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

[The Grimace]

On the role of women in the church, the National Catholic Reporter quotes him as saying, “A church without women would be like the apostolic college without Mary. The Madonna is more important than the apostles, and the church herself is feminine, the spouse of Christ and a mother.”

Though he acknowledges that Pope John Paul II had “closed the door” on the possible ordination of women as priests, Francis addressed the changing role of women and the need for the church to grapple with that. “The role of women doesn’t end with being a mother and with housework,” he said. “We don’t yet have a truly deep theology of women in the church. We talk about whether they can do this or that, can they be altar boys, can they be lectors, about a woman as president of Caritas [an international confederation of Catholic relief agencies], but we don’t have a deep theology of women in the church.”

This is refreshingly candid and reflective. While I don't dispute that the Catholic church's stance on homosexuality has come more in line with the LDS church's statements (it's ok to be gay, just don't do gay things), Pope Francis' statements on women seem to be more progressive than anything coming from the LDS church recently.

[Stone holm]

This is refreshingly candid and reflective. While I don't dispute that the Catholic church's stance on homosexuality has come more in line with the LDS church's statements (it's ok to be gay, just don't do gay things), Pope Francis' statements on women seem to be more progressive than anything coming from the LDS church recently.

I guess it baffles me a little, what does it mean to be "gay", if you don't do "gay" things? Are we talking about a state of mind? Do "gay things" include talking in a certain manner, physical mannerisms, and style of clothing?

[thesometimesaint]

Go and sin no more.

Go and sin no more.

Go and sin no more.

Please write this on the board 100 times before going home from Church, and remember that this is the penultimate and, therefore, most important part of the Johannine Gospel rendition of the event, not otherwise attested to (not even in the earliest extant versions of John's Gospel).

Embracement of a condition as an identity, embracement of the lifestyle sometimes associated with the condition, and advocacy of the condition as protected legal status are not consistent, IMNSHO, with the Gospel. And I have good support therefor.

I'm fine with go and sin no more.

I have never advocated for anything less than a sinless life. What I have advocated for is keeping the civil law out of our bedrooms and religions as far as possible. IOW. What you do with a consenting legal adult between the bedcovers, and the God you pray to, is none of my or the laws' business.

[Stone holm]

I'm fine with go and sin no more.

I have never advocated for anything less than a sinless life. What I have advocated for is keeping the civil law out of our bedrooms and religions as far as possible. IOW. What you do with a consenting legal adult between the bedcovers, and the God you pray to, is none of my or the laws' business.

Yes, but some feel they are charged by God to investigate, regulate, and control what goes on between the bedcovers -- its their plan for smaller government.

[jim_mason]

You mean like adopting a Mormon lifestyle?

Protected classes in the United States include race, religion, national origin, etc; my question for usu is are those protections inconsistant with the Gospel.

The greater question is "Who is my neighbor and how should I treat him?"

Edited July 31, 2013 by jim_mason

[EllenMaksoud]

The Vatican Establishment seems to being busy with their erasure squad following Pope Francis around as he fires off comments. Do his comments about gays in Brazil mark a major change in Catholic policy, or just a slight nuance that brings the Catholic position and the Mormon position into alignment?

I too am happy that someone else brought this up. I think his statement is closer to what Jesus Christ would have said. I can just imagine the venom laced sermons from the likes of John Hagee! Edited July 31, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[why me]

This is refreshingly candid and reflective. While I don't dispute that the Catholic church's stance on homosexuality has come more in line with the LDS church's statements (it's ok to be gay, just don't do gay things), Pope Francis' statements on women seem to be more progressive than anything coming from the LDS church recently.

I don't see it this way at all. What is so progressive about what he said? Do you think that the women at ordainwomen would find the pope's statements progressive? Hardly. Now if he would have said that the church will have women priests in 2 years I may consider that rather progressively secular.

Edited July 31, 2013 by why me

[Skylla]

Keep politics out of this thread.

Skylla

[Stone holm]

I don't see it this way at all. What is so progressive about what he said? Do you think that the women at ordainwomen would find the pope's statements progressive? Hardly. Now if he would have said that the church will have women priests in 2 years I may consider that rather progressively secular.

The Commentators seem to be looking at "tone" rather than "substance", it does not appear to be a change in substance as to the Catholic stance as far as members are concerned, but it may have been a change in substance as to Priests. But, I think they seem to be looking at a change in tone. His prior comment about atheists making it to heaven, got quickly erased by the Vatican staff.

[USU78]

Which society is that? Laws forbidding murder and theft are not necessarily religious based although they are consistent with most religions.

CFR for preindustrial societies' laws against murder and theft that are not based upon religion.

[USU78]

I think I have a bone to pick with the assumption implicit and explicit in the thread's title that RCs are not tolerant and neither is their Church.

[The Grimace]

I guess it baffles me a little, what does it mean to be "gay", if you don't do "gay" things? Are we talking about a state of mind? Do "gay things" include talking in a certain manner, physical mannerisms, and style of clothing?

"gay things" == homosexual acts.

[USU78]

Protected classes in the United States include race, religion, national origin, etc; my question for usu is are those protections inconsistant with the Gospel.

The greater question is "Who is my neighbor and how should I treat him?"

They are not.

Classes based upon melanin lack (or richness) or behaviors, including sexual behaviors, are not.

You treat everybody the same and don't give person "A" any procedural advantage over person "B," but you don't enforce equality of economic outcome . . . and you don't stack the deck for or against anybody through assignment to class.

The US constitution abolished titles and classes . . . and no amount of precedent in the Warren or any other Court makes legally enforceable class distinctions right under the Gospel.

I expect the same standard of behavior out of a black kid from Detroit as I do an hispanic kid from Las Cruces and as I do a NW European mutt of a kid from Brigham City.

[Stone holm]

"gay things" == homosexual acts.

So what does it mean to be "gay" without connection to "gay things" if you use that restricted definition. Would stereotypic gay non-sexual behavior and dress then be acceptable?

[Stone holm]

I think I have a bone to pick with the assumption implicit and explicit in the thread's title that RCs are not tolerant and neither is their Church.

Gays would label both the RC and our Church as intolerant of gay sexual orientation when acted upon. However, I believe that Roman Catholics are on average more tolerant of gay sexual behavior than we are. I consider myself fairly intolerant of gay behavior including stereotypic non-sexual gay behavior. On the other hand, I do not believe that we have the right to pass laws which discriminate against them since our aversion is religious in nature -- not because of any threat to society posed by their behavior.

[The Grimace]

So what does it mean to be "gay" without connection to "gay things" if you use that restricted definition. Would stereotypic gay non-sexual behavior and dress then be acceptable?

Beats me. I'm not saying I agree with the statement, I'm simply repeating the stance of both the LDS church and the RC church.

[Stone holm]

Beats me. I'm not saying I agree with the statement, I'm simply repeating the stance of both the LDS church and the RC church.

Personally I find steriotypic gay mannerisms annoying, but what gay adults are doing behind their bedroom doors -- I really don't care, and don't think it is any of my business, unless they happen to be members and I am either a Bishop or Stake President -- otherwise, it really isn't any of our business and it certainly isn't threatening my marriage. And if Pope Francis wants to call off this silly crusade that has been going on and concentrate on things which are causing much more damage to his flock, then I say more power to him. But he has a problem which we don't have in that he has had a bunch of pedophile Priests which is a problem that is not going to go away for the Roman Catholic Church until it gets rid of its vow of celibacy.

[The Grimace]

what gay adults are doing behind their bedroom doors -- I really don't care, and don't think it is any of my business.

I agree with this. There is no "but" or "unless".

[why me]

Gays would label both the RC and our Church as intolerant of gay sexual orientation when acted upon. However, I believe that Roman Catholics are on average more tolerant of gay sexual behavior than we are.

I am not sure about this. I think that in general both catholics and mormons would find it difficult to understand gay sexual behavior. Most hetero men would not be too understanding about it but they would have a 'its none of my business attitude'. And this would go for both mormon and catholic men, in general. I know a gay man who is catholic and his catholic friends, including me wonder how he rationalizes his sex life with his partner with is devout catholic beliefs.

Most developing world catholics who attend that catholic church in my area would love the 'sinner' but not the sin when it comes to homosexuality. But they would also bring their ideas about homosexuality from their own countries into the picture.

Edited August 1, 2013 by why me

[ChristKnight]

Personally I find steriotypic gay mannerisms annoying, but what gay adults are doing behind their bedroom doors -- I really don't care, and don't think it is any of my business, unless they happen to be members and I am either a Bishop or Stake President -- otherwise, it really isn't any of our business and it certainly isn't threatening my marriage. And if Pope Francis wants to call off this silly crusade that has been going on and concentrate on things which are causing much more damage to his flock, then I say more power to him. But he has a problem which we don't have in that he has had a bunch of pedophile Priests which is a problem that is not going to go away for the Roman Catholic Church until it gets rid of its vow of celibacy.

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/celibacy-isn%E2%80%99t-the-problem

http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/celibacy-does-not-cause-pedophilia

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/priestly-celibacy/the-case-for-priestly-celibacy/

Etc.

And just FYI, the Catholic Church has married priests, mostly within its Eastern Catholic churches, which are in full communion with Rome (i.e., I'm not talking about the Eastern Orthodox). The discipline of priestly celibacy is mostly confined to the Roman Catholic sui iuris church, which is the largest of the churches that make up the Catholic Church. And of course there are many deacons that are also married, though they remain deacons (the "permanent diaconate").

I agree with everything else you said.

[Calm]

I don't see how celibacy leads to pedophile...there may be pedophile priests, but is there any evidence that their being celibate led to their pedophilia?

[Hamba Tuhan]

I don't see how celibacy leads to pedophile...there may be pedophile priests, but is there any evidence that their being celibate led to their pedophilia?

I have a suspicion that this is merely 'received wisdom' from the same Kinseyite crowd that's spent the past 60 years or so preaching that chastity is an impossibility full stop.

[california boy]

They are not.

Classes based upon melanin lack (or richness) or behaviors, including sexual behaviors, are not.

You treat everybody the same and don't give person "A" any procedural advantage over person "B," but you don't enforce equality of economic outcome . . . and you don't stack the deck for or against anybody through assignment to class.

The US constitution abolished titles and classes . . . and no amount of precedent in the Warren or any other Court makes legally enforceable class distinctions right under the Gospel.

I expect the same standard of behavior out of a black kid from Detroit as I do an hispanic kid from Las Cruces and as I do a NW European mutt of a kid from Brigham City.

I guess if we did not have laws that do indeed target specific "class" segments of our society, you may have a point. Unfortunately some Americans have no problem passing laws that target a specific group and not the entire population of the country. Sometimes these laws are based on their own religious beliefs. Sometimes these laws are based on prejudices such as skin color. Sometimes laws are based on what gender you are. Basically the Supreme Court has ruled that such laws do not treat everyone equally, and that is why they are struck down. It is not about special treatment, it is about equal treatment. It prevents the government from passing laws directed at certain segments of society that are just as much a part of America as straight white males.

When you want laws passed that prevent a gay person from marrying who they want to marry simply because of your religious beliefs, then it is you that is not following your own belief of "I expect the same standard of behavior out of a black kid from Detroit as I do an hispanic kid from Las Cruces and as I do a NW European mutt of a kid from Brigham City." The court's job is indeed, to step in and stop your unequal treatment of others. And to prevent future unequal treatment, they simply are stating that you can not target specific laws against a specific group of Americans, so don't even think of passing laws against a particular race, religion etc.

[why me]

I don't see how celibacy leads to pedophile...there may be pedophile priests, but is there any evidence that their being celibate led to their pedophilia?

I don't think so. I believe that these men entered the priesthood because of their pedophilia. Catholic priests can work with children and also have the trust of the parents. It is a wonderful place to exercise control and trust. And in the past, it did provide a 'safe' environment to practice their pedophilia. Of course that has now changed.

[Storm Rider]

I guess if we did not have laws that do indeed target specific "class" segments of our society, you may have a point. Unfortunately some Americans have no problem passing laws that target a specific group and not the entire population of the country. Sometimes these laws are based on their own religious beliefs. Sometimes these laws are based on prejudices such as skin color. Sometimes laws are based on what gender you are. Basically the Supreme Court has ruled that such laws do not treat everyone equally, and that is why they are struck down. It is not about special treatment, it is about equal treatment. It prevents the government from passing laws directed at certain segments of society that are just as much a part of America as straight white males.

When you want laws passed that prevent a gay person from marrying who they want to marry simply because of your religious beliefs, then it is you that is not following your own belief of "I expect the same standard of behavior out of a black kid from Detroit as I do an hispanic kid from Las Cruces and as I do a NW European mutt of a kid from Brigham City." The court's job is indeed, to step in and stop your unequal treatment of others. And to prevent future unequal treatment, they simply are stating that you can not target specific laws against a specific group of Americans, so don't even think of passing laws against a particular race, religion etc.

Exactly how far are you willing to run with that logic? Are you sure you can support it all the way to its logical limits? Do you understand that the end product of such a policy is complete chaos and anarchy? Why do you think societies have always had rules or laws?