Is that the same as "almost not bigoted"?

the ideological shackles of a 1700 year old authoritarian religious institution.

Until there is an actual policy change this is all just pr bullshit.

PR shapes minds and expectations while policy merely proscribes behavior.


Controlling and shaping the minds of the adherents of an ideology eventually forces policy change. The reverse is not true at all.

Also your own, crediting Francis with saying something in an article in which Francis is not quoted at all. His mouthpiece trash talks gay people a bit. Ugly stuff, dressed up for the show by you personally.

You should own your words and your work. The title is your work, your words.

But at least it is progress, and in the proper direction.

Three years ago, the Catholic Church wouldn't have been having this discussion AT ALL. And certainly it wouldn't be a discussion that would have included the Pope himself.

I don't give a shit about their 'discussions'. Until they are no longer bigoted and evil, they are in the wrong. 'Discussion' sounds like an excuse to continue their bad behaviors.
There is nothing to discuss. Equal is equal. They have no right to trash talk minority groups. Who the hell are they? They are Cardinal Law and dozens of other utterly depraved people.

when the last of the Papal States fell to the Italian Army. From 1769-1861 there were 561 executions carried out by Papal Government. By a single executioner. He kept a list of the names. Guillotine, drawn and quartered, hung, and they also used a method called Mazzatallo, which involved crushing the head with a mallet then slitting the throat.

So of course when they say they are eternally opposed to the death penalty, they mean 'now that we no longer have that power we oppose the use of that power, so abused by us in the past'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_in_the_Papal_States#1860-1870

34. The synod will have to reflect on how to promote in today’s world a ministry which encourages the participation of the family in society. Families are not only the subject of protection by the State, but must regain their role as active agents in society. In this regard, the following challenges emerge: the relationship between the family and the workplace; the relationship between the family and education; the relationship between the family and health; the family’s ability to bring generations together so as not to neglect the young and the elderly; the situation of the rights of the family institution and its specific relationships; and the promotion of just laws, such as those that ensure the defense of human life from its conception and those which promote the social goodness of an authentic marriage between a man and a woman.

There are so many outrageous statements in this documents I barely know where to begin.

23. Generally speaking, the notion of “human rights” is also seen as highly subjective and a call for a person to self-determination, a process which is no longer grounded in the idea of the natural law. In this regard, many respondents relate that the legal systems in many countries are having to make laws on situations which are contrary to the traditional dictates of the natural law (for example, in vitro fertilization, homosexual unions, the manipulation of human embryos, abortion, etc.). Situated in this context is the increased diffusion of the ideology called gender theory, according to which the gender of each individual turns out to be simply the product of social conditioning and needs and, thereby, ceasing, in this way, to have any correspondence to a person’s biological sexuality.

24. Furthermore, much attention is given in the responses to the fact that what becomes established in civil law — based on an increasingly dominant legal positivism — might mistakenly become in people’s mind accepted as morally right. What is “natural” tends to be determined by the individual and society only, who have become the sole judges in ethical choices. The relativization of the concept of “nature” is also reflected in the concept of stability and the “duration” of the relationship of marriage unions. Today, love is considered “forever” only to the point that a relationship lasts.

25. If some responses refer to a lack of proper understanding of the natural law, several episcopal conferences in Africa, Oceania and East Asia, mention that, in some regions, polygamy is to be considered “natural,” as well as a husband’s divorcing his wife because she is unable to bear children — and, in some cases, unable to bear sons. In other words, from an emerging point of view, drawn from a widely diffused culture, the natural law is no longer to be considered as applicable to everyone, since people mistakenly come to the conclusion that a unique system of reference does not exist.

I'm just going to stop here. This document is so full of offensive language I barely know where to begin. If anything, it only reiterates that their war on gay marriage and reproductive choice will continue.

Perhaps if some of these news sources would actually read these documents rather than just regurgitate whatever press release they're fed by the Vatican, they'd report that nothing, at all, has changed.

I mean, it is as if they forget that the world knows them to be one of the major abusers of children for many generations.

nearly open= closed

"often aggressively" call attention to their unions."

So, regarding LGBT, this piece basically says, "We're not changing anything, other than saying don't be mean to gays." The vatican needs to get that message to US RCC leadership.

Also, they are not changing the stance on birth control, only that "the media and its own priests have failed to communicate the "positive" aspects of the Vatican's key document banning artificial contraception".

Interesting how another part of the article calls for expediting annulments for opposite-sex couples. And here I thought divorce was a 'threat to marriage' more than the gays.

And, until he tells the church and its members to stop fighting against secular laws regarding equality and autonomy, it's no more than lip service. Women and LGBT aren't looking for the church to "be nice" to us, we want them to stop trying to make this country a theocracy.

"Women and LGBT aren't looking for the church to "be nice" to us, we want them to stop trying to make this country a theocracy."

And to that I say "AMEN" on this Sunday morning (as a former Catholic).

utter bullshit about important things. This sort of thing makes Francis look worse than the doddering old hypocritical bigot billionaire already looks, and he already looks culpable for murder and corruption of all sorts. Vicious, vile old hate monger.

If you Superstar Promoters would be honest, it would not be necessary to use so much strong language about this bigoted old fucker.

Things like this freak out naysayers who would rather see religion die, than evolve.

Keep your religion to yourself, leave us alone. That's what that Church needs to do. They need to stop the bullying.
In Uganda, Bishops of that Church are calling for violence against LGBT people. They want us dead, and they say so.
How petty to use the language you indulge in to defend a group engaged in pogroms calling for the elimination of gay people.

Their former Fox News PR Director knows they have to appear more relevant.

Meanwhile, Catholic hospitals deny legitimate medical procedures to women, and Catholic Adoption agencies refuse to place children with gay couples.

But how 'bout that Pope, eh? Didja hear he stopped his motorcade to meet that little angel Roberta?



Sid

This article contains not a single word quoted from Francis. No 'signal'. No nothing. The title of the article at the source does not claim the Pope signaled something, because he did not.
Not one word from Francis in the article, not one word from him about what his Bishops are doing in Uganda. No remorse, no nothing.

Additionally when you read the full article, it clearly states they are not changing any teachings on same sex marriage and the Vatican mouthpiece says some horrible, bigoted things. He signals a deep bigotry that is not going anywhere.

nice.

He can not deny what I said nor defend his own actions. So he lashes out.

And it is a regular feature of these aggressively anti gay Francis actions on DU. The title makes claims that the article not only does not deliver, but the article says the opposite of what the title claims.
'Near openness' is your phrase, so is adding Francis to the title. And it is simply false.

No quote from Francis in the article, he signaled nothing. His mouthpiece said shitty things.

RCC members comprise 43% of Uganda. Francis says nothing and his boosters laugh about it all.
Jesus wept.
http://www.seattleglobalist.com/2014/06/27/uganda-anti-homosexuality-bill-pride/27155

Why shouldn't we be pissed? You treat the very real issues of the oppression of women and LGBTs as a joke.

I just point out when the church makes advances. This pope is actually making slow changes.

You proceed from a false premise.

"A difference which makes no difference IS no difference."

Get back to me when the Pope isn't inviting France's most virulent, anti-gay hatemonger to a private mass, when the bishops and Archbishops of Uganda and Nigeria have been defrocked, when the scores of lawsuits against contraception coverage have been dropped, when he isn't giving his seal of approval to an anti-gay hate march in Washington, when women are offered an equal place in the church, when the crackdown on progressive nuns is history and his minions in the church heirarchy aren't pouring millions of dollars into anti-gay legislation.

Until then, the PR firm can continue working overtime to convince us that the emperor really is wearing a new set of clothes.

Why does progressive Pope Francis allow anti-gay bishops to preach hate?

Why won’t this pope speak out against leaders like the Nigerian president and his own bishops who support draconian treatment of gay people?
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2014/04/06/Francis-keeps-his-distance-MICHAEL-O-LOUGHLIN/stories/201404060013


And again, the article you linked to said
"The document doesn't recommend changing church teaching on key hot-button issues like its opposition to gay marriage."

So your claim of a signal of change is not accurate, it states no change is recommended. Clearly. In the article provided by your own OP.

How the Catholic Church Changed its position on abortion, gay rights and birth control (or didn't)

http://www.bustle.com/articles/28246-how-the-catholic-church-changed-its-position-on-abortion-gay-rights-and-birth-control-or-didnt

Sure church doctrine hasn't changed and isn't expected to change. But a bat signal! How cool is that?

As this thread demonstrates.

The document doesn't recommend changing church teaching on key hot-button issues like its opposition to gay marriage.

And

It distinguished between gays who are "discreet" in their lifestyle and those who actively, "often aggressively" call attention to their unions.

Maybe the church will get there by 2050 or 2100...

... as long as they stay out of politics, which they are unwilling to do. Since they won't, they'll come under the same kind of scrutiny and criticism as any other organization that promotes and funds campaigns against the rights of women and LGBTs.

Uganda's Anti-Gay Witch Hunt Has Officially Begun
https://news.vice.com/article/ugandas-anti-gay-witch-hunt-has-officially-begun

Why does progressive Pope Francis allow anti-gay bishops to preach hate?

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2014/04/06/Francis-keeps-his-distance-MICHAEL-O-LOUGHLIN/stories/201404060013

Uganda is 43% Catholic and Francis says nothing about it. That defines him.

which, officially, is don't discriminate and don't judge. Not that the Church doesn't do this with their other stances on LGBT issues. But it's not new at all. The Church teaches that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Gays can't help being gay; they're sick.

Of course, they still want gays to not act on their sexuality and be "discreet".