Catholic Church Now Accepts Gays

Marquee of the Castro Theater

Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church

Chrisee,
I hope you're right, and as early as 5 years ago i would've agreed with you but I'm not so sure now. Right now people are scared.

Scared of terrorism, scared of rising gas prices, scared of the economy in general, and when that happens they tend to resist change. I think that even now the majority of americans don't give a rats A$$ about gay marriage, but they will resist it just as a knee jerk response.

I really want my best friend and his partner to be able to take custody of my sons if anything happens to my wife and I so it's definitely something that I hope for, but the majority of americans have (what they would consider, and frankly IMO, rightfully so) "more important things" on their minds.

On a side note I attended a protestant church with the same philosophy when I lived in Austin. I had a good time and met some really nice people there, however I realized that my discord with the church had moved beyond the "sin" and "not sin" condemnation on certain actions, but had taken a a difference of spiritual opinion. Nonetheless I still have great respect for many of the people who attend there.

Mebbe you and your buddies oughtta have umbrellas handy, Chrissee; this

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH:
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

looks likes a helluva raincloud over the parade route you folks are takin'. I'd say an official Vatican position pretty well trumps anything any individual Catholic parish or clergy might opine.

Once Rome elects a Pope and gets back to the business of runnin' things, San Francisco's Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church and Archbishop Levada, if indeed he is in public sympathy with what you present as the position of Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church well may find themselves the center of unpleasnt Vatican attention.

not so great with the empathy are ya timber? :wink:

Actually, I am not much in sympathy with Rome's stance on the issue, or the Roman stance re birth control. On the other hand, I think it unrealistic to anticipate any paradigm shift of Church Position in either instance.
The Church is less tolerant than am I, and promises to very much remain so.

The issues are beyond mere position, it is dogma, core, foundational, unambiguous, millenias-old dogma that regulates The Church in these matters. The stone in which those particulars are carved goes real deep, and is set real hard.

Whatever my feelin's and preferences - and among those personal attributes, religion of any sort is conspicuous in that it is wholly absent - I know somethin' of The Church, and of history. On that, I base my assessment of the subject at discussion in this topic. If push comes to shove, The Church will let those who wish the Church's moral teachin's were more liberal, more "in line with the times" just plain shove off. IMO. The Curch ain't about to change.

The Church makes major changes every thousand years or so. Hell then, its only been about 40 since Vatican II so another , lessee , 960 or so years to go.

There is some confusion when it comes distinguishin' between Church doctrine and Church dogma. Once in a very great while, oh .... say perhaps a few times a millenium, The Church has been known to rescind, introduce, reinterpret, expand on, or otherwise make alteration to doctrine. The Church has been notably less flexible when it comes to dogma. As in not at all - period.

Doctrine is a matter of Church policy bindin' on The Faithful so long as that doctrine is in place and effect as a teachin' of The Church. Doctrine may - not frequently, or as matter of general practice - but occassionally may change.

Dogma, on the other hand, by Church defintion, is immutable, the divinely revealed, unchangin', everlastin' word of God. It does not, cannot, change.

Lenten fastin', the Latin mass, the proscription against consumin' meat on fridays, male circumcision, the proscription against cremation - all were matters of doctrine, as are such things as priestly celibacy and reservin' the priesthood to men alone. The Church's condemnation of contraception and of homosexual practice are matters of dogma.

An aside, here; The Church does not condem homosexuality; The Church recognizes and accepts homosexuality as a component of the human condition. The Curch's position on homosexuality is that homosexuals are welcome to participate fully in The Church - provided they heed the call to chastity and refrain from sexual practice not in accordance with the sacrament of matrimony and that sacrament's attendant commitment to procreation, which by dogma is the sole legitimate indication for sexual activity.

Those who would seek the acceptance and blessin' of Holy Mother Church while yet engagin' in the practice of same-sex congress face a double whammy. The Church cannot and will not accept or condone homosexual practice, and The Church cannot and will not accept or condone sexual practice which precludes conception. Gay Marriage within The Church? It just ain't ever gonna happen.

Time changes everything. Yes, Virginia, some day, the Church will accept same sex marriage. You can take comfort in the fact it won't happen in your lifetime.

According to my pastor who is a canon lawyer, probity of conscience trumps everything. The parish is 80% gay. The vast majority of the parishioners receive communion. Those in the state of sin cannot receive communiuon. Now, according to the conservative reading of Canon Law, a married woman who has had a hysterectomy can no longer have sex with her husband, We know this is absurd. We also know that prohibitons against a loving, monogamous sme sex couple are absurd.

I willl have more on this as I attend the seminars.

Nonsense.

I understand how you feel, Chrissee, and really I sorta sympathize with your position. The Vatican, on the other hand, will not be so accommodative.

As Pope Benedict XVI, Ratzinger, a strict traditionalist and among the most conservative of the Cardinals, will steer The Church on a very narrow path. He, by the way, was the author of CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS. His election to The Papacy is a very poor harbinger for those who were hopin' for liberalization of any sort within The Church.

Yup, Ratzinger is a rough selection for anyone hoping for any, errrrrr, gentler decisions.

A Flashback, for a bit of background on the new Pope and something of his take on morality. Hardliner barely begins to describe Ratzinger.

I remember him from the sixties.

It comforts me to think of Gus sneaking in in his place.

A thought - one may expect things to get movin' fairly quickly as these things go; as a longtime high-level Vatican insider, second-in-command, really, in effect and practice, Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, has no need of a learnin' curve or settlin' in period. He will get right to the job of runnin' the church, as he sees fit for it to be run. There will be noise, big noise, and soon. For some, it will not be a joyous noise.

Perhaps God will call Pope Benedict to serve Her in Heaven? He is 78 years old.

Yes, a WELL-FORMED conscience. As a kid my conscience told me that hitting other people was OK. My conscience was not yet well-formed.
And pretty much by virtue of its definition Catholic doctrine cannot go against a well-formed conscience.

Catholics can be homosexual in good conscience. Catholics cannot have sexual relations outside of marriage, homosexual or heterosexual.

Doctrine and dogma, for all practical purposes, are the same thing. They are all unchangeable.

Disciplines such as Lenten fasting and celibacy can change. They are not doctrines.

A lot of Catholic teaching falls into the category of theological opinion. This still holds a lot of weight because theological opinoin is derived from doctrine and doctrine is developed through theological opinion. While it is only an opinion, Catholics may disagree with it and the opinion can change. Once it is doctrine, Catholics may not disagree with it and it cannot change.

you fall to the confusion surroundin' the differentiation between doctrine and dogma. Now, what follows here is Church stance, so don't blame me for any of it - I figure its all superstition. Doctrine proceedes from dogma, and essentially is a matter of interpretation of dogma within the understandin' of the time. As such, doctrine is mutable, subject to formulation, change, revision, or rescision. Church doctrines are many, have come and gone, will come and go.

Dogma, on the other hand, is immutable; unchangin', unchangeable, unquestionable; it is, in the view of The Church, the direct and divinely revealed, incontravertible, uncontestable word of God. Dogma goes the the foundational core of Church teachin' - is in fact the theologic and moral core of The Church. There are in The Church far fewer dogmas than doctrines.

Doctrine is the work of Man in the name of The Church. Dogma, by Church definition, is The Word of God. Man is fallible, man changes. The Church recognizes and makes allowance for The Nature of Man. God and divinely revealed word are an entirely different matter - no allowance or accommodation may be made. Doctrine, though while in force must be obeyed, may be debated. Dogma must be accepted without question or reservation.

kinda like if the Mormon church said that caffeine was really nasty and sinful but then the church bought stock in Coke they might change their doctrine? or would that require a phone call from god changing the dogma? well, and then would it require a phone call on a gold phone?