« Free speech or treason? | Main | 'A classic updated'? Spare me. »
April 04, 2005
Curious observation ...
As I listen to all the talk surrounding Pope John Paul II's death, funeral and who may be picked as successor, I'm struck by what I'm hearing from some of those left of center.
There's an increasing chatter on how John Paul failed in certain social arenas and now the Church should seize the moment to elect a more "liberal" Pope.
Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these the same people who get their knickers in a knot anytime the Catholic Church makes any pronouncement concerning public policy?
Posted by Darleen at April 4, 2005 01:03 PM
Comments
I've heard it too, and I don't get it either. They make it sound like the pope is a politician, there to represent the will of the people.
The pope is a man of God, y'all. He's not there to tell you what you want to hear. He's not there to tell you that it's okay to be gay or that fornication is fine as long as you wear a rubber. He's the freakin' pope. He's there to tell you that homosexuality is a sin and that fornication is wrong.
Believe it, don't believe it, whatever. But this whole "let's get a more liberal pope" stuff is for the birds.
Posted by: Jeff Harrell at April 4, 2005 02:21 PM
Exactly - they seem to be under the impression that the Church is a democracy. It's not.
Of course, the sad fact is that the average U.S. Catholic under forty is so poorly catechized that they couldn't answer the most basic doctrinal questions about the faith if there were a large cash prize at the end. Not everyone, of course, but a sizable majority. The good news is that the last two decades or so have seen a big increase in popular apologetics.
And to clarify the above - homosexual *activity* is a sin, the tendency is disordered, but not a sin if you don't act on it.
Posted by: Sal at April 4, 2005 06:19 PM
I don't see the difference, Sal. Homosexuality is the act of making nookie with somebody who shares the same undercarriage. The Bible says it's a sin. 'Splain the distinction for me?
Posted by: Jeff Harrell at April 4, 2005 07:14 PM
I think, Jeff, it's because the Church views man as in the image of God, imperfect but still of God, and sin lies in action that man chooses, moving him further from God.
So while one may be gay, the Bible never says homosexual orientation is a "sin", thereby removing the homosexual from the grace of God, but only the act of homosexuality is "sin."
Even heterosexuals can/have engage(d) in the "sin" of gay sex (or fornication or adultery) and fallen just as far from grace as any gay who engages in acts deemed "sinful."
Michael Medved made a point about this today...that (authentic) religion is not about making one "feel good" by catering to one's one thoughts and desires, but rather a particular standard by which a person can measure themselves.
I guess that's amuses/annoys me about those talking about the Catholic Church as if it were the Disney Corp and it was all about picking a new CEO with an eye to catering to future audiences.
It's a religion ... agree with it, disagree with it, join/don't join, hey it's a free country and the Catholic Church has been around 2000 years and I think they can take care of themselves.
:-)
Posted by: Darleen at April 4, 2005 07:28 PM
That's what I'm getting at, though. To me, the word "gay" has no meaning apart from the act of having gay sex. If you're not having gay sex, then you're not gay, are you?
I think the whole idea of treating people who like to have sex with people of the same gender as an ethnic group or whatever is a mistake. It's like making people who like broccoli a protected class. I don't like it.
Posted by: Jeff Harrell at April 5, 2005 10:25 AM
No - Darleen is right. A homosexual who is attracted only to his/her own sex, but does not act on that attraction is still a homosexual, just as a celibate heterosexual is still attracted to the opposite sex and is still a heterosexual.
'Courage' is the organization dedicated to helping homosexual Catholics live a chaste life in accordance with Church moral theology.
Posted by: Sal at April 5, 2005 06:31 PM
It's kind of odd that everyone speaks of the Catholic church as being so eternally wise and unchanging. You that are posting about this obviously know of the various reforms and backtracks that Catholicism has undergone over the centuries. I'm essentially agnostic, but from a long line of Swedish Lutherans, and I know you know that Luther didn't leave the church for nothing! Catholicism is certainly a time-honored sect of Christianity, and they provide comfort and guidance to hundreds of millions around the world, and I wouldn't change that basic fact if I could, but to pretend that today's accepted doctrine will definitely be here tomorrow is just wrong in my view. Eastern rite Catholic priests are allowed to marry already (my wife's grandfather was one in Ukraine and then in America), and most Catholics I know use birth control even if they are "traditional" in other respects. It seems like it's just a matter of time before they just decide to make the reality official and just change their view on it to that of Protestants that do not see it as incompatible with the Bible. Again, no offense intended here, I know it's a touchy issue for a lot of people.
Posted by: Erik at April 5, 2005 07:35 PM
Also, as for the gay issue, I think that is the one part of Catholic doctrine that significantly crosses the line between pro-God to anti-human, but I'm not going to argue the point. It is pointless when you feel you know for sure that it is wrong. If you're right, and God sees homosexuality as immoral, then great for you, otherwise, if there is a God, and you're wrong about what he thinks, I don't want to be there if you have to explain what you said about gays and he greets you in Heaven with his boyfriend at his side. *;-) I know, bad joke, but you never know... What I am saying is there are hundreds of religions out there, and at most one can be right, yet everyone *really* likes their odds!
Posted by: Erik at April 5, 2005 07:43 PM
Erik
I don't think anyone here has said the Catholic Church has been "wise and unchanging". I remember the impact of Vatican II on the Church and how many members did split over it. There are still small Catholic Churches that follow pro-Vatican II doctrine (Latin masses, etc).
The whole point is that it IS a religion, and as non-Catholics we shouldn't be projecting public politics upon it.
BTW... there ARE married Roman Catholic Priest. IE married Episcopalian priest who convert to Roman Catholicism can remain married (they just can't remarry if they become widowers). My Irish Roman Catholic ex-mother-in-law's parish has a married priest.
Posted by: Darleen at April 6, 2005 06:33 AM
Ah, yes, I know of that loophole as well. That seems to make it all the more strange to not just make it part of the doctrine and let them be married. Isn't the church then stronger for these reforms like Vatican II? Do you think it would have more members today if they hadn't reformed?
I thought you were Catholic? My mistake.
Posted by: Erik at April 6, 2005 10:52 AM