Pope Francis on Love and Marriage

[Crocoduck]

So, the Pope issued the "Amoris Laetitia," a broad statement about marriage and other forms of love in relation to the RC Church and Christianity in general. While there is no call for accepting gay marriage, or allowing remarried Catholics to take communion, there are some interesting changes in some of the messaging around patriarchy and authoritarianism in marriage. I found this passage especially interesting:

Quote

There are those who believe that many of today’s problems have arisen because of feminine emancipation. This argument, however, is not valid, "it is false, untrue, a form of male chauvinism.

The equal dignity of men and women makes us rejoice to see old forms of discrimination disappear, and within families there is a growing reciprocity. If certain forms of feminism have arisen which we must consider inadequate, we must nonetheless see in the women’s movement the working of the Spirit for a clearer recognition of the dignity and rights of women.

Vox has a good summary.

[anjulibai]

He also said the Church need to be more tolerant and accepting and less judgmental of gays and divorced people remarrying. He didn't change Church doctrine, but he did say that attitudes need to change towards people that don't live to the ideals of the Church, and that descrimination was wrong. 

On the other hand, he also reiterated that birth control was still not okay, and equated safe sex with just preventing children when it's not. 

I think Francis is trying to walk a fine line between liberals and conservatives in the movement, and I think he's doing a decent job at it. It's not perfect, because he doesn't want to alienate conservatives, but it's certainly a start and he obviously wants to embrace the diversity of humanity. I hope to see even more improvement as time goes on. 

[Crocoduck]

54 minutes ago, anjulibai said:

I think Francis is trying to walk a fine line between liberals and conservatives in the movement, and I think he's doing a decent job at it. It's not perfect, because he doesn't want to alienate conservatives, but it's certainly a start and he obviously wants to embrace the diversity of humanity. I hope to see even more improvement as time goes on. 

I think you captured the line he is walking. The RC Church moves at a glacial pace and Francis seems to be trying to push it along just a bit, without risking a conservative revolt.

[47of74]

18 hours ago, Crocoduck said:

I think you captured the line he is walking. The RC Church moves at a glacial pace and Francis seems to be trying to push it along just a bit, without risking a conservative revolt.

Exactly, sooner or later the church will enter the 20th century.  Probably not until we're all dead and gone. 

 

[Sundaymorning]

Well his writing has at least a more conciliatory tone. But that doesn't take away the fact that many teachings of the RC Church remain incredibly harmful and cause great damage to people all around the world. There really isn't anything new in this statements, just the plain old doctrines worded a bit more kindly and elusively.

[Crocoduck]

1 hour ago, Sundaymorning said:

Well his writing has at least a more conciliatory tone. But that doesn't take away the fact that many teachings of the RC Church remain incredibly harmful and cause great damage to people all around the world. There really isn't anything new in this statements, just the plain old doctrines worded a bit more kindly and elusively.

ITA. I'm still all kinds of messed up from Catholic guilt and I'm a straight woman! However, it is kind of a Big Fucking Deal for Francis to say "who am I to judge?" or call himself "a bit Feminist," even without doctrinal changes. Again, glacial pace and this is a way for him to change things ever so slightly without starting revolts similar to the post Vatican II schisms.

[Sundaymorning]

15 minutes ago, Crocoduck said:

ITA. I'm still all kinds of messed up from Catholic guilt and I'm a straight woman! However, it is kind of a Big Fucking Deal for Francis to say "who am I to judge?" or call himself "a bit Feminist," even without doctrinal changes. Again, glacial pace and this is a way for him to change things ever so slightly without starting revolts similar to the post Vatican II schisms.

I understand that he has to be careful cause there are a lot of really conservative and even reactionary forces in the RC Church. I'm certainly not expecting him to appear in a condom commercial or to go to Pride.

But what I do hold against him is that he stirs up controversy and hate when he could just stay quiet on certain issues.

He conveniently didn't mention the sexual abuse crimes committed by clergy members too much, so why, for example, go into detail about why he doesn't think that trans-people even exist? This might not seem like such a big deal to many, but for those trans people who have a conservative Catholic family who actually listens to what the Pope has to say, these words are a huge disaster which might just destroy their life, or at least make it much harder.

Same goes for his rant against safe sex education. Safe sex education is so important and if the RC Church would finally give up their stupid resistance against condoms, it would help to save many lives. But even if the Pope isn't ready to make this step, he just should have stayed quiet on this issue, there are a lot of other, positive things he could have written about instead.

While I agree that this Pope is kinder than his predecessor, and I really admire his desire for reforms regarding certain things like the Curia, we mustn't forget that he as Cardinal did everything in his power to prevent gay marriage from happening in Argentina, he called it an "attempt to destroy God’s plan". Even if he does use nicer words now, his doctrines still haven't changed.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal_bergoglio_hits_out_at_same-sex_marriage

http://www.catholichawaii.org/media/224245/bergoglio_to_carmelite_sisters.pdf

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/13/pope-francis-i-first-catholic-pontiff-americas/?page=all

[roddma]

The RC Church still isn't widely excepting of child-free and singles. Catholic singles frequently speak out about feeling isolated..

[ShepherdontheRock]

Well, I guess that's a start.

But I'd like to say I'm really skeptical of the whole progressives basically canonizing Pope Francis, and we shouldn't do that.

Although seeing as the Catholic church has a history of being HELLA problematic (even genocidal) maybe we shouldn't expect more.

[Cleopatra7]

11 hours ago, Crocoduck said:

ITA. I'm still all kinds of messed up from Catholic guilt and I'm a straight woman! However, it is kind of a Big Fucking Deal for Francis to say "who am I to judge?" or call himself "a bit Feminist," even without doctrinal changes. Again, glacial pace and this is a way for him to change things ever so slightly without starting revolts similar to the post Vatican II schisms.

The "Who am I to judge" thing has been taken out of context. He said in with regard to priests who are gay, but celibate and hardworking. There are a bunch of very vocal conservative and traditionalist Catholics who think that gay priests are responsible for all the Catholic church's problems, and Francis was reacting to this attitude, saying that as long as a priest is celibate and following all the rules, then it doesn't matter what his sexual orientation is.

To me, the underlying problem is that the thought of Thomas Aquinas is considered "the perennial philosophy" in the Catholic Church. Aquinas was operating from the assumption that Aristotle's "science" (which we now know is almost completely wrong) was true, and that assumption not only colors his work, but much contemporary Catholic thinking on gender roles, sexuality, and bioethics. If you think Thomas Aquinas figured everything there is to know about morality and ethics back in the thirteenth century and Aristotle figured everything about science back in the fourth century BCE, there's really not much to talk about.

[47of74]

I think Francis is doing a much better job than Benedict did.  I like seeing conservative heads explode on a regular basis because of something Francis did or said, and the logical pretzels these same conservatives tie themselves in to explaining how now it's not mandatory to do what the Pope says - which is the exact opposite of what they said when Benedict or John Paul II were in charge.

Even so I don't think I would ever go back to the Roman church.  There's a lot of things they would have to do differently to bring me back.  Otherwise the Roman church is just not for me anymore.  The Episcopal church is much more fulfilling for me, and is closer to what my beliefs are.  I only wish I had walked awaw from the Roman church a lot sooner than what I had, I might have saved myself a bit of trouble and been a happier person. 

[FundieFarmer]

So, I have a question for Catholic FJers. I'm from a faith that likes to holler about dating back to the reformation, so I'm not familiar with Catholic culture very much, or the church past its theology. I hold absolutely zero judgement at all, and would love to learn more about the church culture past the theology. I have googled some, but would you recommend any blogs or sources you like to read? I'm really interested in what Vatican II is and how that all happened. I know I can look it up, I am just wondering if you have any resources you'd consider the most accurate or more preferable than others- or anything you'd say to absolutely NOT read!

[Cleopatra7]

27 minutes ago, FundieFarmer said:

So, I have a question for Catholic FJers. I'm from a faith that likes to holler about dating back to the reformation, so I'm not familiar with Catholic culture very much, or the church past its theology. I hold absolutely zero judgement at all, and would love to learn more about the church culture past the theology. I have googled some, but would you recommend any blogs or sources you like to read? I'm really interested in what Vatican II is and how that all happened. I know I can look it up, I am just wondering if you have any resources you'd consider the most accurate or more preferable than others- or anything you'd say to absolutely NOT read!

My advice is to stay away from Catholic blogs and message boards, because they're a gigantic cesspool; even the ostensibly "liberal" sites like National Catholic Register and Commweal are a mess. I can give you some book suggestions that might be useful:

1. Religion and the Decline of Magic by Keith Thomas 

I think everyone should read this book, tbh. It shows you what religion was really like in the medieval and Reformation periods and it's not what you think (TL;Dr religion for "ordinary people" consisted of folk magic and superstition, even after the Reformation supposedly improved things)

2. Modern Catholic Social Teaching: The Pope's Confront the Industrial Age 1740-1958

Good book about the evolution of papal social though in the modern world. Doesn't cover Vatican II, however.

3. Catholicism by Richard McBrien

Introduction to Catholicism from a "liberal" perspective.

4. A Manual of Religion: My Catholic Faith

This one may be a challenge to find, but it's excellent resource from the pre-Vatican II church. You can compare this with McBrien's book for a contrast.

I can't recommend any books specifically on Vatican II at the moment because all the ones I've seen are highly polemical in nature, and can be confusing to someone trying to make sense of it from another tradition.

[47of74]

1 hour ago, Cleopatra7 said:

My advice is to stay away from Catholic blogs and message boards, because they're a gigantic cesspool; even the ostensibly "liberal" sites like National Catholic Register and Commweal are a mess.

Yeah I would agree with about staying clear of a lot of sites, or at the least taking what they say with a pound or two of salt.  I might trust NCR a bit more than I would others namely because they are an independent organization and worked on the premise that as founder Robert Hoyt said, "If the mayor of a city owned its only newspaper its citizens will not learn what they need and deserve to know about its affairs."