The new Pope is

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

If y'all want to discuss the fact that there's a new Pope, feel free.

If y'all want to debate/discuss the essential tenets of Catholicism or Christianity (v. Athiesm, etc.) then this thread will be moved to the appropriate forum for religious discussion.

[DVM gone riding]

Mar 14, 2013 19:23:37 GMT -5 midjd said:

I can understand how atheists have a hard time understanding this, but the idea behind religion is the belief in a higher power, and that power reveals itself in certain ways (like the bible).  And the bible very specifically says homosexuality is sinful, divorce is wrong, ect.  So the Pope is never going to unilaterally accept those things as dogma because the main relgious text they use specifically condemns them.  Of course, if you don't believe in God, then it makes no sense to do it that way and from the outside.  God doesn't change his mind on what's sinful and what's not just because many in the U.S or elsewhere thing it's okay.  In religion you don't just "make up the rules" as you go along.

But the Bible is the word of God - as recorded by man, right? Humans are pretty fallible creatures and tend to "hear" things through their own mental filters, which can creep into text. Any writer bias aside, the sheer number of translations involved in getting ancient Hebrew/Greek to modern English make me think that each specific word perhaps shouldn't be taken too literally. (Translating modern languages to other modern languages is difficult enough).

From what I remember, homosexuality is very briefly mentioned in the Old Testament. There are a whole heap of other things that are forbidden in the Old Testament that no one really subscribes to today (or were obviously based on societal norms at the time the OT was written - spread of disease, food safety practices, etc.)  I'm not sure why homosexuality is singled out.

Disclaimer - I am neither Catholic nor atheist.

I am just going to point this out not defend it as a believe--it is mentioned rather extensively and explicitly as a major sin in the new testament which is generally by most Christian religions considered the more important. Specifically that they "will not inherit the kingdom of God"  it lumps adulterers right in there with them so I for one think that needs a lot more condimination from a lot more preachers but what do I know.

on the different translations--much of that has to do with changes in the ENGLISH language!  None of the approved translations change the meaning in any significant way

Changing stance on birth control--definately NOT mentioned in the bible or marriage for priests would be incredibly "liberal" for the pope and there is some thought he might soften on those things

I am not ever RC or even been to a mass but Bible training was started before I could walk.

[GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl]

All I know is that in my lifetime, I've seen the railings at the altar disappear and lay people being on the Altar, the Mass go from being said in Latin to English, women taking on new and ever-more visible and important roles (from Altar Servers (*I* couldn't be one as a kid ) to Lectors to Eucharistic Ministers), and probably most important, a sea change in thinking of God as punitive to loving and ever-merciful.  In my 53 years, the Catholic Church HAS changed.  

There may be NO big changes in the church with this Pope.  There may be NO movement toward future changes.  He may even turn the clocks back on church practices and beliefs.  Time will tell.  But, of all of the Orders, the Jesuits have the greatest potential to bring change that isn't necessarily reflective of the will of the people (although it DOES appear that way) but reflective of God's mercy and Christ's teachings.  

And, for what it's worth, I never owned a Bible until I was in the Marriage prep program.  My family had catechisms for reference.  Sure, each Mass has 3 readings from the Bible in it, but we read from Missals and the Lectors use a book called a Lectionary with excerpts from the Bible in it.  So, my faith is based more on select Bible readings than the Bible as a whole.  Do I reject any portions of the Bible that I had no exposure to?  No.  But, "Christ"ians base their faith on Christ's teachings (i.e., the New Testament) more so than the Old.  IIRC, Christ befriended and included many a "sinner" in his following.  He didn't so much as denounce their behavior as he recognized their otherwise loving hearts.  I think that the Catholic Church can use Christ as a model for including gay people, divorced people, etc. in the faith.  The Jesuits, who commit themselves to "being Christ for others" (the poor, the sick, victims of social injustice, AND the disenfranchised), have the most potential for interpreting that phrase the most liberally of the Orders and embracing and pulling in many of those currently excluded from the Church.  

JMHO.  YMMV.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Mar 14, 2013 23:38:01 GMT -5 DVM gone riding said:

Mar 14, 2013 19:23:37 GMT -5 midjd said:

But the Bible is the word of God - as recorded by man, right? Humans are pretty fallible creatures and tend to "hear" things through their own mental filters, which can creep into text. Any writer bias aside, the sheer number of translations involved in getting ancient Hebrew/Greek to modern English make me think that each specific word perhaps shouldn't be taken too literally. (Translating modern languages to other modern languages is difficult enough).

From what I remember, homosexuality is very briefly mentioned in the Old Testament. There are a whole heap of other things that are forbidden in the Old Testament that no one really subscribes to today (or were obviously based on societal norms at the time the OT was written - spread of disease, food safety practices, etc.)  I'm not sure why homosexuality is singled out.

Disclaimer - I am neither Catholic nor atheist.

I am just going to point this out not defend it as a believe--it is mentioned rather extensively and explicitly as a major sin in the new testament which is generally by most Christian religions considered the more important. Specifically that they "will not inherit the kingdom of God"  it lumps adulterers right in there with them so I for one think that needs a lot more condimination from a lot more preachers but what do I know.

on the different translations--much of that has to do with changes in the ENGLISH language!  None of the approved translations change the meaning in any significant way

Changing stance on birth control--definately NOT mentioned in the bible or marriage for priests would be incredibly "liberal" for the pope and there is some thought he might soften on those things

I am not ever RC or even been to a mass but Bible training was started before I could walk.

Actually, priests in the Catholic church WERE permitted to marry once upon a time, until around 1000, I think.  I'd have to Google it. They weren't encouraged but it wasn't forbidden either. 

[Wisconsin Beth]

From Answers.com

Were priests once allowed to marry?

Answer

Yes - many early priests in the Catholic Church were married, although there were occasional, local prohibitions against their marriage. It was not until the First Lateran Council of 1123 that priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks were absolutely forbidden to have concubines, contract marriage or even remain married. However, Pope Alexander VI (1492- 1503) is known to have fathered nine illegitimate children and openly kept a mistress in the Vatican.

An exception is now made for Protestant ministers who convert to Catholicism. If they were already married, they are allowed to remain married.
In the Eastern Rite Church, they have married priests (Married and priest at the same time). In the Roman Rite, they are not allowed to be, though men whose wives have died may be ordained afterwards. There were probably a few married priests in the early Church as well.

[resolution]

They allow Episcopalian ministers that are already married to convert and stay married while they are Catholic priests. So there are some married Catholic priests right now. Some of them came over when the Episcopalians started supporting gay marriage. So it wouldn't be too big of a stretch to allow priests to marry again.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Yes, that was my thought when it reported, what, 2 years ago or so? 

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Mar 15, 2013 8:17:22 GMT -5 GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl said:

  IIRC, Christ befriended and included many a "sinner" in his following.  He didn't so much as denounce their behavior as he recognized their otherwise loving hearts.  I think that the Catholic Church can use Christ as a model for including gay people, divorced people, etc. in the faith. 

...it's the "go and sin no more" part of what Christ said that often challenges people the most... imo...

[sarcasticgirl]

Mar 14, 2013 17:08:08 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Mar 14, 2013 13:41:34 GMT -5 sarcasticgirl said:

He's anti-gay, has called gay adoptions "discrimination against children"  and is against birth control...

he sounds pretty liberal to me! 

I've seen a couple of articles about this.  Basically an analysis of how the Pope is not "progressive" or "liberal" within the church for taking a stance against same sex marriage, birth control, divorce ect.

Not that I want to turn this into a religious discussion, but OF COURSE he's against those things.  I don't think you'll ever have a pope come out and say "yeah, same sex marriage is cool."  That's not "progressive" or "liberal" or not, that's just plain against the teachings of the church. 

I can understand how atheists have a hard time understanding this, but the idea behind religion is the belief in a higher power, and that power reveals itself in certain ways (like the bible).  And the bible very specifically says homosexuality is sinful, divorce is wrong, ect.  So the Pope is never going to unilaterally accept those things as dogma because the main relgious text they use specifically condemns them.  Of course, if you don't believe in God, then it makes no sense to do it that way and from the outside.  God doesn't change his mind on what's sinful and what's not just because many in the U.S or elsewhere thing it's okay.  In religion you don't just "make up the rules" as you go along. 

But yeah, this whole "analysis" of news agencies saying the new Pope is against the idea of same sex marriage and same sex adoptions and he's not "liberal" because he doesn't believe in that...

I'm like "well, no shit sherlock."  What'd you expect? 

Some things are more open to interpretation, but same sex marriage is NOT one of those things.  If people are waiting for a Pope to embrace same sex marriage as a sign of "liberalism" then they're going to be waiting a long time. 

I don't expect the pope to start performing same sex marriages. There is a difference between believing something is wrong and being a discriminating a$$hat about it. I'm not asking people to believe it is not a sin... I want people to just LET PEOPLE DO IT IF THEY WANT TO. I understand that the religious belief is that homosexuality is a sin. but you know what... so is telling a lie. But you don't hear religious officials walking around saying that people who told a lie to their boss about being late are the devil incarnate and they shouldn't adopt children. Is it discrimination against children if someone on their SECOND hetero-marriage adopts??  So many religions have chosen which sins they will vilify and which can be ignored or swept under the rug. 
The thing is... no one makes it illegal so many "sins" of choice... tell a lie, over-consume, lose your temper... etc. So i find it judgmental and disgusting that someone would say "sorry, i think THAT thing you are doing... it is a sin... it can't be legal... but pay you no mind to these other sins that we can totally excuse."

Sorry... just saw the warning mouser. 

[Waffle]

I don't know much about him yet, but I did hear the story about how he washed the feet of some men with aids (the way the story was told it suggested that the men were gay, but I don't know that for a fact).   It was told as an example of his humility and love for his fellow man.  I always thought Pope John Paul II just exuded love and I'm hopeful that we will see that with Pope Francis as well.

[mmhmm]

It's okay, sarcastic girl.  The thread is now in Religious Discussions.  It can continue here.

[thyme4change]

If the Pope "allowed" gay marriage, he is, by default saying that being gay isn't a sin.  The pope will have to continue to officially disallow gay marriage and speak against homosexuality.  Unless God changed his mind.

[Waffle]

Regarding a different aspect of the new pope - I wonder how it will be possible for Pope Francis to maintain his vow of poverty while living in a what is basically a palace.

[resolution]

It will be interesting to see what he does with that. When he was a bishop he rejected the bishop's mansion and lived in a small apartment, cooked his own meals and took the bus to work.

As pope he has already refused to get in the popemobile and took a bus with the other bishops, but I don't see how he can maintain that without major security issues.

[Phoenix84]

Mar 14, 2013 22:20:51 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

But what if I say nothing to anyone?  Can Catholicism judge me?

I'm sorry to burst your bubble Tennesseer, but yes you typically have to believe in catholic principles to be a catholic, or muslim principles to be a Muslim and so on.  If you believe in none of the above but believe in God or some higher power, that means you are not an athiest, it simply means you're not part of a established religion. 

Will people judge you for believing whatever you believe?  The answer of course is yes.  People judge other people all the time for all sorts of reasons.  People will judge me for believing a certain way, and atheists get judged a certain way.  You can't stop people from judging others for everything from religion to job to family choices no more than you can fight the wind.  The question is, are you going to not let it bother you? 

[GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl]

My Jesuit parish just sent an email out expressing their complete surprise and pleasure that the Pope is a Jesuit, LOL.  (The parish priests have a wonderful sense of humor.)

Funny thing is, they were asked prior to the Conclave to host the area Mass of Thanksgiving after the Pope was selected.  And, now the Jesuit parish is celebrating a Jesuit Pope.  Sounds like "someone" had a plan.  

[Tennesseer]

Mar 15, 2013 12:58:42 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Mar 14, 2013 22:20:51 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

But what if I say nothing to anyone?  Can Catholicism judge me?

I'm sorry to burst your bubble Tennesseer, but yes you typically have to believe in catholic principles to be a catholic, or muslim principles to be a Muslim and so on.  If you believe in none of the above but believe in God or some higher power, that means you are not an athiest, it simply means you're not part of a established religion. 

Will people judge you for believing whatever you believe?  The answer of course is yes.  People judge other people all the time for all sorts of reasons.  People will judge me for believing a certain way, and atheists get judged a certain way.  You can't stop people from judging others for everything from religion to job to family choices no more than you can fight the wind.  The question is, are you going to not let it bother you? 

Seeing that it is no one's business what I believe in, I  don't worry about it. I never have and I never will.

[DVM gone riding]

I am the only one wondering why since YM--off topic was created solely for the purpose of YM people discussing stuff NOT related to money that THIS discussion had to be moved. I thought we were being very civil  I mean that with all respect to our moderators but shoot I have never gone under "healthy living" why was this discussion slated to move yet the million of other off topic things we choose to discuss aren't?

I don't expect the pope to start performing same sex marriages. There is a difference between believing something is wrong and being a discriminating a$$hat about it. I'm not asking people to believe it is not a sin... I want people to just LET PEOPLE DO IT IF THEY WANT TO. I understand that the religious belief is that homosexuality is a sin. but you know what... so is telling a lie. But you don't hear religious officials walking around saying that people who told a lie to their boss about being late are the devil incarnate and they shouldn't adopt children. Is it discrimination against children if someone on their SECOND hetero-marriage adopts??  So many religions have chosen which sins they will vilify and which can be ignored or swept under the rug. 
The thing is... no one makes it illegal so many "sins" of choice... tell a lie, over-consume, lose your temper... etc. So i find it judgmental and disgusting that someone would say "sorry, i think THAT thing you are doing... it is a sin... it can't be legal... but pay you no mind to these other sins that we can totally excuse."

Sorry... just saw the warning mouser. 

I agree with you--the same passage that says homosexuals won't inherit says it EQUALLY against adultures and fornication

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...this passage?



1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

⁹ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 

¹⁰ Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

(KJV)

[resolution]

Uh oh, drunkards...

[GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl]

Mar 16, 2013 8:01:32 GMT -5 resolution said:

Uh oh, drunkards...