They're saying slightly nicer things...sort of.

That's where all the good music is.

It instead seems to be a sick, twisted fantasy of people who want others to be punished for not doing what they say.

think you are bound for hell, as I see things what you believe in yourself is most important, I personally do not think one's sexual orientation does not condemn. The message I am getting from Pope Francis is not to judge others, the bishops missed the message.

They are an excerpt from the linked article. The pope also said that gay marriage is from Satan and that children must be raised with a mother and a father. Oh he's judging alright.

And trying to deprive them of their rights as a result of that, whether they're Catholic or not, some of us will speak out against that. Some may try to hide behind the convenience of rationalizations like yours, but some of us have the courage to unequivocally condemn things that are utterly antithetical to a progressive worldview.

then I'll stop speaking out against them.

If they would just butt out of trying to control others, I'd stop judging them.

Your church is one of the worst offenders worldwide.

"When the religious stop judging others ... then I'll stop speaking out against them." and you admit to being judgmental yourself, then you come across as a hypocrite.

I need to keep my mouth shut. No deal.

But misstating what others say is one of the things you do at times. It does make things easier for you. One of the reasons I come to the Religion forum so infrequently is that I can expect dishonest arguing from some of the people here, as well as the blatant double standard.

You don't want me to judge your church and its leaders while they are judging others and trying to influence laws that will affect everyone.

Get them to stop, and so will I. If you honestly think me speaking the truth about your corrupt church compares to say, covering up for rapists or fighting against marriage equality, then we have nothing to discuss. You'll just end up getting more deleted posts and yet another involuntary vacation from DU.

That seems to be his role: Blank Frank, the PR Pope.

Whoever writes his material tread a thin line between dishonesty and confusion. "Not to judge others" means nothing when the person saying it obviously does. And leads an organisation which takes its power from doing exactly that.

'bound for hell'. If there is one, you either are or or not based who whatever supernatural deities control such, not what other humans say. If there is a god, he is not bound by whatever popes or cardinals say on earth, even if they claim he is.

Where what he and the church say about 'sin' matters is right here on earth, where it affects how other humans treat you. Not in an afterlife that may or may not exist.

clearly impacts laws in this and other countries. So until they stop that, we need to call them out on their bullshit.

Saying that you need to decide for yourself is wonderful in a vacuum. The RCC doesn't exist in a vacuum.

on a progressive web site. Saying basically, "It doesn't affect me personally, so I'm going to pretend it doesn't exist and not give a fuck". And even sadder, you're not alone here in having that attitude.

You should be able to do a better job than this, I never said what you interrupted nor anything even close to what you said.

Unless you have no idea what you're talking about

And your meaning is quite clear, and not only to me. You think we should just ignore the Catholic Church, since they don't affect you personally. Ignore the fact that they try to influence laws to affect everyone.

Yes, let's all think happy thoughts towards Rome. That's always worked.

you are talking about, did you respond to the wrong post? You are the only one who is having problems understanding, can't help you, I do not need an interrupter.

"Look the other way."

Not to interrupt, but that seems like terrible advice.

it does not matter if it is the RCC or other sources, one needs to feel good about themselves. Before jumping to conclusions of which is not the case take some time to know the complete story.

You said, "mark them on ignore."

How is that any different from telling someone to look the other way?

Always start babbling incoherently when they're backed into a corner by their own words?

Feel free to answer with substance at any time. Until then, I'll forego the pleasure of further responses.

I think they are having of a hard out sooner than you anticipate time just trying to convince Catholics.

This Pope may not be perfect (much like Obama) but he is undeniably putting out some progressive ideals and should be commended for that.

Taking that credit away from those that do will just make it even harder for future leaders to support progressive leaders at all.

Living in states where they can't marry because the church has influence. They'll be glad to hear it's that easy.

Post encourages any good results?

You are saying that if the church is just that bad, we should ignore them. Several here have been trying to tell you that that won't make the problem go away. In this country and in many others, the church holds a lot of power and puts a great deal of time and money into campaigns that limit the rights of others and are very anti-progressive.

We can't just ignore them and they'll go away. We have to call out their bigotry whenever we can and do whatever else we can to fight them and their bigoted policies.

It's what they teach.

Nor do they get to decide.

"Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend in to hell."

- Cathechism of the Catholic Church

That is not Catholic doctrine.

They've defined what constitutes mortal sin. They've declared that anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin is, unequivocally, going to hell.

Now, either God is speaking through them, or they're just making this shit up. Personally, I think they're making this shit up. So, yes, they are "deciding", in a sense, who goes where.

No one actually goes anywhere, of course. But a lot of people think they do, and that's why what these guys say is important.

Presumption, the opposite of despair, is considered a sin in the RCC.

Its teaching is very clear. It does not know who, if anyone, is in hell. No one knows what's in the mind of a sinner. To say either that one is doomed to go to hell or will assuredly go to heaven is presumption.

with a mortal sin on their soul go to hell?

Do I know any sins or any people?

It's not a frivolous question. What used to be called mortal sin is now more often called grave sin. It's not that easy to commit. One must with full knowledge and full will choose to turn from God, as evidenced by a grave act.

Now that's an extremely high burden to meet. First, you have to know and accept that there is a God. That lets off most people in this room. Next, you must reject God with a full and willful intention to do so. Any mitigation such as stress, angst, intoxication, illness, etc. prevents that. That lets off most, if not all, people in the world.

The one who comes closest to knowing God, and rejecting God, would be Judas. Not even he has been declared to be in hell. Only God would know what was in his mind.

That is, to the best of my ability, the teaching. It is much, much different from making a list of mortal sins, a cosmic penal code, and checking to see who did what.

Gay kids growing up in a Catholic household are told by their church that they are sinners who will go to hell. This fucks up their mind and leads to suicide in some cases. God is innocent, the church is guilty.

...they don't claim that they make the judgment.

But yes I am wellaware of homophobia in the church. I was told personally by Cardinal O'connor of NY that my being gay would land me in hell.

everything it's said to us earthlings away when it comes time to decide?

That doesn't strike me as a very good education, unless the intent is to say, "Here are some rules. Follow some. Break others if you like. It doesn't matter. It just depends on whether I like you."

A truly irrational plan for life, even if you're willing to accept the silly fiction of an afterlife.

And spare me the "prove there is no afterlife" nonsense.

I don't feel like getting into the whole leprechauns, fairies and unicorns argument.

And what do you base that on?

I base it on my faith but I accept it might be different than what my faith says.

and a vast amount of facts that run counter to the concept, I am probably as certain as you that there isn't one.

Could I be wrong, sure, but until something is presented to give an inkling of support, I remain unaccepting of an afterlife.

Why don't you believe in unicorns (assuming you don't)? You have to be convinced if you're over the age of seven or so that there's no such thing.

Who do you listen to who tells you differently about an afterlife? Frank? Some book? A quantum physicist?

Who?

Somewhere along the line of your maturation, somebody told you that such a thing exists. It comforted you, no doubt, hearing that-- yes?

I have doubts but I believe that there is much more and much better after this life.

Does it comfort mevto believe it? Yes it does.

Do I listent to peopke who have a different opinion? Yes I do.


Now can you answer my question on what makes you so certain there is no afterlife?

Pretty much like unicorns, fairies, or leprechauns.

Believe what you like if it implies you'll spend "eternity" basking in a beatific vision or burning in a pit of fiery pus, or wherever the heck someone told you you'd go for not following a religious creed.

That would be a great tag line for a movie poster.

some teenagers caught in a world they never made.

because mom was a protestant.

(Dad was catholic, and was inquiring about baptizing my brother and I, when I was born.)

Maybe eight or nine.

They're still working their way up to female priests.

Neck and neck with Islam.

The purpose is to examine sexuality, which covers a lot of ground, one part of which is homosexuality.

He's right; as long as sex between men and sex between women is considered a sin, there is no fundamental change (although there is very much to be said about eliminating the shunning that often takes place).

But the synods have the potential to examine both the notion of sexuality and the notion of sin. The driving force behind the synod is not really gay sex, but straight sex. There are millions of straight Catholics "living in sin", in a civil marriage, in a second marriage, or with no marriage at all. None are supposed to receive Communion.

Whether you like it or not, there are many bishops, particularly in the German conference, who state they should not be denied Communion. To do that, they must determine whether straight sex outside of marriage is, after all, mortally sinful (as opposed to venial).

If sexually active unmarried straight Catholics are admitted to Communion, there is no theological or logical reason why sexually active gay Catholics should not be also.

Scoffing that the RCC will never change doesn't do it. The theological path has already been trod by the Anglican Communion.

On the other hand, it's much easier to simply post "Aha!" on the internet than to actually think.

The Church may condemn sex between unmarried heterosexuals but encourages them to marry. For gay folks it's another story. Not only does the church condemn sexually active gay Catholics, it openly and vigorously fights the rights of gays to marry. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I don't think there's any question that neither the RCC nor any other religious group has any competence. based on religious tenets, to speak to civil law, especially those concerning civil liberties. When they do, they should be afforded the same response that ALEC receives.
The argument about civil marriages is purely political and religious statements about it can be disregarded or resisted, depending on what's said.

Regarding the RCC teaching on sacramental marriage, that may or may not be expanded to include same sex marriage. I can see it going either way. But the pertinent question is, what do people do in the meantime?

I personally do not go to Communion because I am divorced and remarried. Francis before the synod commented that he estimates that about half of Catholic marriages, if examined, would be found to be invalid. Theoretically, at least half the people at any given Mass should not be receiving communion. Yet they do.

That's why I think the synods are important. It really can be a searching look at what a marriage is, which is the opening to determine, after all this time, whether there is a legitimate theological reason to deny the sacrament to same sex Catholics who authentically meet all the requirements for a valid sacramental marriage, save gender.

But the RCC at its root us not about marriage. It is about the healing and forgiveness of human beings who have experienced and done all sorts of things, sexual and nonsexual, some good, some bad. If the synods return to that notion, whoever wants to, straight, gay or otherwise, can return and participate, marry civilly or not, while the esoteric theological debate is had.

Fortunately, some are already past that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/we-dont-need-vatican-affirmation-say-gay-catholic-priests/

No one's demanding to be married in a Catholic ceremony or even to receive the sacraments.

That is why, when a Pope speaks, simply speaks, in a different manner. the curtain parts and the political machinery sees the light of day.

There is nothing, I repeat, nothing in the doctrine that requires or even supports these political activities.

Last Sunday's Gospel, read in every Catholic church around the world, is yet another reminder, routinely ignored:

If you listen to them closely sometimes they tell actually do the truth and thereby give the game away.

One must admire the Cardinal's candor. The church is a business and it does not want to go out of business. They're relying on PR to save them. Will it?

Which only helps drive the point that those most interested in changing the church have only one real way to do it: leave and take your money with you.

when responding to this and a range of similar pronouncements. The Episcopal Church didn't change because people were leaving. It maintaned a liberalizing course set from within. THAT'S when the ZOMG the new (1979)) prayer book!!! women priests!! Teh GAY!!! crowd bailed.

Conservative Catholics will probably have hysterics when the changes come, too. They'll love Malta.

Short note here: This report of the Pope's words is available from multiple sources; I am providing but two.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/what-is-being-proposed-is-not-marriage-pope-calls-for-defense-of-family-12766/
'What is being proposed is not marriage' – Pope calls for defense of family

Vatican City, Oct 26, 2014 / 12:52 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In an audience with members of an international Marian movement, Pope Francis warned that the sacrament of marriage has been reduced to a mere association, and urged participants to be witnesses in a secular world.

“The family is being hit, the family is being struck and the family is being bastardized,” the Pope told those in attendance at the Oct. 25 audience.

He warned against the common view in society that “you can call everything family, right?”

“What is being proposed is not marriage, it's an association. But it's not marriage! It's necessary to say these things very clearly and we have to say it!” Pope Francis stressed.

He lamented that there are so many “new forms” of unions which are “totally destructive and limiting the greatness of the love of marriage.”.... MORE at link provided above.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/blog/the-pope-said-what-about-marriage/
The Pope said WHAT about marriage?!
Oct 27, 2104

If you’ve read any media reports on the Church in the last few weeks, you might have the impression that there were – or are about to be – some earth-shattering changes in Catholic teaching about marriage, family and homosexuality.

Interestingly, these reports tend to cite either a draft document that was later changed or cardinals who are pushing for the changes to take place. But there is one source that has been notably missing from these claims that change is imminent: the Pope.

At the recent synod – a two-week gathering of bishops from around the world, held in Rome – Pope Francis was nearly silent. He offered some general thoughts at the beginning of the process, and then again at the end, but during the day-to-day proceedings of the synod, he virtually disappeared off the radar.

Some people seem to have taken his silence as a sign that he supports every proposed change that was brought up – or at least the most radical ones that would essentially redefine the Catholic vision of marriage.

But this weekend, the Pope broke his silence and spoke out on some of the most controversial subjects that had been discussed at the synod. His comments were pretty strong, and they’re not what you might expect from the narrative being presented by much of the media... MORE