So Is Pope Francis Leading The Catholics Into Tolerance, Did The Lds Church Just Lose A Political Ally?

[Storm Rider]

Why do you say "Catholics have fewer obstacles to embracing homosexual behaviour than we do"? The Catholic teaching on homosexual behavior is an unchangeable teaching. No Pope or Ecumenical Council could change it even if they wanted to.

Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand, it is possible to change LDS teaching on homosexual behavior.

Sometimes opinion gets more attention than actual knowledge. Anyone that is familiar wit John Paul II's Theology of the Body would understand the impossibility of the CC ever accepting homosexuality.

It would be just as difficult for the Church of Jesus Christ to change its position on homosexuality as it would be for the CC. Too many have chosen to parse Pope Francis' words without making any effort to understand context.

[ChristKnight]

I believe that the Church and the Roman Catholic Church have the same position currently. Whether and for how long that remains true is probably up for grabs. The Catholics have fewer obstacles to embracing homosexual behaviour than we do, so my suspicion is that in the long run there will be divergence.

I doubt it, and I don't see any reason to think that would be possible.

[Stone holm]

Why do you say "Catholics have fewer obstacles to embracing homosexual behaviour than we do"? The Catholic teaching on homosexual behavior is an unchangeable teaching. No Pope or Ecumenical Council could change it even if they wanted to.

Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand, it is possible to change LDS teaching on homosexual behavior.

Catholics don't structure the post-mortal universe in terms of Heavenly Couples becoming exalted and creating their own spirit children. To my knowledge only the LDS Church teaches that. The Catholic position is simply God said don't do it. Well, apparently God told the Anglicans and some other Christian Churches, don't do it as well -- and now they are saying, well then again... So there is no structural belief in the hereafter for the Catholics which stands in their way anymore than it once stood in the way of other Christian sects which are accomodating SSM. We on the other hand have a different situation -- we have a structural reason which is not based on cultural distaste.

[Hail_Linus]

Catholics don't structure the post-mortal universe in terms of Heavenly Couples becoming exalted and creating their own spirit children. To my knowledge only the LDS Church teaches that.

Yes. It seem very clear that Jesus said there is no marriage in the after life. Can you explain why you believe differently or at least give me a link that explains it.

The Catholic position is simply God said don't do it.

This may be true of some other Christian groups but certainly not true of the Catholic Church. Homosexual acts are intrinsically evil acts. I don't have time now but I will try to come back later and explain it.

Well, apparently God told the Anglicans and some other Christian Churches, don't do it as well -- and now they are saying, well then again... So there is no structural belief in the hereafter for the Catholics which stands in their way anymore than it once stood in the way of other Christian sects which are accomodating SSM. We on the other hand have a different situation -- we have a structural reason which is not based on cultural distaste.

The Pope and Bishops simply do not have the authority to change this. This is an infallible teaching. Contrary to popular belief, the Church Magisterium have limited authority. No one can overturn an infallible teaching because it is infallible. The other Christians can change their theology and have changed their theology. They have also changed their theology on contraception, abortion, pre-marital sex, divorce, etc. The Catholic Church is also unable to change those doctrines either.

[why me]

Catholics don't structure the post-mortal universe in terms of Heavenly Couples becoming exalted and creating their own spirit children. To my knowledge only the LDS Church teaches that. The Catholic position is simply God said don't do it. Well, apparently God told the Anglicans and some other Christian Churches, don't do it as well -- and now they are saying, well then again... So there is no structural belief in the hereafter for the Catholics which stands in their way anymore than it once stood in the way of other Christian sects which are accomodating SSM. We on the other hand have a different situation -- we have a structural reason which is not based on cultural distaste.

I think that the catholic church considers itself the true church and the pope leads the catholic church since he is the bishop of rome. It would be very difficult to change their stance on homosexuality without alienating catholics, especially in the third world. Pope Frances in his comments about gays did not change catholic doctrine. But he did sort of overturn what pope benedict said and did. But this was just a cosmetic change.

[why me]

Catholics don't structure the post-mortal universe in terms of Heavenly Couples becoming exalted and creating their own spirit children.

But they do structure their universe with a marriage that should be between a woman and a man. They also structure the family as a domestic church. Difficult to make that domestic church a SSM. Catholic leaders would find it difficult to convince the laity that SSM is now from god. Edited August 14, 2013 by why me

[Calm]

This may be true of some other Christian groups but certainly not true of the Catholic Church. Homosexual acts are intrinsically evil acts. I don't have time now but I will try to come back later and explain it.

Until you can:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

The whole section is relevant, but there is a part specific to homosexuality.

[boulder257]

I believe that the Church and the Roman Catholic Church have the same position currently. Whether and for how long that remains true is probably up for grabs. The Catholics have fewer obstacles to embracing homosexual behaviour than we do, so my suspicion is that in the long run there will be divergence. For know, however, both are currently simply trying to tone down the rhetoric which is alienating people and to display a more understanding face towards a group of people.

Your understanding of the Catholic position is incorrect. This is an unchangeable teaching of the Church. It is doctrine and cannot be changed.

[boulder257]

Catholics don't structure the post-mortal universe in terms of Heavenly Couples becoming exalted and creating their own spirit children. To my knowledge only the LDS Church teaches that. The Catholic position is simply God said don't do it. Well, apparently God told the Anglicans and some other Christian Churches, don't do it as well -- and now they are saying, well then again... So there is no structural belief in the hereafter for the Catholics which stands in their way anymore than it once stood in the way of other Christian sects which are accomodating SSM. We on the other hand have a different situation -- we have a structural reason which is not based on cultural distaste.

Just like Black's couldn't hold the priesthood and polygamy was practiced and then, all of the sudden a revelation and it was okay?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So . . . believe all you want, but shut up and let all and every other voice be heard but yours.

Is that about the size of it?

Indeed. Isn't that what all progressives teach?.

Please keep the politics out.

[Calm]

So there is no structural belief in the hereafter for the Catholics which stands in their way anymore than it once stood in the way of other Christian sects which are accomodating SSM. We on the other hand have a different situation -- we have a structural reason which is not based on cultural distaste.

I am curious as to where you derived your opinion from as it seems quite contrary to how the RCC actually functions.

[Calm]

Indeed. Isn't that what all progressives teach?

No.

[Ran]

Until you can:

http://www.vatican.v...sm/p3s2c2a6.htm

The whole section is relevant, but there is a part specific to homosexuality.

To that I would add:

• Persona Humana, no. VIII (1975)
  
• Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (1986)
  
• Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons (2003)
  

[wenglund]

"Vatican Establishment" (whatever that is) ...

The word "establishment" is a hold-over for those liberal hippies who haven't entirely let go of their radical days during the 60's and 70's. Back then, the word was used derisively and almost exclusively in regards to the government.

However, since the government is now peopled by liberal hippies (their flowing hair now replaced with ever-receding hairlines and straggly pony-tails, and their painted flower buses have given way to Volvo station wagons, and the gauze dresses have been replaced with pantsuits), they have been forced to find other entities to get chronically rankled over and protest. Christian religions in general, and the Catholic church in particular, seem to be their latest bogey men,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 14, 2013 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

Yes. It seem very clear that Jesus said there is no marriage in the after life. Can you explain why you believe differently or at least give me a link that explains it.

This may be true of some other Christian groups but certainly not true of the Catholic Church. Homosexual acts are intrinsically evil acts. I don't have time now but I will try to come back later and explain it.

The Pope and Bishops simply do not have the authority to change this. This is an infallible teaching. Contrary to popular belief, the Church Magisterium have limited authority. No one can overturn an infallible teaching because it is infallible. The other Christians can change their theology and have changed their theology. They have also changed their theology on contraception, abortion, pre-marital sex, divorce, etc. The Catholic Church is also unable to change those doctrines either.

Mormons believe that all gets worked out before the final judgment, so no once you are assigned to a Kingdom you cannot be given in marriage. Saying something is "intrinsically evil" is giving a reason, it is merely saying we really, really believe this. It provides no structural basis for it to be so.

[Stone holm]

Just like Black's couldn't hold the priesthood and polygamy was practiced and then, all of the sudden a revelation and it was okay?

No not just like African's couldn't hold the priesthood because it was always doctrine that the African's would get the priesthood, the only thing up for grabs was the timing. And no again, it is not just like polygamy. It was always doctrine that polygamy was not for all times, but only for those times when the Lord said it should be practiced and only how He said it should be practiced. The Book of Mormon in fact condemns polygamy.

[boulder257]

The Catholic Church simply cannot waiver on this subject. Just because you don't accept it as doctrine doesn't make it any less powerful, authoritative, or final than it actually is to the Church.

Instead of seeing possible contention on the matter you currently have an ally in the fight. Why not accept the nearly 2000 years of history that hasn't changed on the subject (even more if you count time before the Church existed) and be glad you're not fighting the battle alone.

[Stone holm]

The Catholic Church simply cannot waiver on this subject. Just because you don't accept it as doctrine doesn't make it any less powerful, authoritative, or final than it actually is to the Church.

Instead of seeing possible contention on the matter you currently have an ally in the fight. Why not accept the nearly 2000 years of history that hasn't changed on the subject (even more if you count time before the Church existed) and be glad you're not fighting the battle alone.

Me? I don't care if the Catholics are fighting the battle or not, in fact I see no compelling reason for the LDS Church to be fighting a political battle over this, our doctrine is what it is and if you are a member then you support the doctrine and what non-members choose to believe and how they choose to behave in the privacy of their own bedrooms and if they want to marry somebody of the same sex is basically none of my business other than possibly to tell them God said don't do it. Its not part of my obligation as a member to try to coerce other people into conforming their behavior to my religious beliefs via legislation. I don't believe that homosexuality is "intrinsically evil" whatever that means. I believe it is incompatible with Exaltation, and I find it personally repulsive, but "intrinsically evil"? I don't think so. I'll reserve that for people who are actually intentionally harming people physically or economically, and people who are exploiting the poor, the vulnerable, and the weak -- not a couple guys who think they are in love with each other.

[3DOP]

Oh man...you have back to the original topic instead of just re-re-re-re-re-rehashing the merits of homosexuality? Great!

So even if homosexuality is not intrinsically evil as stone holm affirms, the Catholic Church teaches that it is so, and that seems pertinent as to the question about whether the Catholic Church could possibly follow the Anglicans. The change in position of the Anglican churches seems to have triggered a lot of Anglicans to have become Catholic, a few churches coming in as a whole! Think how disappointing that would they be for them to discover that now the Catholics are for homosexual marriage too. Even if I didn't believe that the Catholic Church was divinely protected from such a grievous novelty, I couldn't prognosticate that a change could be forthcoming for a long, long time.

No. But, don't base your arguments based on religion when in the political domain and don't base your religion on politics. Sort of a render unto Caesar sort of thing. Mormons I believe have probably the strongest reasons for never embracing SSM of any Christian faith because this isn't a simple matter of The Lord saying don't do it to us, He has explained to us that Eternal life is based on the notion of Heavenly Couples producing spirit children in the hereafter. Thus for us we have a specific reason. But both the commandment and the structure of the hereafter are based on our religious beliefs and we have no right to impose those beliefs on others. Merely calling their activities perverted is not an argument, arguing that they are not traditional is not an argument that should be heard from our mouths because we are the American icon of non traditional marital concepts.

Hey stone holm,

I admire, while disagreeing with the premise of your consistent opinion. I won't speak for Mormons. I admit that this forum seems to suggest that there is an undercurrent in Mormonism that seeks to divorce politics and religion. But that view isn't compatible with my own and it appears to me that there is also an undercurrent in Mormonism that understands religion and politics similarly as I do. This leads me to believe that LDS views on religion and politics remains to be fully developed. I truly like the way you want people to understand the right reasons for taking a political point of view. I hope you will consider why I totally disagree with you on what seems to me to be your unjustly narrow and illiberal way of arriving at a right reason for having a political opinion.

I freely admit that as a Catholic my religion influences my politics. I see nothing in 2,000 years of Catholic history, tradition, or Scripture that teaches that we should have political principles that are independent of our religious principles. In American law there is strong tradition that is against government favortism of one church over another. Granted. But that is a very distant cry from trying to silence religious people from influencing legislation favoring a moral view that is shared by the majority. That's how we got prohibition of alcohol for a while. It was the legal imposition of a religious principle that was widely held but eventually lost popularity. That is how things work in a just democracy. A just democracy isn't about minimizing the importance of so-called religious principles and maximizing so-called political principles. All that matters is what you want. There isn't supposed to be a penalty because what you want legislated finds support from the Bible.

Even now the only reason this same sex marriage idea is an issue at all is because a much larger minority have come to accept it. When that crowd is in the majority, it will be legalized. But to try to cut the legs out from under religious people for accusing us of letting our religion affect our politics is nonsensical. It is unreasonable to think that we should self-nullify the influence of our deeply held religious beliefs. It shouldn't be anybody's business in America where we get our ideas or why we are for or against homosexual initiatives. All of us should be allowed to have our own influence at the ballot box in expressing what we hold deeply, no matter where it comes from.

"Render unto Caesar", which is certainly a Christian religious principle in itself, (and according to you should not influence our politics), means Christians pay taxes. If anything, in a democracy, paying taxes ought to entitle us to support representatives and legislation that would shape society according to Christian principles. It might be wrong to fight against it violently when we lose, but it isn't wrong to try to win at the ballot box.

Regards,

3DOP

Edited August 14, 2013 by 3DOP

[USU78]

No. But, don't base your arguments based on religion when in the political domain and don't base your religion on politics. Sort of a render unto Caesar sort of thing. Mormons I believe have probably the strongest reasons for never embracing SSM of any Christian faith because this isn't a simple matter of The Lord saying don't do it to us, He has explained to us that Eternal life is based on the notion of Heavenly Couples producing spirit children in the hereafter. Thus for us we have a specific reason. But both the commandment and the structure of the hereafter are based on our religious beliefs and we have no right to impose those beliefs on others. Merely calling their activities perverted is not an argument, arguing that they are not traditional is not an argument that should be heard from our mouths because we are the American icon of non traditional marital concepts.

Horse pucky.

People's views are informed by both their politics and their religion (or lack thereof). Anybody who thinks the two can be extwined is fooling himself.

And reasons are never prior to views: views are always prior to reasons for those views.

[USU78]

<snip>

I admire, while disagreeing with the premise of your consistent opinion. I won't speak for Mormons. I admit that this forum seems to suggest that there is an undercurrent in Mormonism that seeks to divorce politics and religion. <snip>

Say rather there is a wishy-hopey socialist/quasi-socialist faction amongst Mormons who are lockstep with the antireligious Left, who are embarrassed by Mormondom and wish it would just wise up and join the trendylefty Elites[tm].

Stop the political bashing.

[Stone holm]

Oh man...you have back to the original topic instead of just re-re-re-re-re-rehashing the merits of homosexuality? Great!

So even if homosexuality is not intrinsically evil as stone holm affirms, the Catholic Church teaches that it is so, and that seems pertinent as to the question about whether the Catholic Church could possibly follow the Anglicans. The change in position of the Anglican churches seems to have triggered a lot of Anglicans to have become Catholic, a few churches coming in as a whole! Think how disappointing that would they be for them to discover that now the Catholics are for homosexual marriage too. Even if I didn't believe that the Catholic Church was divinely protected from such a grievous novelty, I couldn't prognosticate that a change could be forthcoming for a long, long time.

Hey stone holm,

I admire, while disagreeing with the premise of your consistent opinion. I won't speak for Mormons. I admit that this forum seems to suggest that there is an undercurrent in Mormonism that seeks to divorce politics and religion. But that view isn't compatible with my own and it appears to me that there is also an undercurrent in Mormonism that understands religion and politics similarly as I do. This leads me to believe that LDS views on religion and politics remains to be fully developed. I truly like the way you want people to understand the right reasons for taking a political point of view. I hope you will consider why I totally disagree with you on what seems to me to be your unjustly narrow and illiberal way of arriving at a right reason for having a political opinion.

I freely admit that as a Catholic my religion influences my politics. I see nothing in 2,000 years of Catholic history, tradition, or Scripture that teaches that we should have political principles that are independent of our religious principles. In American law there is strong tradition that is against government favortism of one church over another. Granted. But that is a very distant cry from trying to silence religious people from influencing legislation favoring a moral view that is shared by the majority. That's how we got prohibition of alcohol for a while. It was the legal imposition of a religious principle that was widely held but eventually lost popularity. That is how things work in a just democracy. A just democracy isn't about minimizing the importance of so-called religious principles and maximizing so-called political principles. All that matters is what you want. There isn't supposed to be a penalty because what you want legislated finds support from the Bible.

Even now the only reason this same sex marriage idea is an issue at all is because a much larger minority have come to accept it. When that crowd is in the majority, it will be legalized. But to try to cut the legs out from under religious people for accusing us of letting our religion affect our politics is nonsensical. It is unreasonable to think that we should self-nullify the influence of our deeply held religious beliefs. It shouldn't be anybody's business in America where we get our ideas or why we are for or against homosexual initiatives. All of us should be allowed to have our own influence at the ballot box in expressing what we hold deeply, no matter where it comes from.

"Render unto Caesar", which is certainly a Christian religious principle in itself, (and according to you should not influence our politics), means Christians pay taxes. If anything, in a democracy, paying taxes ought to entitle us to support representatives and legislation that would shape society according to Christian principles. It might be wrong to fight against it violently when we lose, but it isn't wrong to try to win at the ballot box.

Regards,

3DOP

While various temperance groups sought to legislate temperance including my Covenanter forebears who voted for the first time in the Prohibitionist Party, what pushed Prohibition into law actually was a tide of anti-Germanism. The violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state in the public schools is what drove the Catholics to form their own schools because of the Protestant anti-Catholicism in American public schools at the time. American Catholics have in the past tended to be more liberal in their social views because for years they were a persecuted minority here. You are correct, however, that Catholic history is not strong on separation of church and state, a fact that did not historically play out well for religious dissenters in the Old World, and which accounts for why the Restoration occurred in the New World where even here it barely survived mobs revved up by other religious sects. We have a doctrine that once a man gains a little authority his immediate tendency is to abuse it. So has always been the case with groups who gain too much power. That is why keeping the two spheres separate is important. Otherwise you know we tend to wind up legislating the Sun orbits the Earth and things like that.

[Calm]

Its not part of my obligation as a member to try to coerce other people into conforming their behavior to my religious beliefs via legislation.

How is having a law that states something along the lines of 'the government will subsidize heterosexual behavours that it won't subsidize for homosexuals' trying to "coerce other people into conforming their behaviour" to any religious beliefs via legislation?

[3DOP]

stone holm

While various temperance groups sought to legislate temperance including my Covenanter forebears who voted for the first time in the Prohibitionist Party, what pushed Prohibition into law actually was a tide of anti-Germanism.

3DOP

My mistake, anti-Germanism. I had always thought the temperance movement had strong Protestant support. Is it still anti-Germanism that makes pockets of the Bible Belt where there are dry counties? I thought of striking my reference to the temperance movement because it was the least important point and susceptible to a tangent. What is the point you wish to establish by arguing that anti-Germanism was the primary force behind the temperance movement? How does that show that separation of church and state in America means that citizens shouldn't let their politics be influenced by their religion?

stone holm

The violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state in the public schools is what drove the Catholics to form their own schools because of the Protestant anti-Catholicism in American public schools at the time.

3DOP

I see that differently. The government is a mediocre educator anyway. If people want the government to educate their children, they need to know that the schools will tend to reflect the beliefs of the majority. The Catholic Church does not advocate letting the government take over the care of the education of our children. The injustice is when those who don't even use an ineffective education system are forced to pay for it. But we suffer the injustice and pay for a better private education for Catholic children. No big deal. Life isn't fair.

But protestantized government education wasn't "a violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state". It was a reflection of majority rule and you have to expect that in a democracy. Minorities don't get killed in America, but sometimes they don't get their way. You say Catholics were persecuted in America? We were unpopular. We didn't get our way. There wasn't very much violence. Most of the "persecution" occurred because Catholics were in the minority at the ballot box. I don't call that persecution. Eventually people accepted the immigrants just as though Catholics had always been here and Catholics started winning elections to office.

stone holm

American Catholics have in the past tended to be more liberal in their social views because for years they were a persecuted minority here.

3DOP

I am not sure. I am more liberal than you are about what is a legitimate reason for having a political viewpoint. I don't think it has to do with persecution. You just make separation of church and state into this monstrosity that can't be reconciled with American history. It means the state shouldn't support a particular religion as was done in England, Germany, and Catholic countries. It didn't also mean that Christian values had to be somehow separated in our brains from how we act at the ballot box.

stone holm

You are correct, however, that Catholic history is not strong on separation of church and state, a fact that did not historically play out well for religious dissenters in the Old World, and which accounts for why the Restoration occurred in the New World where even here it barely survived mobs revved up by other religious sects.

3DOP

I personally reject separation of church and state, even in the milder form advocated by Jefferson. But that isn't the point. We live under American law, and I understand that separation of church and state is part of American tradition that has become embedded in law and not going anywhere soon. The United States will not soon endorse the doctrines of one church. I accept this. But the United States will violate its own Constitution when it tells us, as you seem to be saying, that we cannot let our religious values affect how we decide to vote.

stone holm

We have a doctrine that once a man gains a little authority his immediate tendency is to abuse it. So has always been the case with groups who gain too much power.

3DOP

It depends on the man. Some men use authority to good ends. Civil government is about finding the right balance that allows good men to do right while minimizing the effect of abusers. Democracies are very good at minimizing abuse because authority is spread out.

Since you are so concerned about "groups who gain too much power", why stop with separation of church and state? Maybe we need to insist upon a "wall of separation between Hollywood and State"? But no. Its okay to get your political ideas from TV and the movies but not church? I don't get it. What about the homosexual lobby? Is it permissible to vote for ideas you get from that group?

stone holm

That is why keeping the two spheres separate is important. Otherwise you know we tend to wind up legislating the Sun orbits the Earth and things like that.

3DOP

The spheres are kept separate in America. Groups and individuals have always advocated that citizens vote a certain way. Individuals have always voted for their most deeply held beliefs and their personal self interest. Sometimes their religious beliefs affect what they think is in the best interest of themselves and/or society.

You can legislate against the state making a religion official. You cannot legislate against people voting according to a faith-based conscience.

Edited August 15, 2013 by 3DOP

[Calm]

It is unreasonable to think that we should self-nullify the influence of our deeply held religious beliefs. It shouldn't be anybody's business in America where we get our ideas or why we are for or against homosexual initiatives. All of us should be allowed to have our own influence at the ballot box in expressing what we hold deeply, no matter where it comes from.

Yes, yes and yes to everything you said....in both posts.

I just don't see how people think it is even possible to turn off beliefs from influencing choices when they affect how we view the world on a fundamental level.

Edited August 15, 2013 by calmoriah