but how long did it take them to admit Galileo was right?

But between Galileo's "trial" and 1992, they set up one of the oldest, most productive, and well-respected Observatories in Europe.
Not defending their non-apology by any stretch, but most of the time it's more important what the Vatican DOES than what they SAY.

That this is even being DISCUSSED will make some Catholic heads explode. As for me, it think it will be nice for a change to have the power of Papal Word on the side of tolerance (sort of) than on the side of ignorance, fear, and hatred. In the past, I would argue with Opus Dei types, and it would always be "Well, it doesn't matter what US Law says, the Pope says such and such is a sin, so there."

Yeah, that's GREAT if His Holiness agrees with your position. Now you can know what it feels like when he DOESN'T.

His condemnation was about publishing in the vernacular (the laity weren't supposed to know about heliocentrism because it would confuse them) and using his skill at physics to help the city-states use their artillery against papal armies...

after the goats ran off. Too late! The Church has alienated enough groups and they're not getting them back, and not getting 10% of their income either.

The Catholic Church is going to BE just as bigoted towards homosexuals as it has always been, but they're going to try not to SOUND as bigoted.

Forgive me if I don't applaud. Good PR, good spin, but as usual, no substance behind it.

...enough to talk about possibly, maybe changing someday.

I'm glad they feel like they have to start playing defense without playing the usual right-wing victimhood card.

Attendance down much?

There is no there, there.

to BE not so bigoted would mean a loss of their "FAITH"

Leaves some reasonable doubt about the Vatican's bigotry, but not much.

This is what happens when religious leaders take a no compromise position. They have created their own dilemma. For example they choose to oppose contraceptive birth control and even after a commission appointed by Pope John XXIII recommended it be reversed they found themselves in a quandary that if they reversed themselves they would compromise their position on virtually every issue regarding sexuality. Pope John who called for Vatican II provided the entrenched conservative an opportunity and they squandered it. As a consequence, only a small minority of Catholics adhere to the church's teachings condemning any sex outside of marriage and that it must be open to transmission of life. For the majority of young people the church is totally irrelevant to their needs and life style and has little of no impact.

...while the hierarchy tries to come up with a face-saving way to flip-flop.

I would hope that church leaders feel a touch of left-outness, for just a taste of what they've done to others for centuries.

I think it's a good sign, though...

As it says, church policy and doctrine, upheld by Francis, have not changed one bit. Why would anyone who calls themselves progressive think this is something wonderful?

Church doctrine. He can't dictate this kind of change all on his own.
I believe the only way to change any Church doctrine is to have the
vast majority of the Church hierarchy with him. May be this is what
he is trying to do -- and if so, it will take time. There are so many
rules, regulations and traditions that must be followed.

I imagine you think that the Pope is practically all powerful, as far as
the Church is concerned. Well, he isn't, not by a long shot.

He could get in front of a camera tomorrow and say that he thinks same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, and that he was going to push for that change in church doctrine with everything he had. Even if church doctrine didn't change instantly as a result, NOTHING prevents him from doing that. But he won't. Not tomorrow, not next week and not next year. Because he is adamantly opposed to it, and always will be. We both know that, but you choose to hide behind the tired old "change takes time" excuse. Advocating for change takes no time at all, if you have courage and not bigotry in your heart.

along with several thousand major players in the church he must consult with and get agreement stop him from just declaring ex cathedra something this new.

There are rules for this. Maybe you don't like the rules, but rules still stop complete insanity.

That's a handy excuse, but for the pope to come out in support of same-sex marriage will be disruptive tomorrow, next week or in ten years. It will never NOT break "the rules" for the pope to advocate for something against church doctrine, so the only way it can happen is for him to ignore the rules and do it anyway. Which, as noted, he could do tomorrow, if he wanted to.

Why are you making excuses for this kind of virulent anti-gay bigotry?

"Disruptive" is only the tip of the iceberg. He can no more declare for gay marriage any more than he can overturn the concept of life beginning at conception, as much as we might like him to. Just because you have no such beliefs doesn't mean nobody has, or that they won't rise in revolt when such beliefs are challenged.

You might note that the Emancipation Proclamation only pertained to rebellious states back then, as Lincoln had no authority to free the few remaining slaves in Union states. His authority to free the slaves came solely from his position of CiC and it was specifically a provision of war. Look into how that worked as an example.

Bigotry is an ugly word. This is a complex world and does not fall neatly into the thought patterns some of us might seem to think are obvious. Nowhere does the Pope say he hates homosexuality or homosexuals. What he does say is that in these times his church has to move to modernize its views and doctrines. If that's not good enough, don't join the Catholic church.

And not just homosexuals who voluntarily belong to the Catholic Church, but ALL homosexuals.

I don't know what kind of deluded world of apologetics you live in where that isn't bigotry, plain and simple, but it's a disgusting attitude to see on a progressive web site. And sad to see the kind of behaviors and attitudes your religion has you defending.

Now you're going to tell me that if they don't get all the rights you claim they should have, they effectively have none. Catholics say divorced people shouldn't be married either-- yet another horrific example of bigotry?

For what it's worth, this stuff only matters if you're a practicing Catholic. Sure, they have tried to expand a lot of stuff to the general population, but on the sex stuff they've been stalled while non-Catholic groups have been far more successful at it.

I get it that you hate Catholics, and probably Christians in general, but while you're at it why not scream to have the charities and justice advocacies shut down, too. After all, feeding children and the poor must be evil if done by a bigoted organization. We wouldn't support a Klan food bank, would we?

Such broad-brushing on a progressive site....SMH

I'm guessing you can't, which makes me wonder what your real agenda is. Maybe just to try out eye-rolling smilies.

Makes me wonder if someone else is feeding you talking points. You certainly can't back up your accusations yourself.

Check his posts in the Religion group sometime.

Only you would think that was a slam dunk argument from T. Bastard.

Spend much time in Sweden?

The Catholic Church does not believe that homosexuals should have all of the same rights as heterosexuals. Your rather vapid straw man and attempts to put words in my mouth notwithstanding, that's bigotry, plain and simple. For you to try to excuse it by saying, in effect, that the Catholic Church still thinks they should have SOME of the same rights as everyone else, but not all, is despicable beyond anything that should ever appear on a progressive web site. As is the "they run soup kitchens, so you should give them a pass on bigotry" argument. Can you seriously look yourself in the mirror in the morning and call yourself a progressive? I wonder if you would make the same excuse if the Catholic church took the position that blacks should not be allowed to marry. Sure you would.

And no, it doesn't only matter if you're a "practicing Catholic". Not when the Catholic church lobbies to have same-sex marriage and adoption banned for EVERYONE, whether they're Catholic or not (something they haven't tried to do for re-marriage of non-Catholic divorcees any time recently, btw, so your example is crap). You knew that before, and I reminded you of it once, so why you'd try that lame dodge again is a total mystery.

And really..on the "sex stuff"? That a rabid Catholic apologist would use that phrase is more revealing that you even grasp. But here's a hint…it's not about the icky, dirty, sinful "sex stuff". It's about far more. It's about being able to live as a fully realized human being, a right both you and your church feel that some people should never, ever be allowed to exercise. And I'm not sure that it isn't even more nauseating (and pathetic) that some homosexuals on DU stand up to defend apologetics like yours.

the spittle when people who don't know shit about the Catholic Church except what they read go off.

What I am saying is that it is a complex issue and far more than the Catholics have been dealing with it for a long time. It will be worked out and the screeds on both sides will stop. Meanwhile, no Catholic diocese has actually stopped any gay marriages that I know of, so if you must attack, attack conservative movements that take this seriously and have blocked gay marriage at the statehouse. If a diocese claims married gay couples will incur the wrath of God, that may be silly ,but really is no concern of yours. Or mine, either.

I have a problem with gay marriage because I have a problem with marriage in general-- it has long lost it's importance in identifying heirs and distributing property and is now simply a way to enrich divorce lawyers. And cause some grief to couples who are not married. So I would prefer the whole thing go away-- gay or straight. There are other ways to deal with legalities and marriage could be simply a personal ceremony for those who want it.

Gotta admit I'm a little surprised that you, the bigshot atheist, would defend the concept of marriage, as enjoined with religion as it has been for thousands of years.

Or is it just another talking point for slamming Catholics?

"Meanwhile, no Catholic diocese has actually stopped any gay marriages that I know of, so if you must attack, attack conservative movements that take this seriously and have blocked gay marriage at the statehouse."

Are you actually trying to argue that the church has not inserted itself in the political crusades against gay marriage? Do you really want to go there, because I can assure you I can make such an assertion look as if it landed here from somewhere in the Twilight Zone.

I don't know shit about the Catholic Church? Am I right or wrong that church doctrine prohibits marriage between homosexuals? Am I right or wrong that the RCC has fought against laws legalizing gay marriage and adoption? Frankly I don't give a ratfuck if your church tries vainly to call the wrath of your misbegotten "god" down on same-sex couples, but when they speak one word or lift one finger in the secular world to prevent them from exercising their rights as human beings, that's a concern of every decent person.

And please…could you have come up with a lamer deflection? "I have a problem with gay marriage because I have a problem with marriage in general"?? Seriously? That really IS no concern of yours. Have a problem with gay marriage? Don't get one.

For myself, I defend the concept of people having equal rights and privileges, regardless of their sexual orientation, with respect to marriage and everything else. Apparently you don't.

Just like they were in the 1400's because no pope can make this sort of change. it's impossible. Can't be done.

at a Catholic university. Many of my classmates and I found some of
the Church teachings entirely ridiculous. By my late teens I was
already distancing myself from Catholicism. As soon as I left home
and started living on my own in my early 20s, I had nothing more
to do with the Church, and have remained so to date.

I think it's fair to say that I understand more about how the Catholic
Church operates than you do. Your "you choose to hide behind the
tired old 'change takes time' excuse" is nonsense.

I just added a few words to my original post: there are many rules,
regulations and traditions that must be followed for any changes in
doctrine to be made. A comparable example would be making an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Only, the
Catholic Church is 2,000 years old, and very likely that much more
entrenched and unwieldy in its old ways.

He lacks the authority. I could explain why he cannot but it would take a few posts and I do not have the time. Just know that what you stated is not possible under Cannon law.

Last edited Tue Oct 14, 2014, 12:30 PM - Edit history (2)

He and the Catholic Church lack the authority to dictate to sovereign governments what their laws should be, but that's never stopped them before, now has it? The RCC presumes moral authority over the entire world, handed down from God (they say), so this is just an excuse.

And your pronouncements on "Cannon" law would have a little more credibility if you actually knew how to spell it.

too bad you don't. Now, my bad spelling aside, let's look at your previous argument, that Francis could stand up and say " he was going to push for that change in church doctrine with everything he had. Even if church doctrine didn't change instantly as a result, NOTHING prevents him from doing that. But he won't. Not tomorrow, not next week and not next year. Because he is adamantly opposed to it, and always will be. We both know that, but you choose to hide behind the tired old "change takes time" excuse. Advocating for change takes no time at all, if you have courage and not bigotry in your heart."

To put it bluntly, you know nothing. To rant and rave that the Pope can change Doctrine with a statement is pure silliness on your part. A Pope CANNOT change Doctrine nor can he change Apostolic Tradition (nice big letters are used on purpose...they mean something).

As an aside, I never understood why atheists like you don't take the time to actually study that which they oppose. Your ignorance diminishes your argument... Anyway, onto a little guided discovery to point out WHY your statement is nonsensical.

If a Pope stood up and said "I am going to change Doctrine and Apostolic Tradition (with a capitol T)", he would be laughed out of the Vatican because every priests from a lowly brother to a Cardinal knows that is impossible.

In case you missed it, let me say it again, in all caps. THE POPE LACKS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE DOCTRINE AND APOSTOLIC TRADITION.

Now, to make you feel a little better, let me tell you this. Pope Francis can change Dogma and tradition (with a lower case "t&quot .

I am sure you will find 200 retorts that dodge this obvious point, so don't bother. Look it up. Pope's cannot change Doctrine. Even if Francis wants to, he cannot.

Wow. Just wow.

Point me and everyone else reading this to the exact quote where I said that the pope could actually change doctrine with a statement.

Failure to provide that quote, and lame excuses why you can't or won't, will be taken as proof that you know you're full of shit and that you're lying to cover it up.

Tick tock.

First paragraph qotes YOUR post in QUOTES Word for Word. Everyone can fucking read it if they want. Go away. You obviously have issues.

His first post said the pope could advocate for change.

"He could get in front of a camera tomorrow and say that he thinks same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, and that he was going to push for that change in church doctrine with everything he had. Even if church doctrine didn't change instantly as a result, NOTHING prevents him from doing that. But he won't. Not tomorrow, not next week and not next year. Because he is adamantly opposed to it, and always will be. We both know that, but you choose to hide behind the tired old "change takes time"

And I told him, he does not understand the Church, because Doctrine cannot be changed by a Pope, by Cardinals, or ANYONE. Thus, a Pope could NOT make such a statement, because changes in Doctrine are IMPOSSIBLE.

Mr. skeptic states that the only reason he does not do this is "Because he is adamantly opposed to it, and always will be", which is again, more bullshit and conjecture. The reason the Pope cannot do it is because it cannot be done. Once again, DOCTRINE CANNOT BE CHANGED.

It is an argument I grow so weary of on DU. That, and the belief that the Pope always speaks ex-cathedra, when in fact, there have been TWO instances of ex-cathedra, and both were about the Virgin Mary.

Once again, a Pope CANNOT change Doctrine. No one CAN change Doctrine. No Pope can stand before the world and proclaim that "HE will push for a change in Church Doctrine" because NO ONE has that authority.

That is the point.

And now you're resorting to lame insults as well as lame excuses. Not to mention really bizarre falsehoods...everyone CAN read, and what you claim is there, isn't. That you would insist otherwise is bizarre and truly sad. Is this what being a Catholic apologist does to people?

Issues? Look in the mirror.

"He could get in front of a camera tomorrow and say that he thinks same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, and that he was going to push for that change in church doctrine with everything he had. Even if church doctrine didn't change instantly as a result, NOTHING prevents him from doing that. But he won't. Not tomorrow, not next week and not next year. Because he is adamantly opposed to it, and always will be. We both know that, but you choose to hide behind the tired old "change takes time"

Once again, you seem to think that the Pope can change Doctrine. Again, I tell you NO ONE CAN CHANGE CHURCH DOCTRINE! IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. You do not know what you are talking about.

If you want to know why, it is because Jesus speaks to marriage in the Gospels of both Mark and Mathew. Thus, this is Doctrine, not Dogma. It cannot be changed by a Pope. a Council of Cardinals, or anyone else. I have already written this several times and you just won't listen.

you apparently have no clue about the difference between simply changing something with a word, and ADVOCATING for change (which is ALL that I'm talking about here). And as a result, you're reduced to making shit up about what I've said, over and over again, and tossing grade school insults.

You have a nice day with your pope.

Yep! Extremely proud Catholic and extremely proud gay man! A great day all around!

Alrighty, then.

Because if I did, I'd pray that you just forgot your sarcasm smilie.

Leaders lead. Leaders tell their followers what needs to be done, and what should be done, and then they lead by example. Did Martin Luther King wait for the culture of racism to change before he spoke out and acted to fight for racial equality? If the pope had either morals or courage, he would speak out as well. But he won't, because he wants things to continue as they are, and in fact to regress.

I was being somewhat tongue in cheek.

Still, I would not have called Obama a bigot prior to 2012. That would be a little hyperbolic. Just not very brave.

I think he's got shitty opinions.
Which is worse in your eyes?
Would it be better if I returned in kind what the Pope says about me and called him inherently disordered and said his rights should not be the equal of my own?
He should be glad that his critics are better people than he is and do not return to him the level of contempt his rhetoric delivers to us.

... then criticizing the bigotry itself. Odd for a progressive site, isn't it.

Very odd for a progressive site. Denying progress itself.

But feel free to get back to me if you spot any. That would be progress.

...on the left, he's not moving fast enough on liberalization, condemning capitalism, etc.

...on the right, the liberalization he has done, to them, means he's the anti-Christ.

So he's bringing reality back to the church and hoping some who have become disenfranchised will start to return...but, he's probably going to lose hard right members like Opus Dei....that or entrench them as a faction in the church.

They think that they can continue being bigots if they put it nicely enough? This is like saying 'we will keep kicking you, but now we will smile when we do it'.

Top Vatican Official: Parents Must Not 'Expose' Children To 'Aggressive Homosexual Agenda'

The number two man, second only to the Pope, instructs parents to not let their children have any contact with gay people who engage in "evil, wrong," and "disordered" relationships.
<snip>
Same-sex relationship are, Burke said, "intrinsically disordered," so, he pondered, "what would it mean to grandchildren to have present at a family gathering a family member who is living [in] a disordered relationship with another person?”

Burke adds that the issue of children being in the company of gay people is "made even more delicate by the aggressiveness of the homosexual agenda."

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/top_vatican_official_parents_must_not_expose_children_to_aggressive_homosexual_agenda

audio interview of Burke on youtube:

So Vatican is now rebranding. They want our buy-in.

While the product remains unchanged.

Burke is a reactionary who is staking out the reactionary party line. If anything, he's declaring war on the liberalizers, including Francis.

The Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura is the highest judicial authority in the Catholic Church (apart from the Pope himself, who as supreme ecclesiastical judge is the final point of appeal for any ecclesiastical judgment). In addition, it oversees the administration of justice in the Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Signatura

so yeah that kinda makes him 2nd only to the Pope

It makes him the head of one part of the Vatican justice system. His court hears cases from two other appellate courts, but generally only on matters of procedural errors. They don't get a lot of business

Pope Francis actually demoted this guy back in December, removing him from the Congregation that selects new bishops. His replacement is Donald Wuel, Archbishop of Washington, who has consistently taken a hard line against pedophile priests, including at least one Benedict was trying to protect.

Burke, unfortunately, isn't old enough to be forced into early retirement (only 66), and he probably has a load of resentment on board. Look for him to oppose any change Francis initiates.

hell either.

They must really be hard up for cash.

they are public opinion? Said Vatican better pray that God shares their beliefs.

Progress often occurs in small steps.

We're talking an institution that's about 2000 years old. Change comes slowly. However, even a small amount of change in the right direction is hopeful!

It's just a way to discriminate in a more polite tone.

Fuck religion.

Big change wont come overnight from a system as constipated and backwards as this church.

William "Mad Anthony" Donohue

Didn't need a crystal ball to see that one coming. I'm just amazed how many people keep falling for the same old tactics-- including the media.