Meet the new pope, same as the old pope:
Amid changing mores on sexuality, including same-sex marriage, Francis’ traditional views have clashed with cultural changes in Argentina. Before the nation legalized same-sex marriage in 2010, Francis called it a “destructive attack on God’s plan.”
In my view, declaring that you know “God’s plan” and that love and marriage for gay people isn’t part of it is the worst kind of blasphemy. Blind guides and pharisees still hold sway over the church of Rome.
27 Comments for “Romanism Intransigent”
posted by bls on
I think the basic problem is the same old thing: “old guys” fixated on their old taboos.
See the “over 65” stats in any public opinion poll for more. And of course it won’t change for awhile, because all Popes are old guys….
posted by Jorge on
In my view, declaring that you know “God’s plan” and that love and marriage for gay people isn’t part of it is the worst kind of blasphemy.
Genesis.
As long as the religious case for gay marriage takes more words to explain than the religious case against gay marriage does, the former will be an upward climb.
With any luck, things will improve. However, that depends on whether gay marriage is something the Church needs to evolve on. I am not convinced that it does in an age in which it remains at odds with the world on contraception and divorce.
posted by bls on
Jorge, that argument only works for Protestants. The Catholic Church is not sola scriptura; it makes frequent use of “natural law”, which actually takes many, many more words than either of the things you mention!
In any case, the story of the Garden of Eden (I’m assuming this is what you’re referring to) is not about marriage, nor is it even a “just-so” story about male/female sexuality; it’s about the “fall from grace” – and the Catholic Church also knows very well how to interpret religious metaphors.
The RCC bases its resistance to homosexuality on its thinking about sexuality in general and reproduction in particular.
posted by Don on
i would amend that statement to be more precise:
the Catholic Church also knows very well how to interpret religious metaphors to suit its own ends.
posted by bls on
For example?
posted by Jimmy on
All the major Christian holidays are reinterpretations of the religious metaphors of pagans to suit the ends of winning converts.
The reinterpretation of Mary Magdalene into a whore by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century. They didn’t bother to fix that until the 1969.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Well, hell, you need look no further than the Gospel of Saint Matthew to see a great example of turning religious metaphors to suit the needs of the moment.
Matthew’s Gospel is a massive reinterpretation of the “suffering servant” and the “light to the nations” metaphors for the people of Israel, transforming them into Christian theology, and transforming the story of the people of Israel into an advent metaphor.
It is a brilliant bit of work, as religious reinterpretation goes, anyway.
posted by bls on
None of those things is true, Jimmy. Christian holidays have always straightforwardly celebrated events in the Gospels and the Book of Acts. And GtG never said Mary Magdalene was a whore, either.
Tom, the statement was about “the Catholic Church,” so I’m not sure that the Book of Matthew actually qualifies. But of course, all the biblical writers re-interpreted new events in the light of old ones and previous writings – so if that’s a disqualification, then it sure ain’t just the Catholic Church….
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, that argument only works for Protestants. The Catholic Church is not sola scriptura; it makes frequent use of “natural law”, which actually takes many, many more words than either of the things you mention!
Oh, the Catholic Church loves droning on expanding on things until people’s eyes and ears fall off, but it does cite Genesis.
posted by Doug on
It will be decades and probably longer before the Catholic Church accepts gay marriage. Look how long it too them to realize Galileo was not a heretic.
posted by Lori Heine on
Our society has become a cesspit of corruption, selfishness and irresponsibility — about which the Church offers nothing but a few toothless platitudes. But it’s right on top of “homosexuality.”
Sheer projection. What a bunch of cowards.
The instability in marriage and the family is a result of permitting marriage for love, instead of marriage (without divorce) arranged by the family or the State. This affects 95% of the population. The notion that allowing the remaining 5% to marry for love will destroy society is a colossal joke.
Anytime straight social cons want to really do something to fix the situation, they can sacrifice marriage for love. Blaze the trail for righteousness.
We’ll see that when we see pigs roosting in the trees.
They’re perfectly willing to innovate whenever it gets them whatever they want. They’ll deny themselves absolutely nothing. They can’t even keep their own zippers shut, or their hands off of their own kids.
And we’re the problem? How’s that again?
This pathetic generation of geezers can’t die off fast enough.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Jorge: “With any luck, things will improve. However, that depends on whether gay marriage is something the Church needs to evolve on. I am not convinced that it does in an age in which it remains at odds with the world on contraception and divorce.”
The only evolution we need from the Catholic Church (or by other Christian ecclesial community, for that matter) is for the churches to separate civil marriage from religious marriage, and act accordingly in the civil law sphere.
If, for example, the Catholic Church treated same-sex civil law marriage as the Catholic Church treats remarriage after divorce, that would be sufficient.
The teaching of the Catholic Church with respect to remarriage after divorce is as harsh and unrelenting as is the teaching of the Church with respect to same-sex marriage. Take these sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a sampling (numerical references are to paragraph number in the Catechism):
The Church defines remarriage after divorce as adultery, pure and simple, and takes a dim view of adultery (again from the CCC):
You would think, given all that, that the Church might as oppose civil law remarriage with the same fervor with which the Church opposes civil law marriage equality.
And yet, we do not see the Catholic Church on a crusade to eliminate civil law remarriage after divorce. We do not see Catholic Charities raising an unholy storm about adoption by straight couples who have remarried at civil law. We do not hear claims that the religious freedom of Catholics is destroyed by insisting that Catholic hospitals are forced to recognize the civil law marriages of citizens who have divorced and remarried. And so on. The Church has accepted civil law in that arena.
That is because in the arena of divorce and remarriage, the Church separates civil law marriage from religious marriage. The Church does not recognize divorce as licit for religious purposes, except in rare cases, and refuses to recognize marriages after divorce as valid religous marriages unless the earlier marriage has been annulled (never existed for religious purposes).
Along those lines, we might also look at the “Petrine Privilege” and the “Pauline Privilege”. Because the Catholic Church requires that a valid religious marriage can be formed only by two baptized Christians, the former allows the Church to dissolve marriages between a Catholic and a non-Christian, and the latter allows the Church to dissolve a marriage formed between two non-Christians if one of the spouses is later baptized. In each case, remarriage after divorce is considered valid for religious purposes, assuming that it conforms to the requirements of the Church for a religious marriage.
The only evolution that the Catholic Church needs to make with respect to civil law marriage equality is to separate out “what is Caesar’s and what is God’s”, treating civil law marriage equality as it does civil law divorce and remarriage. The Church does so in other areas of marriage, and the Church faces no theological obstacles to doing so in the case of marriage equality.
The Church does not need to change its religious teaching with respect to religious marriage, or its religious practices in terms of recognizing or refusing to recognize civil law marriages for religious purposes. That is an internal matter of concern to Catholics, perhaps, but it is not a legitimate concern for the rest of us or for the law.
All that the Church needs to do is to treat civil law marriages as matters of civil law, and religious marriages as a matter religion. It does so in cases of divorce and remarriage, and in cases of marriages between Christians and non-Christians. It should do so in the case of marriage equality, as well.
I do not expect that to happen, given the entrenched political positions that Catholic Bishops have taken in our country (Bishops do not back down from the limb onto which they have climbed willingly or easily) but that is all that needs to happen.
With respect to Francis, I wish him well. He has a difficult task before him.
posted by Jorge on
The only evolution we need from the Catholic Church (or by other Christian ecclesial community, for that matter) is for the churches to separate civil marriage from religious marriage, and act accordingly in the civil law sphere.
I’m not inclined to agree. However I will return to the rest of your post later.
posted by Jorge on
Okay, your whole civil marriage vs. religious marriage thing.
I am not aware of a single instance of liberal divorce reform (in civil marriage law) which the Catholic Church has not opposed. I think this is true of adultery laws in the US as well.
Nor have European or American reason filtered into the Church universally. They were still at it a couple of years ago in Uganda over property rights in some way:
http://wwrn.org/articles/31708/
You accuse the Church of hypocrisy for not making efforts to prohibit civil re-marriage after divorce. What it chooses to do instead is to try to prohibit civil divorce. There is no hypocrisy, and for you to suggest that the Church should “catch up” its position on gay marriage to its position on divorce posits an assumption that is false.
I can go a little further in predicting that if gay marriage passes in the US, the church will say little about it, as it says little today in the US about current divorce law. The Catholic Church is said to support Boy Scouts of America’s ban on gays, and it sponsors many Boy Scout troops. The Girl Scouts made it clear several years ago that they do not ban gays. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops made a decision to keep working with them.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I am not aware of a single instance of liberal divorce reform (in civil marriage law) which the Catholic Church has not opposed. I think this is true of adultery laws in the US as well.
True. Neither can I.
But in the matter of liberalizing divorce laws (and I am old enough to remember when Wisconsin switched over to no-fault divorce) the Church opposed the change, but didn’t threaten to shut down adoption agencies, demand the right for Catholic hospitals to refuse to recognize remarriages after divorce, and so on. The tenor of the Church’s reaction to same-sex marriage is unprecedented, at least in this country. I can’t speak for Uganda.
And the Church has never, to my knowledge, done anything to try to repeal laws relating to civil law remarriage. Ever.
You accuse the Church of hypocrisy for not making efforts to prohibit civil re-marriage after divorce. What it chooses to do instead is to try to prohibit civil divorce.
Nowhere in my comment do I “accuse the Church of hypocrisy”. Nowhere.
I contrasted the Church’s differing approach to civil law marriage versus religious marriage in the two circumstances, but ascribed no motive to the Church.
It is hard enough to try to sort out all the red herrings you toss around without having to deal with flat-out lying, too.
There is no hypocrisy, and for you to suggest that the Church should “catch up” its position on gay marriage to its position on divorce posits an assumption that is false.
What assumption? The Church treats the two cases differently. In the case of remarriage after divorce, the Church does not
I can go a little further in predicting that if gay marriage passes in the US, the church will say little about it, as it says little today in the US about current divorce law.
I hope so. But I wouldn’t count on it.
It is in precisely in those states where same-sex marriage is now legal that Catholic Charities is raising an unholy storm about adoption by legally married same-sex couples while raising no objection to adoption by remarried straight couples. It is in precisely in those states where same-sex marriage is now legal that the Church insists that the religious freedom of Catholics is destroyed by laws that require the hospitals to forced to recognize the civil law marriages of same-sex couples, but not so with straight couples who have divorced and remarried.
posted by Jorge on
It is hard enough to try to sort out all the red herrings you toss around without having to deal with flat-out lying, too.
The sentiment is mutual.
posted by Don on
Well thought out theme and nicely executed. The Church’s problem is that it seeks to use the coercive power of the State to mandate adherence to its teachings. Although they believe their efforts noble – saving everyone from hellfire – its a tricky proposition.
Religions have deluded themselves into thinking that if people are forced by the State to follow their belief systems – in deeds – then they will “save” them.
It is only by dropping the coersion to their dogma that people pick up their lifestyle choice willingly and benefit from it. I see enormous benefit from religious practice. But it has to be freely undertaken to actually achieve that benefit. They just don’t get that.
posted by Houndentenor on
I used to think that the religious were trying to force everyone else to abide by their religious tenets, but I’m more and more seeing that the religious are trying to use the government to force themselves into abiding by those rules as much as they are the rest of us. How many catholics are divorced, use birth control, have abortions and engage in premarital sex? Most of them. How many priests, bishops and cardinals are sexually active gay men? Most of them. The church is clearly ineffective in forcing catholics to live according to church teachings so they believe that perhaps the government can achieve that goal. That’s how messed up the church is in the 21st century. Coercing governments into attempting to influence the culture in ways the church has failed to do.
posted by bls on
This is a really interesting point…..
posted by Jorge on
I used to think that the religious were trying to force everyone else to abide by their religious tenets, but I’m more and more seeing that the religious are trying to use the government to force themselves into abiding by those rules as much as they are the rest of us.
A little snide, but I think that’s an accurate observation. Unlike Islam, Christianity preaches mercy, because all people are sinners.
posted by Don on
interesting point i had never really considered. but it rings true for me. mostly because people who are out of control of themselves frequently put roadblocks up to stop themselves from doing things they know they “shouldn’t” do.
alcoholic behaviors come to mind.
clearly they have no idea what they are up against. and sadly, they have thrown us into the same lot. they think it’s a self-destructive compulsive behavior that can be “cured” through prayer and good works.
but as any counselor will tell you, the compulsive behavior isn’t the problem. the underlying psychic damage is the driver of the compulsive behavior. These guys just don’t get that at all.
and in nearly every state it’s illegal to sell alcohol to a known alcoholic. so much for state power outlawing behavior. not to mention a quintessientially unconservative approach.
posted by Houndentenor on
None of this matters to me in the least with one exception. I don’t care if the Vatican approves or disapproves of anything I do or say. I’m not Catholic. I don’t believe the pope has any more ability to determine what is or isn’t moral than any other person. In fact the recent history of the church has shown that the leadership of the church (not necessarily individual lay Catholics) is actually less moral than the average person who would most certainly not move a known child rapist to another parish where he could rape more children. Almost none of us would do that, yet the church leadership did that routinely. I also wouldn’t launder money nor would I turn over dissident priests to be murdered by a dictatorial regime as the new pope did. So, no, I don’t care what anyone in the Vatican has to say on moral issues.
There is one exception, however. The Catholic Church has spent millions trying to influence the outcome of state ballot initiatives like Prop 8. That does influence my life and the lives of other people who are not Catholic. The same goes for the Mormon Church. When they move to influence the law in ways that affect people who are not of their faith, that to me is overstepping and I strongly object to that abuse of power and fund. Note that neither the Mormons or Catholics have open books unlike many protestant churches where a full accounting of what money came in and what went out is reviewed by any interested parties at monthly or quarterly “business meetings”. I have no respect for either institution and don’t mind saying so. That they don’t care much for me or my kind is irrelevant unless they are trying to limit my legal rights. They are limiting MY legal rights and I will not be silent about that.
posted by Don on
i would add that, using their own definition, they are an evil organization. those who do evil things and then use their money, power and influence to continue the criminal enterprise and cover up the deeds of their members, are evil organizations.
it’s a shame. cuz it really started out as a nice idea.
posted by Shadow Chaser on
When speaking of the Catholic Church, one needs to separate the hierarchy from the people in the pew. The bishops and cardinals can huff and puff against marriage equality, but polls indicate that 54 percent of American Catholics support same sex marriage.
When interviewed, Catholics in the first world tell journalists that the Church must change its stands on contraception, divorce and remarriage, gay rights, women clergy, married clergy etc.
However, like the Republican in the United States , the Catholic Church is held hostage by a self-perpetuating, reactionary block that places the highest priority on ideological purity. I suspect that the GOP will change its stands before the Catholic hierarchy does.
I will remind you that Govs. Christine Gregoire, Martin O’Malley, Pat Quinn, Andrew Cuomo and Jerry Brown are all Catholics and are all supporters of marriage equality.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’m perfectly happy to distinguish between people who are Catholic and the corrupt organization to which they belong. What I fail to understand is that if a majority of Catholics are unhappy with their church that they can’t do something about it. If they were (literally, actually) standing up and speaking out, the church would be forced to confront its own actions. I don’t mean teachings. I mean things like money laundering and child rape that according to the church’s own teachings are wrong. Why do they allow leaders to stay in power. They could make things happen if they wanted to. They obviously don’t, at least not that much or this wouldn’t have gone on for this long. What I hear is excuses and rationalizations. A little civil disobedience (from actual members, not outsiders) would shake up this mess. Turning over the documents detailing criminal activities (most specifically, child rape) would be a decent and honorable act. Until then I’m revolted by the very idea that the church leadership has any moral authority in our society. Even people with very little ethical standards wouldn’t shuffle rapists around to harm even more victims. They can’t even meet that low standard. It’s despicable.
posted by bls on
You may not be aware of how much is actually going on in this respect among the Catholic laity. There are quite a few Catholic lay organizations, like “Voice of the Faithful” – who are doing exactly the things you talk about here. Here’s another instance. Writers like Tom Moran – and others who’ve left the church over the abuse issue – talk about it, too.
posted by french62 on
roman fascism has no role to play in my life. they may pursue their own happiness, as a may mine. we do not live under the papist precepts of the catholic church, but a “potentially” divinely inspired document known as the United States Constitution. and all I have to say to that is AMEN, or better yet…. Many, Many MEN:-)