Pope Francis dies

His social and moral conservatism is what I like best about Cardinal Sarah. Of course there will be some things the tradition can learn from the modern world, there always are. There are far more things the modern world could learn from the tradition, though.

In addition, if you want to argue as a general principle that the Catholic tradition that sustained a civilization (or 3 civilizations if you take the Christian tradition as a whole) for 2 millennia needs to "move with the times" towards the values of a modern culture that in just 60 years has degraded western civilization to the point it's at now, then the burden of proof is definitely on you. I don't see it.

 

A lot of irony in this post.

You bemoan the decay of families, communities, and the environment, but want to cling to the “traditions” of an institution that has covered up abuse on an enormous scale, shunned countless people over their sexuality, and maintained an all-male power structure with nothing in the way of democratic accountability?

We’ve made a lot of positive societal progress since the 60s that you conveniently paint as a negative, while the church has dragged its feet and remained in the past.

On the topic of sickness, there’s clearly something quite sick about instructing Africans not to use condoms during an AIDs epidemic - and yet the church did just that. There’s something sick about suggesting that homosexuality is evil and rooted in sin, tearing apart families and alienating people who had the audacity to be born gay - and yet the church did just that. And there’s something inherently sick about telling women they can’t be priests because Jesus chose male apostles, while ignoring the fact that Jesus also didn’t build cathedrals, wear gold robes, or sit on thrones — and yet the Church does just that.

You say that we should be careful about modernising but don’t give an argument as to why. The “wait and see” approach doesnt make sense. Society is dying so the church should do nothing differently?

The reason the church is struggling is caution, stubbornness and a refusal to change with the times. It will be the death of it eventually.

 

There are definitely a handful of things we should keep from our modern culture, particularly equality of women and the unacceptability of racism. These things are genuine progress, but they are massively outnumbered by the negatives. You know a thing by its fruits. Look around you at the fruits of our modern culture and its "progress". How's that working out for us? How long will our culture last if we continue?

Does that mean I think that the church has never done anything wrong and shouldn't be criticised? Of course not. The abuse was a failing of the church at a particular time and place, and absolutely should be condemned. Who could possibly defend that? Abuse is emphatically not part of the tradition, though and nobody I know of is arguing that it was anything other than pure evil. Cardinal Sarah has been one of the most outspoken voices in condemning this.

Regarding sexuality, AIDS and condoms, I think you misunderstand the position of the church. It's not church teaching to shun people for their sexuality. I'm not denying that religious people (including Catholics) have done so; but it's not Church teaching. Church teaching is that * has a purpose and that any deviation from that purpose is a sin. I must admit, I used to think that was nonsense (both bologically and morally); but as I look around, I can see that I was wrong. Apparently, divorcing * from its purpose leads to some very dark places in the long run. That doesn't mean I think I am morally superior to gay people (I'm definitely not). I think there are much worse abuses of * and sexuality than, for example, * between 2 men in a loving long-term relationship, things such as using *, having affairs and indulging in casual *.

TBH, I still don't really understand why these things are wrong; but I can see it is so by looking around me at the effects of playing that forward for 60-odd years. I shouldn't really be so surprised that church tradition turns out to understand much more than I do. Similarly with AIDS, you stop the spread of AIDS by not having casual * rather than using condoms. By definition, if you are using a condom, you are using * for a purpose it's not meant for and it's * you should be abstaining from.

I love the cathedrals. I think it's amazing that the most beautiful buildings in Europe are dedicated to * rather than any human being or organisation. I suspect that you might be right about the Church hierarchy being all male; but I think we should be cautious about rushing to make changes for the reasons I mentioned above. You say I don't give a reason why; but I thought it was clear that I was saying we should be very cautious about copying aspects of a culture that is clearly very sick indeed.

 

Although I am not a devout Catholic, I respect this man. I like many others, grew up from my biological siblings in Ireland, because of the shame being born out of wedlock. A lesser man would have brushed off what happened to women and children in the Laundries and Mother and Baby Homes.

Francis met the victims in person, and listened to their stories. He was a proper leader, and what a man should be. Whoever is next, has big shoes to fill.

Rest in Peace


For those unaware, Redmond is one of the campaign leaders in ireland, to unseal the records of Mother and Baby Homes. He has also written a book on the subject.

 

I think you should check out protestantism

 

They stole Cathedrals

 

You're being very vague (perhaps deliberately so) about what exactly these negatives are. What are they?

Also, the idea that there's only a "handful" of things worth preserving from modern culture is laughable. I could post about advancements in science, medicine, education, civil liberties, democracy, freedom of expression etc. All things that we should be proud of. We've come a long way since the 60s.

First of all, let's be clear. The church absolutely created the environment in which people were shunned for their sexuality. Saying it's not an official teaching is a cop-out. You can't declare LGBT people as 'disordered' and say "oh, but we didn't mean that exactly...". That is a form of shunning in itself. I've been personal witness to homophobia in a sermon around the time of Cardinal O'Brien fiasco - it's something which ultimately led to my mum stopping attending church altogether. I don't think it's right to talk about moral dignity while making others feel like their mere existence is a moral failing.

The rest of the post is a bit of a confused mess tbh. The view that * has one single purpose and that any deviation from that purpose is wrong is mental. What dark places are we even talking about here? You admit that you don't understand why these things are wrong but accept that they're wrong anyway because the church tells you it is. Do you not question that?

The AIDs statement is pretty mad. Preaching abstinence as the only solution to sexually transmitted disease... wow. Condoms protect against disease. They are a proven way of protecting against HIV and they could have saved countless lives and prevented the spread.

The “* is only for reproduction” logic collapses the moment you apply it to day to day life. What about infertile couples? What about women past the menopause? Are they sinners if they have * for love or connection? Or are they allowed in because it’s hetero and married and therefore the rules don’t apply? Humans are animals. Social, emotional, and physical animals. Not every act of intimacy needs to be wrapped in commitment to be meaningful or valid. Casual * can be honest, consensual and a positive experience. It's ridiculously simplistic to suggest that it leads to dark places.

 

Look around you. Secular modernity has unarguably been in charge for at least 30 years (IMO nearer 70) and this is the world it created.

Who's talking about ditching those things? You think that these things are the achievements of secular modern culture? Western science and medicine has its deep roots in Christianity, Judaism and (Arabic and Persian) Islam. Many of the civil rights leaders were Christians or even pastors and ministers (e.g. MLK). If anything, without a larger value system to orient them, science has become less effective, less trustworthy and more partisan in this secular era and progressives have gone from people like MLK to people like Robin Di Angelo.

Again, not denying it happens; but it happens against church teaching not because of it. Francis was quite clear on that. IMO, so are the gospels.

No, mate. As, I said, I actually rejected it as nonsense when I thought it was only church teaching. I accept it now without understanding the reasons because we've played through the alternative view since the 60s and its fruits are very clear.

This way of thinking comes from falsely believing that you can isolate one immediate consequence from all the other consequences that sometimes only appear in the medium or long-term. If you look at the dire state of western societies and societies such as Japan, Korea or (demographically at least) China, you can see that there are long-term effects of birth control severing the link between * and reproduction that have become apparent over a span of decades. Regarding AIDS specifically, I haven't actually looked into the data; but thinking out loud about the kind of thing I have in mind, I would possibly expect to see a strong correlation between promiscuity and HIV rates and maybe also another correlation between contraception and promiscuity.

I don't know the answer to the edge cases like post-menopausal couples having *. It doesn't personally seem wrong to me FWIW. These things remind me of philosophical puzzles like the famous trolley problem or whether it's OK to lie to a * who wants to kill a Jewish person, in that our moral rules break down in these edge cases, but that doesn't change the fact that we all know it's wrong to kill and wrong to lie in general. Just as you probably want to ask a moral philosopher about the trolley problem, you probably need to ask a theologian about post-menopausal couples (if they even want to continue having *).

My own (decidedly non-expert) personal opinion (which may or may not be what the Church teaches, I actually have no idea) is that having too many kids is bad for women's health and maybe couples ought to be choosing to start to have less * long before the menopause let alone after it.

There are deeper questions here. There are lots of other good reasons why saying * is just for reproduction doesn't make sense (if * is only for reproduction, why do humans and some animals not advertise ovulation like chimps or dogs? Why do some species, such as bonobos, clearly use it for bonding, why does homosexuality exist in the animal kingdom as well as among humans?). I'm not saying the Church's current teaching is the last word on the subject. Maybe a future scientist or a future saint will find a better teaching. It's enough to say that the Church's teaching is there for a reason and is clearly closer to the truth than- and works better than- secular modernity's free-for-all. And we know that because secular modernity has been given enough rope to hang itself since the 60s and has duly obliged.

By the way, your question ("Are they sinners...?) seems to imply that you think the Church splits the world into sinners and non-sinners. It doesn't. We are all sinners.

My intuition is that infertile couples who truly desire to have kids are using * for its proper purpose. I'm no expert, though. You'd have to ask a theologian for a more definitive answer.

I'm going to double down on casual *, though. Permitted (and sometimes even admired) on a societal level over a period of 6 decades, it clearly leads to bad places. That's just the obvious truth when we look at our societies. That doesn't mean I pretend to knowledge about whether any specific individual acts of casual * will or won't lead to dark places in individual lives.