A) I like this new Vatican a lot more than the old one. Let's hope other spiritual and political leaders follow suit.

B) Are they really saying that gays are special people with intrinsic superpowers or am I interpreting the phrase "gifts and qualities to offer" wrong? Also, are those gifts and qualities in the realm of style and design?

C) How long till we have a new schism in the church, with Martin Ssempa, Scott Lively, and the Catholics on Fox splitting off?

@Nigee - I don't think that the Catholic Church is saying that it is 'okay to be gay.' In addition to what you quoted, there is also this tidbit:

"Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions, it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners."

The Church still maintains that there are "moral problems" with homosexuality. I think that the Church is saying that, even the midst of the "moral problems" gay people can still contribute their gifts and talents for the betterment of society and even of the Church.

To me, it just seems like the Church is saying what it says about all types of sin: that though sin is morally problematic, just because one sins does not mean that one cannot contribute to society and the Church. In fact, if everyone who sinned was excluded from the Church or rejected by it, then the Church would have no members.

Yeah, I am sort of sad about the wishy-washy nature of the document. It is a lot nicer than most of the stuff we saw out of the church before Francis.

This is what happens when you stick a Liberal in the Vatican

Do people realize what this "document" is? This is not an official Church declaration. These are *opinions* of a select group of members in the synod. The "actual" document will not be created or released until after the General Synod is over- and that hasn't even started yet.

Oh yes, but it still suggest a certain change in the momentum of the church. However slowly, it is moving towards more enlightened attitudes.

OK, good. I just wouldn't get excited too fast. Pope Francis confirmed that there was a "gay lobby" last year. Are we seeing the manifestation of it? Is this a select few? Or is this an opinion that is held by a majority who is able to do something about it?

All the media gushing over Pope Francis shows just how gullible people are to spin.

Nothing has changed doctrinally. It was always "OK to be gay" provided one never acted on one's homosexual attractions.

And as KingCyrus says, this is in no way an official document representing the decision of the synod. It's just what some individual bishops happen to think. These are the liberals of the Church, and all they're really saying is "don't keep TALKING ABOUT homosexuality is still just as much of a sin as it's always been."


You'll never see the Catholic Church accept gay marriage. Never. The biggest thing that will come from this synod, maybe, are some inside-baseball things about divorced Catholics being able to remarry in a Catholic church while their former spouse is alive. Important, interesting things to us practicing (more or less) Catholics, but not the sort of things people seem to be expecting.

Even if there is any official mention of homosexuality later on, it will be the same sort of thing as these bishops felt the need to say on their own. Just a change in tone. Nothing more. You may think that's a very good thing, but that's all it is.

Every policy change starts with a change of tone, so that's not exactly a bad sign. Indeed though, wouldn't get your hopes up too much.

What is a bad sign is that the Catholic Church is now busy backtracking from that document.

I'm not even sure I would call this a change of tone. We are talking about *individual* bishops who have these opinions. The synod is just the largest stage from which they have been able to broadcast their opinions.

But this isn't "policy," steephie22. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, homosexuality being a sin is the will of God. That cannot just change because Western society is becoming more and more liberal and accepting of the practice.

Take normal premarital sex (or hell, even masturbation) as a rough analogue. It's something entirely uncontroversial in secular society. But to the Catholic Church it remains a grave sin, just as it has always been. Do priests harangue their parishes with homilies on the issue? Of course not. However, it's still something that the Church will tell people is a sin in religious education and in the confessional.

That's all that ever could happen for homosexuality: a softening of language without any underlying reform.

Again, perhaps a very good thing. But to read some of the media reports you'd think Francis was about to launch wild lefty reforms which would make the CofE look like the Taliban in comparison. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Isn't stopping official harassment a change of policy? I mean, the Catholic church has for a while now been a simply spiritual leadership. If it stops being okay for Catholic priests to abuse homosexuality, it's pretty much a change in policy.

Francis probably won't make major changes to official doctrine - that's set. Policy, though, isn't. Policy is what the church officially views as a good idea. I hope not attacking homosexuality will be policy soon. Gay marriages, on the other hand, will probably not be seen in Catholic churches for a very very long time.

You throw these terms "harassment," "abuse," and "attack" around. All the Church has been is open about what its immutable teaching on homosexuality is. Honesty is abuse now? Is religious freedom only acceptable when the teachings broadly jive with the current Zeitgeist?

If by a "very very long time" you mean "never ever ever," then I agree with you on Catholic gay marriages. It will never happen. It can never happen.

Saying - you are horrible people and will burn forever - is probably abuse, don't you think?
I never said we shouldn't let the church say this stuff, I just don't really like them saying it. I will defend their right to say it if challenged, but I will call them out on it when they do. Religious freedom is acceptable when it doesn't intrude on personal freedom of another.

I try to be careful about saying that something can never happen. Sure, scripture won't change, but interpretation can. Look at Judaism, it's practice has gone pretty far since the beginning. Did early (2, 3rd century) Christians really think that the stuff we have in Christianity now would be okay? Some things haven't changed. Some certainly have. Things we fought religious wars over are moving towards being, or have become, official doctrine.

Sorry, I have been Catholic all my life phil, and what I have heard from every priest at every church I have ever attended is this: Love the sinner, hate the sin. Only God knows the hearts of men. The Catholic Church is one of the MOST lenient on "who goes to heaven/hell." Lots of Christian churches teach a "saved v nonsaved" doctrine. The Catholic Church does not.

Dogma CAN'T change. It isn't "changeable."

I am very happy that you have had such a good experience in the Catholic church. Alas, I have not. I have known, in two countries now, judgmental attitudes from Catholics, and not just the rank-and-file. Many of them have been nice people otherwise, many have not.

Dogma has changed in the past. So has policy. I have given up on dogma changing, since we won't have the councils of early Catholicism anymore, but policy can still change, and I hope it will.

I think that attitude is contrary to the current policy, especially that of Pope Francis. If you are looking of approval of homosexuality, I don't think you will find it. But, just as adulterers, fornicators, thieves, or even murderers, we should LOVE sinners. But by no means condone their sins.

What would be an example of dogma changing?

Well, remember when it was finally established what the precise nature of god was? The whole 3-in-1 deal? Yeah, that. Most Councils early on were called to clarify Dogma, or, in other words, set it, which probably counts as a change. There were later councils where the earlier Dogma was changed to fit scripture better. Dogma isn't scripture in my view. Scripture is a part of Dogma, and drives it, but it isn't quite the whole.

I am distressed to see gays in the company of adulterers, fornicators, thieves and murderers. Really, that seems uncalled for.

That wasn't a change in dogma, because there was no dogma to begin with. That was dogma being defined. And no, dogma =/= Scripture.

I would absolutely put it with fornication. The murder was a qualified exaggeration. "even murderers." Put it this way. Fornication: sex before marriage. As the Catholic Church does not permit gay marriage all homosexual behavior is outside of marriage. Also, when we are talking about this, I am meaning actual sexual behavior. Merely having same-sex attraction is not a sin. ACTING on it is considered a sin.

"Saying - you are horrible people and will burn forever - is probably abuse, don't you think?"

Effectively you're saying that if someone, somewhere, says words you find objectionable is abuse. It isn't. This logic means that any religion which believes in a hell is abusive, which seems to me to be a backdoor way to attack religious liberty in general.


Everything else I have to say KingCyrus just said better.

I don't want to read the various Council deliberations looking for inconsistency, so I'll just concede that point.

I could go on the before marriage tangent, but I won't, because it's tiring and pointless.

Instead, I would insist on the separation of homosexual behavior, and theft and murder more strongly than: well, murder is just exaggeration. It is not qualified as an exaggeration, since one of these behaviors has as a result that someone died before their time, and the other has two people engaging in consensual sexual activity. As for theft, again, theft harms other people as a general rule, sex does not. There are exceptions to both, but they are hard to view on the same level.

Fornication and adultery, since I don't quite believe in the sanctity of religious marriage, are actually about the same level as gay sex. Two consenting people engage in sexual acts for whatever reason they may have.

Oh come on, I wasn't attacking religious liberty, and I don't know where you got the idea, Invictus. Point out to me where, in this entire thread, or on this forum, I have attacked religious freedom where personal freedom wasn't in opposition to it.

Good for you. Go ahead and hold those views. It's a free country. But to the Catholic Church, these are all mortal sins. Masturbation is thrown in there as a mortal sin as well, as silly as that seems to the secular and as widely ignored as it is by the laity. That's just how it is.

If you don't agree, don't be Catholic. There is no temporal force making you join or remain.

I agree that it is not on the same level as murder. But, then again, since we aren't referencing the "sin encyclopedia" for the current "sin value," isn't this meaningless? You argue that no one is hurt in homosexual relations, fornication, or adultery. This is a lie propagated through out history: That we are alone in our sin. You sinning affects me. Every time, no matter what. We are all in this together. We build each other up, and we tear each other down. Just because it is consensual does not mean it is "OK" nor does it mean that it won't affect someone else.

@Invictus
Okay.

@KingCyrus
Collective sin? An interesting idea. All sin affects others, and negatively? Not sure I agree, but this is a fundamental thing, so it can't really be expected to be a thing to agree on. I enjoyed our discussion, by the way. It's nice to be able to reassure myself that most Catholics are reasonable people.

phil, it doesn't have to be some weird spiritual thing. If you (example) are a thief. And I come to you and say, "Phil, man, I'm really struggling with this whole stealing thing. I just can't keep me hands off of stuff." What would you say? If you are an active thief, would you discourage me? Or encourage me? "Oh yeah, you know, I do that too sometimes. It doesn't matter too much." Well, that will only incline me to steal more. And then what if someone comes to me? I know you steal, and I steal, so I will tell this guy it is OK sometimes too. Insert any sin here, and that takes effect. It creates a cultural shift that is more accepting of sin. While stealing is not a very realistic example, think about porn 50 years ago and now. More and more people did it which caused more and more people to think it was OK. A culture of fornication and adultery breeds (no pun intended) more fornication and adultery.

Why thank you, I hope I am reasonable.

Huh, I was going to ask "Can you imagine that with theft" before I realized I can. I live in a country where theft from the government was encouraged. Now, we can't stop even when the government is legitimate. Funny.

While I accept that actions frequently cause those actions again, in a sense, I don't understand why gay marriage/sex is one of those things that need to be stopped from snowballing. I don't believe homosexuality is a choice, though. That might actually be our point of contention, really.