whack me up side of the head with a rolled up newspaper, with a wink and a smile of course.

do you actually know the church teaching on homosexuality?

My understanding is that Francis is attempting to change the tone...

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/world/europe/vatican-signals-more-tolerance-toward-gays-and-remarriage.html?ref=todayspaper

...but that the Church (defined here as the clergy) are not yet ready to simply say...

"There's not a darn thing wrong with homosexuality, and we were stupid to say that there was for centuries, thus needlessly harming many millions of people."

"More tolerance towards gay" is not an example of game changing leadership, imho.

Tell us what you know.

The homosexuality issue could be another example of the scale of change required to repair the brand.

Francis is trying to gradually tip toe his way towards reality, positioning the tip toeing as an act of great humility and compassion on behalf the Church etc. My point is that such self serving watered down half measures will not accomplish brand repair.

What might help with brand repair would be for the Church to simply admit that it's long been totally wrong on this issue, and then apologize repeatedly for all the harm it's wrong teaching have inflicted on so many people. You know, come clean, yank the band aid off, get it over with.

The tip toeing is not compelling news, but a full clear unequivocal admission of error would be. If brand repair is to be successful, the child rape saga has to pushed out of the news with other more positive stories.

There's not a darn thing wrong with homosexuality, and we were stupid to say that there was for centuries, thus needlessly harming many millions of people." — Jake

Well it is not quite there. Homosexuality is, according to the church, disordered. But, it is not the inclination or tendency that is sinful, it is acting on it. Which does make those who act on their homosexuality, sinners. Just like everyone else, in a church full of sinners.

And here is the part about tolerance

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Now a call to chastity is an awful cross to carry. But we all have crosses some heavier than others

Now a call to chastity is an awful cross to carry. But we all have crosses some heavier than others — Rank Amateur

Just so that everyone is clear about this, chastity is a cross I have never considered bearing.

Have either of you heard of Dignity, (the gay Catholic organization)?

The organization was started in 1969 to advocate for gay Catholics within the church. One of their principle activities was the organization of masses for gay Catholics, held at places like Newman Centers (Catholic student centers at state college campuses). There was no shortage of gay priests to celebrate. They earnestly and patiently advocated for decades. In 1986 the church started expelling Dignity from Catholic facilities in the United States (and elsewhere). The ban on gay catholic organizations using church facilities has not been rescinded as of 2018. So much for progress.

The Anglican and Lutheran churches have been far more forthright in accepting gay people. Lutheran ministers can, for instance, perform gay marriages using the standard liturgy (with a slight language change).

Not all protestants have done so well. The United Methodist Church (my church tradition) is deeply split over the issue. I'm not quite sure where Baptists stand (haven't checked).

So what happened to Gay Catholics? Well, they either left the church or they found friendly parishes and became active members without denying their sexual orientation. Most parishes are happy to have active members, whoever/whatever they are. This kind of integration into parishes does not fundamentally change the church, however. Gay people have always been part of the church -- priests, nuns, monks, and members. (How do you think so many priests died of AIDS?)

Homosexuality is, according to the church, disordered. But, it is not the inclination or tendency that is sinful, it is acting on it. Which does make those who act on their homosexuality, sinners. — Rank Amateur

My point is that it's not going to be possible to do successful brand repair while the Church clings to such gibberish. Nor will it be possible for the Church to provide credible moral leadership beyond it's walls, just as it wouldn't be if the Church said all of the above about black people. Imho, it's not in the Church's interest to cling to this 8th century stuff. Better to just admit it was wrong, apologize for the damage done, and then try to change the subject.

Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. — Rank Amateur

I'm glad to hear that the Church will be performing gay marriages from here out!

Thanks for the history lesson Crank. Interesting, I didn't know most of that.

Somebody beat me to it...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-best-choice-for-pope-a-nun/2013/02/15/83c8be2e-76c6-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html?utm_term=.fca1cf7b50be

From the article:

Last summer my 18-year-old daughter, Julia, worked at a Catholic-supported program for the homeless in Silver Spring. Like many women her age, Julia has a long list of problems with the church, but she loved the program and deeply admired everyone who worked there.

She came home one night and said: “Why doesn’t the church talk more about this work and less about the stuff it usually talks about?”

I have a hunch that a nun just might understand what Julia was saying better than most cardinals.

I am not reading this conversation but after watching the images of the last post I feel the intellectual level is now stratosferic and all the sociopolitical problems of the Church will soon be solved. Keep writing...

guys, to somewhat generalize your points. What it appears you are advocating is the church align itself more closely with the general world view on this, and assume other issues. With the intent of attracting more followers.

While that may well be true, it would come with a theological problem. If, as the church has done, and believes these positions are based on divine revelation, then a dilemma exists. Either God was wrong, or their understanding of what God said is wrong. And if you choose the latter, it opens you up to the question of what else, do you have wrong, including the very things that make you Catholic. Or you can, hopefully with great honesty, believe your view of divine revelation is correct, and the world view is wrong. And then stand by your beliefs, and accept what the consequences that brings

There is tension in the church on homosexuality. From the church point of view, like about a million other things, homosexual attraction is just a temptation. Giving into that temptation is sinful. Again no different than those who give into their particular temptation. And when we all fail, there is always forgiveness.

This just makes those with homosexual attraction just like everyone else in the church, a sinner. What many homosexual Catholics want the church to do, is accept their actions as not sinful. Which it can't.

So like many many many others there are literally hundreds of other religions that will do as they ask. And it is an individual act of reflection to chose.

New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still, and onward, who would keep abreast of Truth;
Lo, before us gleam her camp-fires! we ourselves must Pilgrims be,
Launch our Mayflower, and steer boldly through the desperate winter sea,
Nor attempt the Future’s portal with the Past’s blood-rusted key. -- James Russell Lowell


Now you know damned well that the church doesn't list homosexuality as one more temptation among a million others. Homosexuality isn't right up there with eating too many Danish pastries during Lent. The church says homosexuality is "inherently disordered" (following the reasoning of Tom Aquinas). Paul didn't like homosexuality either, but then he didn't like a lot of things. It goes back to the Hebrews who wrote Leviticus. But Jesus overthrew the law. So, go ahead and have a pork chop and some lobster bisque. Just don't suck cock (or do other amusing activities along the same line).

The Pope wasn't infallible until July 18, 1870. Before that, he was fallible. Did the pope suddenly get much better at being pope? No. The First Vatican Council decided, for one murky reason or another, to declare one of their own incapable of error on matters ecclesiastical. The first ex cathedra decree took place in 1950, when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as an article of faith. Apparently the old girl was "assumed" (odd verb) into heaven. This allegedly happened about 2000 years earlier, and for some strange reason the church was't sure that getting assumed was an article of faith. Well, now it is, so you had just better believe it.

If, as the church has done, and believes these positions are based on divine revelation, then a dilemma exists. Either God was wrong, or their understanding of what God said is wrong. — Rank Amateur

Golly gee whiz, what could possibly go wrong with humans deciding not only what God said, but what God meant? Dilemma indeed!

...homosexual attraction is just a temptation. Giving into that temptation is sinful. — Rank Amateur

I would humbly submit that a greater temptation for the church to fall into is the temptation of thinking their doctrine is infallible. [The doctrine of the infallibility of ecumenical councils states that solemn definitions of ecumenical councils, approved by the Pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible. Such decrees are often labeled as canons, and they often have an attached anathema, a penalty of excommunication, against those who refuse to believe the teaching. The doctrine does not claim that every aspect of every ecumenical council is infallible.]

But then Protestants only recognize the first 4 ecumenical councils, not the dozen or so that followed.

With quite a bit of justification the whole church (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) has been called "The Great Apostolic Blunder Machine".***

And you know, I don't actually care that much any more what the holy and apostolic catholic (lower case c) church thinks about homosexuality or abortion or divorce or most things. Infallibility is just the temptation of Christian hubris!

No Catholic takes their marching orders from New England Protestant poets, of course, but Lowell is right about this: Time makes ancient good uncouth.

bitter, like jake, you want to argue that the teaching is wrong, unjustified, etc. All I am saying, is that is the teaching. And all I am stating is what the church believes. I chose to believe it is true. But I feel no need to defend that belief. I am just saying what is, only from the POV of the church.

You, like jake, are free to believe as you wish. Again, I am not an evangelist. I am indifferent to what you chose to believe.

guys, to somewhat generalize your points. What it appears you are advocating is the church align itself more closely with the general world view on this — Rank Amateur

The homosexuality issue illustrates my perspective. I'm advocating the Church align itself more with Christian values. Generally speaking, the culture at large has already done so.

With the intent of attracting more followers. — Rank Amateur

With the intent of restoring the Church's credibility. If successful, that may lead to more followers. It doesn't concern me so much that those aligning themselves with Christian values be labeled Catholic.

While that may well be true, it would come with a theological problem. If, as the church has done, and believes these positions are based on divine revelation, then a dilemma exists. — Rank Amateur

To continue with the homosexuality example, if Jesus had wanted his church to lead a jihad against homosexuality I believe he would have said that, given that homosexuals have always been with us. If Jesus had thought the issue of homosexuality was worth even discussing, he would have likely discussed it. The dilemma is that some folks have chosen to follow the clergy instead of following the example set by Jesus, and then they're attempting to label that choice "divine revelation".

A key difference between us is that you keep referring to "the Church" as being the clergy. From my perspective, the clergy is a small group of serious influential Catholics within the Church, who don't always agree among themselves. To me, "the Church" is like this thread, a collection of people exploring issues of common interest.

Either God was wrong, or their understanding of what God said is wrong. — Rank Amateur

Where in the New Testament did Jesus suggest that a centuries long oppression of gay folks would be a good plan?

From the church point of view, like about a million other things, homosexual attraction is just a temptation. — Rank Amateur

That is a view of SOME people in the Church. I very much doubt it's even the view of all clergy.

What many homosexual Catholics want the church to do, is accept their actions as not sinful. Which it can't. — Rank Amateur

The Church you are referring to (ie. the clergy) is a bunch of old men who may have never even been in a relationship, never been married, never raised children, never had sex, and yet they consider themselves experts on family values. That's why the clergy can't remove the sin stigma from homosexuality, as a group they have no idea what they're talking about. They're just clinging stubbornly to ignorant beliefs of the past, and thus continuing to contribute to the pain and suffering such ignorant stubbornness has long inflicted on the gay community.

Please note that it's not just homosexual Catholics who want the clergy to give this nonsense up. According to data from Pew Research 67% of American Catholics support gay marriage.

http://www.pewforum.org/2018/03/06/pope-francis-still-highly-regarded-in-u-s-but-signs-of-disenchantment-emerge/pf_03-06-18-pope-00-15/

We don't have to beat the homosexuality issue to death, I'm just using it as an example. Here's perhaps a better example...

Even when it comes to (American) Catholics who attend Mass weekly, just 13% say contraception is morally wrong, while 45% say it is morally acceptable and 42% say it is not a moral issue. — Pew Research

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/09/28/4-very-few-americans-see-contraception-as-morally-wrong/

like jake, you want to argue that the teaching is wrong, unjustified, etc. All I am saying, is that is the teaching. And all I am stating is what the church believes. — Rank Amateur

You are stating what SOME in the Church believe. To the best of my knowledge you are describing that subset of Catholicism accurately.

I am indifferent to what you chose to believe. — Rank Amateur

Can you understand why others might not be indifferent to what you choose to believe on the homosexuality issue, given that Church teachings on the subject over the centuries has been a significant factor (not the sole cause) of a great deal of oppression and suffering involving many millions of people? Are you comfortable being a party to that?

I understand your point on the separation of the hierarchy of the church from all the faithful. All of the points I have made, most from memory so forgive me if I got something incorrect, are either from the catechism, from the magisterium, or apostolic council. Again not saying right or wrong, but if you are catholic you are required to believe these to be the true and inspired word of God.

While I understand your point on the clergy, and again you may well be right, on matters as above the faithful have 3 options, believe, not believe and leave, not believe and stay. And in the case of the last one I am not sure why one would do that, other than for non spiritual reasons.

Now on entire list of all kinds of things not clearly identified as the inspired word of God. We can fight like the dickens with the clergy, and in many cases should.

bitter, like jake, you want to argue that the teaching is wrong, unjustified, etc. All I am saying, is that is the teaching. And all I am stating is what the church believes. I chose to believe it is true. But I feel no need to defend that belief. I am just saying what is, only from the POV of the church.

You, like jake, are free to believe as you wish. Again, I am not an evangelist. I am indifferent to what you chose to believe. — Rank Amateur

I shall, thank you -- and so will you. And that's fine by me. But when, exactly, was it decided that priests must not only all be male, but they must always be celibate? Even the BVM had sex after Jesus was born, you know, because Jesus had brothers. If the allegedly ever-virgin Mother of Christ can have sex, I don't know why priests can't. If it was good for Mary... He also had a disciple whom he loved. Jesus at least masturbated, you know that don't you? Not only that, he probably had sex. If God Incarnate can, then surely a mere priest ought to be able to get it on.

... the clergy is a bunch of old men who may have never even had sex... — Jake

Quite a few of these guys have had sex, and with (surprise, surprise) actual consenting adult men. Some have even managed to have sex with actual adult women.

I think a celibate priesthood, especially given the job description that priests have, is a psychosocial nightmare.

Here you have single men without partners of any kind who give their lives to the service of the church. They carry increasing workloads as the number of priests declines. They are immersed in people's problems with few if any sources of comfort for themselves, save prayer and fasting. Some comfort! They often live in parish residences by themselves or with other priests that are just as strung out as they are. A lot of them warped and twisted out of shape like green lumber.

Some of them are gay to start with. Given the way gay men operate it is relatively easy for priests to have a gay adult sex life, with actual relationships, out of the view of the church. (I was in a relationship with a priest for a couple of years.) I would think it would be more difficult for a woman and a priest to pull off the same thing. In either case (gay or straight) time is a restraint.

I suppose the church views priests having sexual relationships as a bad thing, but I think it is even worse for priests to go through life without having a sexual relationship.

All of the points I have made, most from memory so forgive me if I got something incorrect, are either from the catechism, from the magisterium, or apostolic council. — Rank Amateur

I understand. To the best of my imperfect memory you are stating the doctrines correctly.

Again not saying right or wrong, but if you are catholic you are required to believe these to be the true and inspired word of God. — Rank Amateur

No Catholic is required to believe anything just because the clergy tells them to. The clergy doesn't own the Church just because they claim to, just as I wouldn't own this thread just because I declared myself to be "the Thread".

The reality is that Catholics make up their own minds on what they want to believe. There are probably as many different versions of Catholicism as there are Catholics. Even those who claim to believe the Pope in every circumstance without fail start getting upset when we get a new Pope who charts a different course.

While I understand your point on the clergy, and again you may well be right, on matters as above the faithful have 3 options, believe, not believe and leave, not believe and stay. And in the case of the last one I am not sure why one would do that, other than for non spiritual reasons. — Rank Amateur

It's simple. Millions don't believe in this or that doctrine and still stay because they don't recognize the authority of the clergy on all subjects.

The reality is that Catholics make up their own minds on what they want to believe. — Jake

That's a very Protestant view. Just saying...

Quite a few of these guys have had sex, and with (surprise, surprise) actual consenting adult men. Some have even managed to have sex with actual adult women. — Bitter Crank

If I wasn't so mature I would quip here, "Don't forget the kids!" Luckily I am too nice a guy to take such a cheap shot.

That's a very Protestant view. Just saying... — Bitter Crank

It's the reality of the situation, in every religion. One need only spend a little time on the Catholic web and observe all the endless ideological infighting to realize there is no single unified agreed upon view of what Catholicism is.

"Don't forget the kids!" — Jake

Oh, I wasn't forgetting the kids. Pedophiles tend not to also have adult relationships. It's maybe not a hard and fast rule, so to speak, but a tendency. Priest-work is a great way to gain access to children, just as school teaching, or olympic coaching or boy-scout work is a great way to have access to juveniles.

A married priesthood wouldn't change the behavior of pedophiles operating in the church and having sex with children. What a married and an openly gay priesthood would do is greatly increase the pool of candidates. Given an enlarged pool, the church could become more selective. Given a larger priesthood, the church would become more effective. Maybe the church should insist that their priest candidates be partnered--with somebody--male or female. So, what kind of title would the wife or husband of the Pope have?

Catholics should probably ask Protestants what Catholicism is. We are totally objective about the Catholic Church so we would be a totally reliable source of information.

What a married and an openly gay priesthood would do is greatly increase the pool of candidates. Given an enlarged pool, the church could become more selective. Given a larger priesthood, the church would become more effective. — Bitter Crank

Great points Crank. Hey, let's make the pool of candidates larger yet. Women are over 50% of the population. Thus we see the priest shortage is yet another unnecessary self inflicted wound brought upon the Church by incompetent management.

Another example of incompetent management would be that people like you with good ideas that could breathe new life in to the Church are either drummed out out of leadership positions or bored in to walking away. And so the same old stuff that has proven to lead to crisis just keeps rolling along.

On the other hand....

My wife's father is 85 and sinking in to senility. In his prime he was a force to reckon with, an architect that designed many prominent buildings in Miami. But now he forgets everything in about 10 minutes, and no longer wants to bathe. We could obviously claim that not bathing is illogical etc, but...

Does that really matter at this point? He's 85 and has his nose pressed up against the existential window. His gay husband of 50 years just died two months ago. Everything that has a beginning also has an end. So he doesn't bathe. So what? Why worry about such things now?

This might be another way to look at the Church. It's had a great run. 2,000 years. For half that time the Church dominated Western culture to a degree that we can't even imagine today. Like my wife's father, the Church has left it's imprint upon human history for both the better and the worse, as we all do. Ok, so the Church does a number of things that seem blatantly stupid and not in it's own interest. What do we expect of a 2,000 year old man? At least the clergy is still bathing, we could be happy about that. :smile:

Catholics should probably ask Protestants what Catholicism is. We are totally objective about the Catholic Church so we would be a totally reliable source of information. — Bitter Crank

This requires some clarification. Readers need to understand that Crank suffers from a medical condition called "Excessive Maturity Syndrome". Every so often he can't help himself and he blurts out something blatantly reasonable and sensible, even though this is a clear violation of forum culture. But hey, please remember folks, it's not nice to make fun of disabled people!

All really good ideas to increase the pool for the clergy, and remove some roadblocks to make it an easier road to accept - certainly could put more folks in the pews.

And, like most good ideas, it has been done - one is free to pick from any number of Protestant Churches that do all of the above, and more. If you look hard enough I am sure you could find one with a married lesbian pastor, who will not only save your soul, but promise you wealth on earth as well.

There is only some conflict, if you happen to believe that the RC Church is the one true Church and the best path to your salvation – if you believe in such things. Then you have a dilemma - you can change to meet the teachings of the Church on these matters, or you can try to change the Church to align more closely to your views. History would suggest you would be in for quite a long wait.

As a guy who still struggles with the implementation of Vatican II and prefers the Tridentine Mass, I may not be the most optimistic guy on the ability of the Church to undergo such dramatic changes as you suggest.

I think for better or worse, the RC Church is, in general what it is. It has undergone changes in the past, and it will undergo changes in the future. However, because of some deep beliefs, rightly or wrongly - much of what you would have the Church do – it is no longer in a position to do. Like your example - in many respects it is what it is.

as a guy who still struggles with the implementation of Vatican II and prefers the Tridentine Mass — Rank Amateur

Oh, dear... Rank, bless you for holding down the paleo end of the Christian continuum. It's dirty work but somebody has to do it.

I attended a Tridentine Mass once. Far, far, far too long. I'm a Missa Brevis man. It seems to me that some bishop told Mozart to keep it short -- 45 minutes. Wise bishop.

The Lutheran lady reverend at the church across the street likes to drag things out, the weekly communion service ends up being about 80 minutes long. Very inefficient.

I attended a Tridentine Mass once. Far, far, far too long. I'm a Missa Brevis man. It seems to me that some bishop told Mozart to keep it short -- 45 minutes. Wise bishop. — Bitter Crank

Trinentine mass, has 2 forms one is read and relatively short - one is song and is a little longer.

Oh, dear... Rank, bless you for holding down the paleo end of the Christian continuum. It's dirty work but somebody has to do it. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, us dino's are waiting for our own personal meteor. Actually, to my amazement - Latin mass is gaining a relatively large following among the Catholic Millennial crowd - not 100% sure the reason -

All really good ideas to increase the pool for the clergy, and remove some roadblocks to make it an easier road to accept - certainly could put more folks in the pews. — Rank Amateur

Putting more folks in the pews is not the ideal goal, that's the old thinking, imho. Putting more folks in the homeless shelter should be the goal. It can be a Catholic homeless shelter, that's a-ok.

There is only some conflict, if you happen to believe that the RC Church is the one true Church and the best path to your salvation – if you believe in such things. — Rank Amateur

By "RC Church" what you really mean is the clergy, because Jesus didn't prohibit any of Crank's suggestions. So, if one believes that the RC clergy knows better than Jesus, yea, then there's a conflict.

I think for better or worse, the RC Church is, in general what it is. It has undergone changes in the past, and it will undergo changes in the future. However, because of some deep beliefs, rightly or wrongly - much of what you would have the Church do – it is no longer in a position to do. Like your example - in many respects it is what it is. — Rank Amateur

Well said, and not easy to debate. And probably not worth debating. It seems a shame for such an prominent institution to continue a slide in to decline over such unimportant matters such as what gender the clergy will be. But yea, it most likely is what it is. Maybe it's wiser to let the old girl go down naturally than to keep poking her with a stick to try to keep her alive. I'd be receptive to such an argument.