Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community
October 14, 2014 12:26 AM Subscribe
BBC: Vatican family review signals shift on homosexuality - "Senior clerics taking part in a review of Catholic teachings on the family have called on the Church to adopt a more positive stance on homosexuality.
A preliminary report written by bishops during a Vatican synod said homosexuals had "gifts and qualities to offer"."
As usual, an organization with the word "family" in its name rage against the inclusion and acceptance of anyone "different".
posted by Harald74 at 12:59 AM on October 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Harald74 at 12:59 AM on October 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
There's a parallel here to states with the word "democratic" in their name, I think.
posted by Harald74 at 1:01 AM on October 14, 2014
posted by Harald74 at 1:01 AM on October 14, 2014
“Gifts and qualities” that homosexuals, as a group, have? What is he talking about? A fabulous sense for interior decor?
posted by acb at 1:12 AM on October 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by acb at 1:12 AM on October 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
I heard the food's better.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:19 AM on October 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:19 AM on October 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's fun to watch conservative Catholics finding themselves at odds with the Pope. Their misogynist traditionalism clashes with their authoritarian traditionalism and ERROR ERROR DOES NOT COMPUTE
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 1:34 AM on October 14, 2014 [36 favorites]
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 1:34 AM on October 14, 2014 [36 favorites]
“Gifts and qualities” that homosexuals, as a group, have? What is he talking about?
Probably an encouraging allusion to the opportunities for discreet talented gays in the priesthood.
posted by Segundus at 1:49 AM on October 14, 2014 [3 favorites]
Probably an encouraging allusion to the opportunities for discreet talented gays in the priesthood.
posted by Segundus at 1:49 AM on October 14, 2014 [3 favorites]
What about ungifted, boring homosexuals? Does their religion accept them too? Or do you have to have fabulous taste in drapes and a hilarious accent to qualify?
Meanwhile, US Cardinal Raymond Burke says that homosexuals are intrinsically disordered and should be isolated so as "not to scandalize children or grandchildren". What the Cardinal lacks in irony he makes up for in fabulous taste in drapes.
posted by Nelson at 2:10 AM on October 14, 2014 [5 favorites]
Meanwhile, US Cardinal Raymond Burke says that homosexuals are intrinsically disordered and should be isolated so as "not to scandalize children or grandchildren". What the Cardinal lacks in irony he makes up for in fabulous taste in drapes.
posted by Nelson at 2:10 AM on October 14, 2014 [5 favorites]
Reading the article it may not seem to educated observers that anything is actually different, where trying very hard to square the paradox of being careful to welcome gay people without welcoming the gay has been central to the orthodox Catholic position since the modern church started obsessing over it in a way that is much more liberal than many Protestants. However there is some really amazingly radical stuff in this document -and coming out of a synod! Hell, there is even a section called "Positive aspects of civil unions and cohabitation." Its pretty short, accessible, and well worth reading if the topic interests you. The portion relevant to gayness is also short enough that it is ridiculous to not just quote:
Welcoming homosexual personsposted by Blasdelb at 2:12 AM on October 14, 2014 [18 favorites]
Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?
The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.
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. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.
Watching people hopelessly mired in the primitive and traditional struggling to stay in touch with the modern and progressive is blackly funny. Of course, all these baby steps are to be encouraged, even if it feels a bit like being a kindly parent at the school sports day, encouraging the stumbling asthmatic laggard kid to keep struggling towards the finish line long after the others have crossed it.
posted by Decani at 2:22 AM on October 14, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by Decani at 2:22 AM on October 14, 2014 [8 favorites]
Thanks for quoting the text, Blasdelb.
"Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions". This is progress?
And I refuse to listen to the Catholic leadership talk about "needs and rights of children". They have lost all moral authority when it comes to keeping children safe.
posted by Nelson at 3:01 AM on October 14, 2014 [19 favorites]
"Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions". This is progress?
And I refuse to listen to the Catholic leadership talk about "needs and rights of children". They have lost all moral authority when it comes to keeping children safe.
posted by Nelson at 3:01 AM on October 14, 2014 [19 favorites]
Nelson: ""Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions". This is progress?"
Yes, it's progress. "Progress" doesn't mean "suddenly arriving at the goal perfectly", it means "getting closer to the goal than where you started". You can argue that this isn't enough progress, or that this isn't meaningful progress, or the like, but to pretend it isn't progress at all is just to posture for points.
posted by Bugbread at 3:18 AM on October 14, 2014 [50 favorites]
Yes, it's progress. "Progress" doesn't mean "suddenly arriving at the goal perfectly", it means "getting closer to the goal than where you started". You can argue that this isn't enough progress, or that this isn't meaningful progress, or the like, but to pretend it isn't progress at all is just to posture for points.
posted by Bugbread at 3:18 AM on October 14, 2014 [50 favorites]
"What about ungifted, boring homosexuals? Does their religion accept them too? Or do you have to have fabulous taste in drapes and a hilarious accent to qualify?"This is actually a really interesting set of theological questions worth interrogating that I think will add useful perspective.
The bishops are clearly referencing something very specific and much more personal to their intended audience when they write 'gifts and qualities' rather than something more intuitively stereotypical - and they're doing it in a way that very strongly supports the theological case they're making. In Paul's first surviving letter to the church in Corinth, still easily the sassiest and most loving come to Jesus plea ever written, he tries to correct what he sees as misunderstandings present in the church and then uses that to say something very nuanced about how individuals within a church community are meant to fit into the wider purpose of it.,
1Cor12: Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed. You know that when you were pagans, you were enticed and led astray to idols that could not speak. Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Let Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.Paul makes it clear that in the orthodox view of the Christian church, all of its members necessarily have a something to contribute. In referencing this chapter these Catholic bishops are saying that the Catholic church, like Paul's, would be incomplete without its gay members - and that for the church's asshole members to say to its gay members that they aren't needed would be like an eye saying to a foot the same thing.
Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy1, to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses.
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot would say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear would say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many members, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect; whereas our more respectable members do not need this. But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member, that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it.
Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets1, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets1? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? But strive for the greater gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.
1For context, the term Paul uses that is translated here as "prophecy" describes a concept that doesn't really have a modern cognate to be easily understood through. Its not necessarily hearing voices no one else does and reporting what they say, but a sort of speaking truth into someone or a community.
posted by Blasdelb at 3:54 AM on October 14, 2014 [55 favorites]
This is a huge step. And it won't go over easily in the hinterlands. But in those same places it will save some people's lives. Best. Pope. Ever.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:00 AM on October 14, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:00 AM on October 14, 2014 [7 favorites]
Blasdelb: but as members of the body, don't assholes have special gifts to give as well?
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:02 AM on October 14, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 4:02 AM on October 14, 2014 [6 favorites]
The special-est!
posted by Blasdelb at 4:04 AM on October 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Blasdelb at 4:04 AM on October 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
IANAC, but my reading of Paul (and subsequent Christian theologians) is that when Paul says "... those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect; whereas our more respectable members do not need this" he is talking about assholes. In other words, some people need more attention than others, because receiving this attention mitigates (what would otherwise be) their objectionable qualities.
It reminds me of a Jewish story which was related as a personal account, although I can't recall some of the details. People were lining up at a bakery in Jerusalem to get fresh flatbread. An old lady was taking her time - this one was torn, that one was scorched, the next was too small. At last the baker said "They're all good, mother, see, I will choose some especially nice ones for you." And he picked some out, wrapped them up, and she was satisfied.
After she left he apologised to the people waiting in line and said "I'm sorry, but I have to be especially patient with her. You see, she doesn't pay ..."
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:24 AM on October 14, 2014 [11 favorites]
It reminds me of a Jewish story which was related as a personal account, although I can't recall some of the details. People were lining up at a bakery in Jerusalem to get fresh flatbread. An old lady was taking her time - this one was torn, that one was scorched, the next was too small. At last the baker said "They're all good, mother, see, I will choose some especially nice ones for you." And he picked some out, wrapped them up, and she was satisfied.
After she left he apologised to the people waiting in line and said "I'm sorry, but I have to be especially patient with her. You see, she doesn't pay ..."
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:24 AM on October 14, 2014 [11 favorites]
""Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions". This is progress?"This is profound progress, but how this is amazing might have at least as much to do with what is in the document as what isn't.
A lot of what makes Catholicism distinctly Catholic isn't the pomp and the authority everyone from the outside sees but the web of beautifully intricate and complex theoretical models built on top of Christianity that the system of centralized authority was built to defend. Its the enormous, interconnected, academic, and often ridiculously esoteric structure for squeezing every last drop of theological cosmology out of the texts and traditions that we have, to then fit those texts and traditions back into with more context. It is so intricate that the modern university had to be invented to develop, communicate and defend it.
Homosexuality has a place in this cosmology, or rather very specifically outside of it, where the union between man and wife out of a strict gender binary has been found to have theoretical parallels pretty much everywhere. In Catholic theology, its important in the relationship between God and Israel, between Jesus and the Church, between Adam and Eve, between Paul's congregants and each other, between the Father and the Son, and between the Spirit and Christians to start with - where having made the parallels, deviation from the binary becomes impossible to accept from first principles even before you start reading the various purported prohibitions found in the bible.
What this sentence is doing is referencing all of that dead static theology, all while getting back onto the business of constructing and defending a parallel model for understanding the place of real breathing gay people in the church.
posted by Blasdelb at 4:39 AM on October 14, 2014 [10 favorites]
"Watching people hopelessly mired in the primitive and traditional struggling to stay in touch with the modern and progressive is blackly funny. Of course, all these baby steps are to be encouraged, even if it feels a bit like being a kindly parent at the school sports day, encouraging the stumbling asthmatic laggard kid to keep struggling towards the finish line long after the others have crossed it."This only makes any sense if you refuse to acknowledge that the world doesn't end where Schengen does, while the Catholic church is a global institution that wouldn't only see rich white children if it were to look at a school sports day.
posted by Blasdelb at 4:54 AM on October 14, 2014 [4 favorites]
I am not a big fan of his, but Dylan's lyric "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" seems appropriate here. The winds of change are blowing in an unmistakable direction on this and have been for some time, and thankfully the new pope is allowing the Church to slowly and incrementally adjust to reality. I'd say this isn't enough, but I'm not Catholic and I suspect that even this is pushing up against the limits of what can be done at this time without causing a schism.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:03 AM on October 14, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 5:03 AM on October 14, 2014 [3 favorites]
I think Decani is talking about religious people vs. areligious people, not the Catholic church vs. the people of the world. In other words, I think he's trying to say "watching religious people stay in touch with modern and progressive (areligious people) is like watching the asthmatic kid struggling to cross the finish line long after the others (areligious people) have crossed it"
posted by Bugbread at 5:06 AM on October 14, 2014
posted by Bugbread at 5:06 AM on October 14, 2014
If you think about it they don't use birth control so they're probably better Catholics. There might be some worshipping of golden calves, though. And golden thighs. But who doesn't?
posted by XMLicious at 5:06 AM on October 14, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by XMLicious at 5:06 AM on October 14, 2014 [3 favorites]
What about ungifted, boring homosexuals?
The Church's position is that everyone is gifted by God with qualities. The Pope is taking a stand to remind the faithful that gay men and women are God's children, too. Francis' position is that the clergy's job is to act as shepherds and not judges - it's a pretty big deal.
In other news, I think the controversy over allowing divorcees to take communion is causing more of a kerfluffle among the Bishopric, as there's more of a scriptural basis from the Gospel on denying them the sacrament than there is hating on the gays. The argument for inclusion is that Jesus was forgiving and understanding, and would not deny an abused or abandoned woman a place at His table because the paperwork wasn't in order. It's a really hard argument to refute, but the conservatives sure are trying their best anyhow.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:10 AM on October 14, 2014 [9 favorites]
The Church's position is that everyone is gifted by God with qualities. The Pope is taking a stand to remind the faithful that gay men and women are God's children, too. Francis' position is that the clergy's job is to act as shepherds and not judges - it's a pretty big deal.
In other news, I think the controversy over allowing divorcees to take communion is causing more of a kerfluffle among the Bishopric, as there's more of a scriptural basis from the Gospel on denying them the sacrament than there is hating on the gays. The argument for inclusion is that Jesus was forgiving and understanding, and would not deny an abused or abandoned woman a place at His table because the paperwork wasn't in order. It's a really hard argument to refute, but the conservatives sure are trying their best anyhow.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:10 AM on October 14, 2014 [9 favorites]
It's interesting to see on Facebook: all my liberal Catholic friends are discussing this in depth, with well-written, thoughtful mini-essays and respectful debate.
All my doctrinaire, conservative Catholic friends are absolutely silent - it's a ponderous silence.
posted by notsnot at 5:43 AM on October 14, 2014 [13 favorites]
All my doctrinaire, conservative Catholic friends are absolutely silent - it's a ponderous silence.
posted by notsnot at 5:43 AM on October 14, 2014 [13 favorites]
It may not be clear to those unfamiliar with this use of the term, but when the Catholic church and it's representatives refer to homosexuality as 'disordered' the use of this word is not with the same meaning we would normally imagine. That is, the word is not meant to imply "a disorder" or "a disease." It is actually meant to imply an absence of order, or contribution to order. It is an argument that it doesn't and cannot fit within the cosmology that blaselb explains above, not that it is some sort of disease.
I am not agreeing with or defending this position. I think it is wrong. I am just clarifying it because those who haven't been exposed to this might have misunderstood what the church is attempting to convey when it repeatedly uses this phrase. I think they're still wrong, but let's be clear on how they're wrong.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 5:45 AM on October 14, 2014 [6 favorites]
I am not agreeing with or defending this position. I think it is wrong. I am just clarifying it because those who haven't been exposed to this might have misunderstood what the church is attempting to convey when it repeatedly uses this phrase. I think they're still wrong, but let's be clear on how they're wrong.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 5:45 AM on October 14, 2014 [6 favorites]
the web of beautifully intricate and complex theoretical models built on top of Christianity
I've been dealing with the Christian and Islamic versions of this for the last 100 or so episodes of The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps podcast. It's exhausting. Constructing palaces of thought on top of fairly scanty and vague-in-a-poetic-kinda-way bits of text seems a bit like - to use a Biblical allusion - building a house on sand.
(I'll be happy to never again have to think about early Christians tearing each other to shreds for centuries over the inconsequential differences between monothelitism, dyophysitism, monoenergism, miaphysitism and other such esoterica...)
Ultimately you can't ever come to any definitive conclusions on theological matters since the evidence you're working with isn't amenable to them, which is also why arguments tend towards the protracted and bitter, and agreement - when it is reached - is as much to do with what's politically tenable as anything else. And that's why - to get back to the point - there's no reason at all the Church can't move to a position on homosexuality that's a little more humane and wise if wider society is doing the same.
posted by sobarel at 5:48 AM on October 14, 2014 [4 favorites]
I've been dealing with the Christian and Islamic versions of this for the last 100 or so episodes of The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps podcast. It's exhausting. Constructing palaces of thought on top of fairly scanty and vague-in-a-poetic-kinda-way bits of text seems a bit like - to use a Biblical allusion - building a house on sand.
(I'll be happy to never again have to think about early Christians tearing each other to shreds for centuries over the inconsequential differences between monothelitism, dyophysitism, monoenergism, miaphysitism and other such esoterica...)
Ultimately you can't ever come to any definitive conclusions on theological matters since the evidence you're working with isn't amenable to them, which is also why arguments tend towards the protracted and bitter, and agreement - when it is reached - is as much to do with what's politically tenable as anything else. And that's why - to get back to the point - there's no reason at all the Church can't move to a position on homosexuality that's a little more humane and wise if wider society is doing the same.
posted by sobarel at 5:48 AM on October 14, 2014 [4 favorites]
"I think Decani is talking about religious people vs. areligious people, not the Catholic church vs. the people of the world. In other words, I think he's trying to say "watching religious people stay in touch with modern and progressive (areligious people) is like watching the asthmatic kid struggling to cross the finish line long after the others (areligious people) have crossed it"Even if this is the case, at least in the context of gay acceptance, it too only makes sense if the world ends where Schengen does and only rich white people are worth counting.
posted by Blasdelb at 6:06 AM on October 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile, US Cardinal Raymond Burke says that homosexuals are intrinsically disordered
As Discordian Pope, I say that everyone is intrinsically disordered. Hail Eris!
posted by Foosnark at 6:08 AM on October 14, 2014 [5 favorites]
As Discordian Pope, I say that everyone is intrinsically disordered. Hail Eris!
posted by Foosnark at 6:08 AM on October 14, 2014 [5 favorites]
Meanwhile, US Cardinal Raymond Burke says that homosexuals are intrinsically disordered
It's in the catechism, so he's not special in saying this. The Vatican likes to remind everyone of this periodically - here's a letter from 1986, for instance.
posted by rtha at 6:31 AM on October 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's in the catechism, so he's not special in saying this. The Vatican likes to remind everyone of this periodically - here's a letter from 1986, for instance.
posted by rtha at 6:31 AM on October 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
"Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions". This is progress?
This is about empty and half-empty churches and the survival of the organization. What they're saying, in plain terms, is that asses in the seats and money in collection plates is more important than the hateful dogma they've spent decades loudly defending.
Just because many of us happen to agree with their "change of heart" doesn't mean that we should overlook the venal hypocrisy at work here.
posted by ryanshepard at 7:12 AM on October 14, 2014 [3 favorites]
This is about empty and half-empty churches and the survival of the organization. What they're saying, in plain terms, is that asses in the seats and money in collection plates is more important than the hateful dogma they've spent decades loudly defending.
Just because many of us happen to agree with their "change of heart" doesn't mean that we should overlook the venal hypocrisy at work here.
posted by ryanshepard at 7:12 AM on October 14, 2014 [3 favorites]
ryanshepard: "This is about empty and half-empty churches and the survival of the organization. What they're saying, in plain terms, is that asses in the seats and money in collection plates is more important than the hateful dogma they've spent decades loudly defending."
It doesn't seem that welcoming gays would result in overflowing pews or collection baskets. Do you have any basis for that conclusion, or is it one of those "the church is inherently and invariably bad, so if they do something good, just assign some bad ulterior motive" thing?
posted by Bugbread at 7:17 AM on October 14, 2014 [6 favorites]
It doesn't seem that welcoming gays would result in overflowing pews or collection baskets. Do you have any basis for that conclusion, or is it one of those "the church is inherently and invariably bad, so if they do something good, just assign some bad ulterior motive" thing?
posted by Bugbread at 7:17 AM on October 14, 2014 [6 favorites]
Slap*Happy: Francis' position is that the clergy's job is to act as shepherds and not judges
"Rather seeing these situations as pure evil, 'the church turns respectfully to those who participate in her life in an incomplete and imperfect way, appreciating the positive values they contain rather than their limitations and shortcomings.'"
posted by MonkeyToes at 7:18 AM on October 14, 2014
"Rather seeing these situations as pure evil, 'the church turns respectfully to those who participate in her life in an incomplete and imperfect way, appreciating the positive values they contain rather than their limitations and shortcomings.'"
posted by MonkeyToes at 7:18 AM on October 14, 2014
It doesn't seem that welcoming gays would result in overflowing pews or collection baskets. Do you have any basis for that conclusion, or is it one of those "the church is inherently and invariably bad, so if they do something good, just assign some bad ulterior motive" thing?
It's not just gays, but unmarried couples and divorced people. More broadly, it feels to me like a grudging, dishonest "liberalization" in the face of widespread dissatisfaction and disengagement on the part of US Catholics:
Today, about 1 in 10 American adults raised as Catholic has left the religion, according to a 2009 Pew Research Center poll. Pew reports that more than half of them say they are unhappy with the church's stance on abortion and homosexuality. About 70 percent say they simply drifted away. When it comes to the next pope, American Catholics generally want to see more modernity, says Robert Jones, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute.
That's what they're giving them here - you'll forgive me, though, if after decades of vocal Catholic homophobia, misogyny, and shunning of people based on their marital status, I don't buy its being genuine.
posted by ryanshepard at 7:28 AM on October 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
It's not just gays, but unmarried couples and divorced people. More broadly, it feels to me like a grudging, dishonest "liberalization" in the face of widespread dissatisfaction and disengagement on the part of US Catholics:
Today, about 1 in 10 American adults raised as Catholic has left the religion, according to a 2009 Pew Research Center poll. Pew reports that more than half of them say they are unhappy with the church's stance on abortion and homosexuality. About 70 percent say they simply drifted away. When it comes to the next pope, American Catholics generally want to see more modernity, says Robert Jones, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute.
That's what they're giving them here - you'll forgive me, though, if after decades of vocal Catholic homophobia, misogyny, and shunning of people based on their marital status, I don't buy its being genuine.
posted by ryanshepard at 7:28 AM on October 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
"It's not just gays, but unmarried couples and divorced people. More broadly, it feels to me like a grudging, dishonest "liberalization" in the face of widespread dissatisfaction and disengagement on the part of US Catholics:"While the American dioceses do play an interesting and outsized role in global Catholic governance, they are very much not representative of the much more important whole. This is not about the US or American Catholics.
"This is about empty and half-empty churches and the survival of the organization. What they're saying, in plain terms, is that asses in the seats and money in collection plates is more important than the hateful dogma they've spent decades loudly defending."That might be a vaguely plausible motive for the leadership of Northern European dioceses, and particularly American ones whose congregations have always been more liberal towards homosexuality than the wider society, but the vast majority of Catholic churches aren't there, are more than full, and are much more conservative than this document represents. Besides, it assumes an episcopal competence and enlightened self-interest the American and European churches have never had. Even then, while there might be quite a few liberal American and European Catholics to be happy about this kind of document, on a whole they no longer commit like the conservatives still do in time, vocation, or cash. It would, if anything, be much much easier for the Catholic church to stay unwelcoming and get biggoted than to follow the message of Christ as Francis is getting to.
posted by Blasdelb at 7:44 AM on October 14, 2014 [11 favorites]
They should know. The safest place for gay men in the Catholic Church has always been the priesthood.
This isn't a discovery. The Catholic Church is simply revealing itself.
posted by john wilkins at 8:39 AM on October 14, 2014
This isn't a discovery. The Catholic Church is simply revealing itself.
posted by john wilkins at 8:39 AM on October 14, 2014
Thanks to everyone (particularly Blasdelb) for explaining how this plays inside the Catholic congregation and how it is evidence of progress. I appreciate seeing it from that view, particularly since the communications have been internal and intended for other Catholics.
From my outsider view as a gay man who is only Christian (Episcopal) by upbringing, the entire foundation of the Catholic church's stance on homosexuality is morally bankrupt. I'm glad it's improving, but for an enterprise whose entire foundation is supposed to be moral and spiritual correctness the way the Church has treated and continues to treat people like me is offensive.
posted by Nelson at 9:53 AM on October 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
From my outsider view as a gay man who is only Christian (Episcopal) by upbringing, the entire foundation of the Catholic church's stance on homosexuality is morally bankrupt. I'm glad it's improving, but for an enterprise whose entire foundation is supposed to be moral and spiritual correctness the way the Church has treated and continues to treat people like me is offensive.
posted by Nelson at 9:53 AM on October 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
That might be a vaguely plausible motive for the leadership of Northern European dioceses, and particularly American ones whose congregations have always been more liberal towards homosexuality than the wider society, but the vast majority of Catholic churches aren't there, are more than full, and are much more conservative than this document represents
I've written about this before on the blue, but this is still all about survival. Sorry, but what happens to the RCC in wealthy industrialized countries matters a great deal, and from the point of view of survival and thriving it matters a great deal more than all those packed conservative churches in the developing world.
The essence of it is something that anyone working in branding understands. The RCC is dying in Europe and NA - slowly, to be sure, but surely. The situation in the U.S. is slightly more complicated because of the influx of Latinos who are overwhelmingly Catholic - this makes the absolute number of Catholics in the U.S. grow, but on the flip side, the subsequent generations of Latinos in the U.S. are leaving the church in great numbers and faster than other ethnic groups (such as Eastern and Central Europeans), and the long term overall trend is still pointed down. In contrast, indeed, the RCC absolute numbers are growing in the developing world... for now.
Why does it matter? Because the way brands work has a well-understood arc. The RCC brand is moving down market. Speaking purely from a marketing point of view, the reason for the RCC growth taking off in the developing world, is because it is an aspirational brand there. You belong to the Church in hopes of benefit to yourself and your family, as you see more successful people/countries belong too. But as the brand becomes deprecated in the West, it starts losing cache. To compensate, more marketing efforts are going to the developing world, and the brand is moving down market. Eventually what happens is that the brand starts becoming associated with the less desirable, and finally, loses market share even in the discount end of it. What it means, is that it stops being aspirational, it becomes associated with less desirable demographics and people flee. The brand dies.
That is why it is critical to defend the brand at the high end. It is very, very important that the RCC regain its standing in the West. You can compensate with growth in the developing markets only so much. Not to mention of course, that the cultural, historical and lifestyle weight is still in the West. I don't think the RCC would ever like to abandon their cushy Western abodes - no matter how hollowed out the churches become - and shift their whole administrative infrastructure to their present growth markets and move the Vatican, to, say, sub-Saharan Africa (though Bokassa did build a suitably bombastic cathedral in the Central African Republic - now sadly besieged by Islamic rebels - oops). It is simply not acceptable for the RCC to be of vestigial presence in the West, and still keep its seat of governance here, if all the growth is happening elsewhere.
Therefore the RCC must defend itself here in the West - relying on growth in the developing world is a very short term strategy, which will ultimately prove unsuccessful as the brand collapses even in those markets. Furthermore, and this is something that is perhaps not very nice, but unfortunately a reality in marketing - the greater growth in the developing world, particularly as has been pointed out it tends to be more conservative there, will have negative impact and accelerate the decline of the brand in the West. As people start associating the RCC with the kind of narrow conservatism that they've long since left behind, the RCC brand will become ever more undesirable. A downward spiral. This feeds on itself as first the elites in the developing worlds will also abandon the brand, and in time, so too will the rest of the population. Not a long term success. Therefore, they must defend themselves in the West.
This is the context in which all of this is happening. The choice of the pope is telling itself. The traditional sources of popes are in demographic decline and first reached for the energy of newly liberating Eastern Europe. That proved pretty short-lived as the RCC is getting a very bad backlash reaction there, on account of enormous abuses and political overreach. There is no growth there long term, and heavily (numerically) Catholic countries such as Poland are as Catholic as they're gonna get - the movement there is down, not up, as people increasingly become disaffected from the church. The present move to a pope from Latin America is a recognition of growth elsewhere on the one hand, and the hope to encourage growth in those markets as a compensatory mechanism on the other. We see that in any company that picks a CEO - if the domestic market collapses, but there is growth overseas, they pick a CEO with expertise in that market, often from that region. There was even speculation for a time about whether it's time to pick a pope from Africa. However, it would have been a bridge too far at this time. Nor, would it have done the brand any good in the West - a black pope from Africa would have cemented the association of the brand with the down market move too closely, and resulted in even faster alienation in the West. So a compromise was found, and it was a good one.
This pope has also been very smart. He understands that relying exclusively on the developing world is not going to be enough long term, and that the RCC must take a stand in the West too. All these movements toward relaxation of strictures against cohabitation, homosexuals and so forth are simply a movement designed to narrow the distance from the cultural center of weight in the West. Under both last popes, the distance has grown, and combined with the child abuse scandal that won't die, became a dangerously wide gap. The RCC cannot be seen as a vicious bigoted abusive organization that's ridiculously out of step with where the rest of the population is (in the West), or else there will be nothing but gray heads in those beautiful old churches.
Unfortunately for the RCC it is too little, too late. Once the novelty of the RCC acknowledging that gay people and women are actually human beings (three fifths for now), wears off, further moves will be greeted with a collective "what took you so long" yawn on the level of grand announcements that they've come to the conclusion that the earth is not the center of the universe, that the sun does not orbit the earth, the earth is not flat and the recent rehabilitation of Galileo, just a few centuries late... nobody cares, because you're irrelevant.
As the wealth and educational levels grow, what the RCC sells becomes less desirable. That's something that happens regardless of the dogma - it's a secular trend, if you will. Church attendance and religiosity has been declining all over the developed world, not just in Catholic countries. The RCC rigid dogma has not helped, but it is not even the ultimate issue. And as the wealth and sophistication of the developing world grows - it too will join the developed world in a decline of religiosity.
Now, what the RCC could have done, would be to have taken the lead in human rights - that would have given them relevance and a new lease on life. This is what individual priests and churches did in many developing countries, where they were the only appeal to justice and a source of comfort, liberation theology and so forth. It bought them tremendous loyalty and deep gratitude. Then JP II attacked that trend, and his successor finished it off. Deeply ironic too, because JP II saw first hand how enormously strengthened the RCC became in Poland when it was seen as fighting for justice and freedom, and how precipitously it declined when it became the political establishment and instituted regressive policies such as strict anti-abortion laws (unknown until then in Poland) and general overreach. It is the classic innovator dilemma - do you rely on the old products because those are the ones that make you money, or do you risk it all on taking the lead in the market with new products that may even be in opposition to your old moneymakers. The conservative churches generate the money and the engagement of its members, but they are the past and sticking with them too long will doom the enterprise - taking a lead on human rights, including women, gay people and other minorities would instantly make the RCC relevant to the younger generations, but at a cost of losing the older. What to do? Probably what most companies do - try some cosmetic surface lip service to the new, or maybe even sincere but too slow reforms too little and too late, and ultimately rest on the money makers of the present and the near future.
In any case, the RCC will continue to decline in the West. The temporary growth in other parts of the world will not last. It will move into irrelevance. Of course, this is nothing that we'll see in our lifetimes - this is a process for the centuries, at least another 200 years or so, I'd speculate. Although I have been shocked at how rapid the fall has been in the West, absolutely shocked. Who knows, they may decline faster yet than the centuries I project. But the RCC has been around for millennia, and its death will be very slow indeed. I am however, very optimistic for humanity longer term. The last priest and last king will pass into history, one day, hopefully not as violently.
posted by VikingSword at 10:27 AM on October 14, 2014 [11 favorites]
I've written about this before on the blue, but this is still all about survival. Sorry, but what happens to the RCC in wealthy industrialized countries matters a great deal, and from the point of view of survival and thriving it matters a great deal more than all those packed conservative churches in the developing world.
The essence of it is something that anyone working in branding understands. The RCC is dying in Europe and NA - slowly, to be sure, but surely. The situation in the U.S. is slightly more complicated because of the influx of Latinos who are overwhelmingly Catholic - this makes the absolute number of Catholics in the U.S. grow, but on the flip side, the subsequent generations of Latinos in the U.S. are leaving the church in great numbers and faster than other ethnic groups (such as Eastern and Central Europeans), and the long term overall trend is still pointed down. In contrast, indeed, the RCC absolute numbers are growing in the developing world... for now.
Why does it matter? Because the way brands work has a well-understood arc. The RCC brand is moving down market. Speaking purely from a marketing point of view, the reason for the RCC growth taking off in the developing world, is because it is an aspirational brand there. You belong to the Church in hopes of benefit to yourself and your family, as you see more successful people/countries belong too. But as the brand becomes deprecated in the West, it starts losing cache. To compensate, more marketing efforts are going to the developing world, and the brand is moving down market. Eventually what happens is that the brand starts becoming associated with the less desirable, and finally, loses market share even in the discount end of it. What it means, is that it stops being aspirational, it becomes associated with less desirable demographics and people flee. The brand dies.
That is why it is critical to defend the brand at the high end. It is very, very important that the RCC regain its standing in the West. You can compensate with growth in the developing markets only so much. Not to mention of course, that the cultural, historical and lifestyle weight is still in the West. I don't think the RCC would ever like to abandon their cushy Western abodes - no matter how hollowed out the churches become - and shift their whole administrative infrastructure to their present growth markets and move the Vatican, to, say, sub-Saharan Africa (though Bokassa did build a suitably bombastic cathedral in the Central African Republic - now sadly besieged by Islamic rebels - oops). It is simply not acceptable for the RCC to be of vestigial presence in the West, and still keep its seat of governance here, if all the growth is happening elsewhere.
Therefore the RCC must defend itself here in the West - relying on growth in the developing world is a very short term strategy, which will ultimately prove unsuccessful as the brand collapses even in those markets. Furthermore, and this is something that is perhaps not very nice, but unfortunately a reality in marketing - the greater growth in the developing world, particularly as has been pointed out it tends to be more conservative there, will have negative impact and accelerate the decline of the brand in the West. As people start associating the RCC with the kind of narrow conservatism that they've long since left behind, the RCC brand will become ever more undesirable. A downward spiral. This feeds on itself as first the elites in the developing worlds will also abandon the brand, and in time, so too will the rest of the population. Not a long term success. Therefore, they must defend themselves in the West.
This is the context in which all of this is happening. The choice of the pope is telling itself. The traditional sources of popes are in demographic decline and first reached for the energy of newly liberating Eastern Europe. That proved pretty short-lived as the RCC is getting a very bad backlash reaction there, on account of enormous abuses and political overreach. There is no growth there long term, and heavily (numerically) Catholic countries such as Poland are as Catholic as they're gonna get - the movement there is down, not up, as people increasingly become disaffected from the church. The present move to a pope from Latin America is a recognition of growth elsewhere on the one hand, and the hope to encourage growth in those markets as a compensatory mechanism on the other. We see that in any company that picks a CEO - if the domestic market collapses, but there is growth overseas, they pick a CEO with expertise in that market, often from that region. There was even speculation for a time about whether it's time to pick a pope from Africa. However, it would have been a bridge too far at this time. Nor, would it have done the brand any good in the West - a black pope from Africa would have cemented the association of the brand with the down market move too closely, and resulted in even faster alienation in the West. So a compromise was found, and it was a good one.
This pope has also been very smart. He understands that relying exclusively on the developing world is not going to be enough long term, and that the RCC must take a stand in the West too. All these movements toward relaxation of strictures against cohabitation, homosexuals and so forth are simply a movement designed to narrow the distance from the cultural center of weight in the West. Under both last popes, the distance has grown, and combined with the child abuse scandal that won't die, became a dangerously wide gap. The RCC cannot be seen as a vicious bigoted abusive organization that's ridiculously out of step with where the rest of the population is (in the West), or else there will be nothing but gray heads in those beautiful old churches.
Unfortunately for the RCC it is too little, too late. Once the novelty of the RCC acknowledging that gay people and women are actually human beings (three fifths for now), wears off, further moves will be greeted with a collective "what took you so long" yawn on the level of grand announcements that they've come to the conclusion that the earth is not the center of the universe, that the sun does not orbit the earth, the earth is not flat and the recent rehabilitation of Galileo, just a few centuries late... nobody cares, because you're irrelevant.
As the wealth and educational levels grow, what the RCC sells becomes less desirable. That's something that happens regardless of the dogma - it's a secular trend, if you will. Church attendance and religiosity has been declining all over the developed world, not just in Catholic countries. The RCC rigid dogma has not helped, but it is not even the ultimate issue. And as the wealth and sophistication of the developing world grows - it too will join the developed world in a decline of religiosity.
Now, what the RCC could have done, would be to have taken the lead in human rights - that would have given them relevance and a new lease on life. This is what individual priests and churches did in many developing countries, where they were the only appeal to justice and a source of comfort, liberation theology and so forth. It bought them tremendous loyalty and deep gratitude. Then JP II attacked that trend, and his successor finished it off. Deeply ironic too, because JP II saw first hand how enormously strengthened the RCC became in Poland when it was seen as fighting for justice and freedom, and how precipitously it declined when it became the political establishment and instituted regressive policies such as strict anti-abortion laws (unknown until then in Poland) and general overreach. It is the classic innovator dilemma - do you rely on the old products because those are the ones that make you money, or do you risk it all on taking the lead in the market with new products that may even be in opposition to your old moneymakers. The conservative churches generate the money and the engagement of its members, but they are the past and sticking with them too long will doom the enterprise - taking a lead on human rights, including women, gay people and other minorities would instantly make the RCC relevant to the younger generations, but at a cost of losing the older. What to do? Probably what most companies do - try some cosmetic surface lip service to the new, or maybe even sincere but too slow reforms too little and too late, and ultimately rest on the money makers of the present and the near future.
In any case, the RCC will continue to decline in the West. The temporary growth in other parts of the world will not last. It will move into irrelevance. Of course, this is nothing that we'll see in our lifetimes - this is a process for the centuries, at least another 200 years or so, I'd speculate. Although I have been shocked at how rapid the fall has been in the West, absolutely shocked. Who knows, they may decline faster yet than the centuries I project. But the RCC has been around for millennia, and its death will be very slow indeed. I am however, very optimistic for humanity longer term. The last priest and last king will pass into history, one day, hopefully not as violently.
posted by VikingSword at 10:27 AM on October 14, 2014 [11 favorites]
Of course, this is nothing that we'll see in our lifetimes - this is a process for the centuries, at least another 200 years or so, I'd speculate.
Pretty safe offering a hypothesis none of us will live to see tested.
Religious enthusiasm has waxed and waned over the centuries, and the church's responsiveness to currently pressing social issues has not been consistently correlated with that process. I think arbitrarily choosing a set of cut-off dates and extrapolating the trendline into the future infinitely is ultimately as persuasive as doing the same thing with a given range of stock market results. "This time it's different!" just isn't very persuasive historiography.
posted by yoink at 10:44 AM on October 14, 2014 [4 favorites]
Pretty safe offering a hypothesis none of us will live to see tested.
Religious enthusiasm has waxed and waned over the centuries, and the church's responsiveness to currently pressing social issues has not been consistently correlated with that process. I think arbitrarily choosing a set of cut-off dates and extrapolating the trendline into the future infinitely is ultimately as persuasive as doing the same thing with a given range of stock market results. "This time it's different!" just isn't very persuasive historiography.
posted by yoink at 10:44 AM on October 14, 2014 [4 favorites]
I think arbitrarily choosing a set of cut-off dates and extrapolating the trendline into the future infinitely is ultimately as persuasive as doing the same thing with a given range of stock market results. "This time it's different!" just isn't very persuasive historiography.
Yes, it's not something that can be proved. However, it is also true that not all religious institutions, or indeed religions are eternal. After all, not many people worship Thor regardless of the church. All that we are left with is making an argument the best we can and have to agree that ultimate proof - history - will not be something that we'll get to see. It's the same problem for any argument about something that has those time frames. Would you also say "pretty safe there, champ, with that global warming theory, since none of us will be alive in 80 or 100 years to see your ultimate scenario"? "Warming and cooling have waxed and waned through geological time spans, extrapolating trends is not valid etc.". All we have are arguments, in good faith.
My argument rests on certain premises. They may be wrong. But I'm open about them, and therefore it is easy to address those premises with counterarguments - should I find those convincing, I'd be more than happy to change my mind.
The premise around which I build my argument is that as wealth, education and development increase to levels we are currently seeing in the West, religiosity declines. If this is wrong, or not sustainable, or reversible, one should make an argument and I'm very interested. I then take that premise and extend it with the next assumption: that the currently developing world, will eventually reach the same levels of education and wealth and therefore follow the same trend. Counter-arguments to that extension are again, welcome. I further observe, that social trends - which social science has studied - also follow certain rules: the spread of belief systems and cultural practices starts with the elite, and moves into the rest of the population, aspirational aspects of those and the devaluation of same in down market situations. All those have been studied by sociologists - and therefore as in all science, anyone is welcome to build alternative theories.
So am I extrapolating trendlines inadmissibly? I'm open to being contradicted. Is it possible that brands die, like Thor and countless others did? There are two issues involved. Religiosity itself - which has been declining in the West. And the specific expression of religiosity (the brand, if you will) - in this case the RCC. Even if religiosity does not decline, it is still possible for a specific religion to die or decline. Regardless - these are all open to argument. The best way to meet that is with a counterargument - a flat contradiction is less productive, and less illuminating... "not so!" takes us only so far.
posted by VikingSword at 11:03 AM on October 14, 2014 [4 favorites]
Yes, it's not something that can be proved. However, it is also true that not all religious institutions, or indeed religions are eternal. After all, not many people worship Thor regardless of the church. All that we are left with is making an argument the best we can and have to agree that ultimate proof - history - will not be something that we'll get to see. It's the same problem for any argument about something that has those time frames. Would you also say "pretty safe there, champ, with that global warming theory, since none of us will be alive in 80 or 100 years to see your ultimate scenario"? "Warming and cooling have waxed and waned through geological time spans, extrapolating trends is not valid etc.". All we have are arguments, in good faith.
My argument rests on certain premises. They may be wrong. But I'm open about them, and therefore it is easy to address those premises with counterarguments - should I find those convincing, I'd be more than happy to change my mind.
The premise around which I build my argument is that as wealth, education and development increase to levels we are currently seeing in the West, religiosity declines. If this is wrong, or not sustainable, or reversible, one should make an argument and I'm very interested. I then take that premise and extend it with the next assumption: that the currently developing world, will eventually reach the same levels of education and wealth and therefore follow the same trend. Counter-arguments to that extension are again, welcome. I further observe, that social trends - which social science has studied - also follow certain rules: the spread of belief systems and cultural practices starts with the elite, and moves into the rest of the population, aspirational aspects of those and the devaluation of same in down market situations. All those have been studied by sociologists - and therefore as in all science, anyone is welcome to build alternative theories.
So am I extrapolating trendlines inadmissibly? I'm open to being contradicted. Is it possible that brands die, like Thor and countless others did? There are two issues involved. Religiosity itself - which has been declining in the West. And the specific expression of religiosity (the brand, if you will) - in this case the RCC. Even if religiosity does not decline, it is still possible for a specific religion to die or decline. Regardless - these are all open to argument. The best way to meet that is with a counterargument - a flat contradiction is less productive, and less illuminating... "not so!" takes us only so far.
posted by VikingSword at 11:03 AM on October 14, 2014 [4 favorites]
The premise around which I build my argument is that as wealth, education and development increase to levels we are currently seeing in the West, religiosity declines. If this is wrong, or not sustainable, or reversible, one should make an argument and I'm very interested.
All empires fall. There will be cataclysms that will undo those Whiggish trends.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:21 PM on October 14, 2014
All empires fall. There will be cataclysms that will undo those Whiggish trends.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:21 PM on October 14, 2014
All empires fall. There will be cataclysms that will undo those Whiggish trends.
If I understood you correctly, you are saying that odds are that the U.S. (and the West broadly) will fall following historical trends. From that it follows that they will no longer be wealthy etc., and therefore the fall of religion will be arrested and reversed. Let us for the sake of argument agree that the 'empire will fall' - the first question is 'fall how far', into utter poverty or what, because the fall of the Roman empire didn't result in Italy going back to pre-Roman levels of poverty, and it is possible that the end game would be more similar to the fall of the British empire, where Britain is doing quite well (and notably irreligious), same for France, or even Spain and other ex-colonial powers. However, for the sake of argument, let us posit that the West will fall into abject poverty. I don't believe that therefore the RCC will thrive. Most often, the fall of an empire and its complete erasure takes all its religions with it - we don't worship the Sun god RA, nor Greek gods etc. - I therefore don't think it's necessarily going to rebound to the benefit of the RCC. Therefore, I still don't see the reversal of fortune for the West as auguring well for the RCC trendlines.
posted by VikingSword at 12:44 PM on October 14, 2014
If I understood you correctly, you are saying that odds are that the U.S. (and the West broadly) will fall following historical trends. From that it follows that they will no longer be wealthy etc., and therefore the fall of religion will be arrested and reversed. Let us for the sake of argument agree that the 'empire will fall' - the first question is 'fall how far', into utter poverty or what, because the fall of the Roman empire didn't result in Italy going back to pre-Roman levels of poverty, and it is possible that the end game would be more similar to the fall of the British empire, where Britain is doing quite well (and notably irreligious), same for France, or even Spain and other ex-colonial powers. However, for the sake of argument, let us posit that the West will fall into abject poverty. I don't believe that therefore the RCC will thrive. Most often, the fall of an empire and its complete erasure takes all its religions with it - we don't worship the Sun god RA, nor Greek gods etc. - I therefore don't think it's necessarily going to rebound to the benefit of the RCC. Therefore, I still don't see the reversal of fortune for the West as auguring well for the RCC trendlines.
posted by VikingSword at 12:44 PM on October 14, 2014
I'm not saying that the RCC, in its current form, is eternal. I'm saying that religiosity is a fundamental human artifact that, and to presume that we're on some Pollyanna-path to everyone getting richer forever and religiosity is just going to blow away seems quite short-sighted. Maybe some sort of Singularity that will change human nature is on the way- but if not, the cyclical nature of history presumes that there will be boom and bust cycles. And in those times of bust and dust, people will get religious. Not necessarily towards Rome. But towards somewhere.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:01 PM on October 14, 2014
posted by Apocryphon at 1:01 PM on October 14, 2014
Well, that I can agree with. Religiosity is in the human makeup, and has served us well in our evolutionary past. It's present in the human population along a spectrum of intensity. It is not likely that this basic reality will be altered. The question is how will it be expressed. I think that the factors propelling it - times of strife, insecurity, threat, etc. are likely to continue to diminish; not in a straight line, obviously, but along a longer time frame the directionality seems set (up till now) - individual states and regions may rise up and fall down, but humanity is overall better off along all those axis than 5000, 2000, 300, or 100 years ago. Steady progress. Many reverses along the way, but long term - steady progress. Which will mean fewer factors intensifying the expression of the religious instinct - that's what I hang my hypothesis/projection on, that steady movement in one direction... ultimately however, obviously I cannot exclude the possibility that the world will plunge into horror and permanently reverse all progress so that we descend into the dark ages for the rest of the species history. My take on the odds is that we'll make it (all the terrible counter signs notwithstanding), and the broad movement of progress will continue on.
However, my point was originally more limited to the RCC specifically. I am optimistic about the trendlines there continuing on - but then again, I am of a generally optimistic nature.
posted by VikingSword at 1:17 PM on October 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
However, my point was originally more limited to the RCC specifically. I am optimistic about the trendlines there continuing on - but then again, I am of a generally optimistic nature.
posted by VikingSword at 1:17 PM on October 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
Eh. I certainly prefer Francis' emphasis on loving one's neighbor, loving the sinner, and judging not to Benedict's colder theology. But:
The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.
This is not what I'd call "embracing" same-sex couples. And while it's not obvious on its face, what the second sentence means in clear English is, "Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors to accept trans gender people, or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on complying with laws protecting trans people." The only thing said about trans people in this document is that the Catholic Church should have the unfettered right to discriminate against us. (Recently, Malta, a Catholic nation, enacted a law protecting people on the basis of gender identity, causing a kerfuffle in the Church.)
The official Catholic doctrine is that "gender" is essentially a bad word, which positions humans as their own creators, rather than affirming that God created humans with binary sexes ("male and female created He them"). This rejection of gender relates to a whole host of things: the idea of flexible gender roles, a critique of patriarchy, and support for trans folks. None of that shows any sign of having changed.
posted by DrMew at 1:36 PM on October 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.
This is not what I'd call "embracing" same-sex couples. And while it's not obvious on its face, what the second sentence means in clear English is, "Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors to accept trans gender people, or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on complying with laws protecting trans people." The only thing said about trans people in this document is that the Catholic Church should have the unfettered right to discriminate against us. (Recently, Malta, a Catholic nation, enacted a law protecting people on the basis of gender identity, causing a kerfuffle in the Church.)
The official Catholic doctrine is that "gender" is essentially a bad word, which positions humans as their own creators, rather than affirming that God created humans with binary sexes ("male and female created He them"). This rejection of gender relates to a whole host of things: the idea of flexible gender roles, a critique of patriarchy, and support for trans folks. None of that shows any sign of having changed.
posted by DrMew at 1:36 PM on October 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
Let us for the sake of argument agree that the 'empire will fall' - the first question is 'fall how far', into utter poverty or what, because the fall of the Roman empire didn't result in Italy going back to pre-Roman levels of poverty
It may not involve the collapse of Europe/the EU into failed states. The rise of runaway inequality and the undoing of the Enlightenment idea of humanist universalism (all people having inalienable rights which civilisation, collectively, is responsible for defending) and its replacement with a market-based system (you have the right to whatever your buying power in the market is, no more) could ensure that, despite technological advancement, most people's lives are wretchedly precarious. The super-rich get richer, everyone else is squeezed into insanitary slums, clambering over the corpses of the starving to work for a bowl of gruel, and so on. In such an environment, when one cannot expect security that isn't one's birthright, and one is dependent upon one's liege lords for the means of living, religion (and, come to think of it, conspiracy theory, and the scapegoating of minorities) could become a salve, a way of avoiding facing the unpalatable truth.
posted by acb at 4:10 PM on October 14, 2014
It may not involve the collapse of Europe/the EU into failed states. The rise of runaway inequality and the undoing of the Enlightenment idea of humanist universalism (all people having inalienable rights which civilisation, collectively, is responsible for defending) and its replacement with a market-based system (you have the right to whatever your buying power in the market is, no more) could ensure that, despite technological advancement, most people's lives are wretchedly precarious. The super-rich get richer, everyone else is squeezed into insanitary slums, clambering over the corpses of the starving to work for a bowl of gruel, and so on. In such an environment, when one cannot expect security that isn't one's birthright, and one is dependent upon one's liege lords for the means of living, religion (and, come to think of it, conspiracy theory, and the scapegoating of minorities) could become a salve, a way of avoiding facing the unpalatable truth.
posted by acb at 4:10 PM on October 14, 2014
however, obviously I cannot exclude the possibility that the world will plunge into horror and permanently reverse all progress so that we descend into the dark ages for the rest of the species history.
Yeah, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the world's future is unlikely either to be constant improvement nor forever decline and fall. I'm saying that history is cyclical, and religiosity comes in waves along with it.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:34 PM on October 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the world's future is unlikely either to be constant improvement nor forever decline and fall. I'm saying that history is cyclical, and religiosity comes in waves along with it.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:34 PM on October 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
The following article shows the two ways this report is being framed: its drafters say that it's about respect and regard for people who are homosexual; its opponents ask why they should have respect for homosexuality. They're basically talking past each other.
‘Earthquake’: Vatican Synod mid-term report suggests emphasizing ‘positive’ aspects of cohabitation, homosexuality
‘Earthquake’: Vatican Synod mid-term report suggests emphasizing ‘positive’ aspects of cohabitation, homosexuality
At the Vatican press conference this morning, Michael Voris of ChurchMilitant.TV challenged the authors on this section. “Are the Synod fathers proposing that ‘gifts and qualities’ flow from the sexual orientation of homosexuality?” he asked. “Is the Synod proposing that there is something innate in the homosexual orientation that transcends and uplifts the Catholic Church, the Christian community, and if so, what would those particular gifts be?”posted by Joe in Australia at 5:36 PM on October 14, 2014
In response, Archbishop Bruno Forte, the Synod’s special secretary, said, “I guess that what I want to express is that we must respect the dignity of every person, and the fact to be homosexual doesn’t mean that this dignity must be not recognized and promoted. … I think it is the most important point, and also the attitude of the Church to welcome persons who have homosexual orientation is based on the dignity of the person they are.”
Apocryphon, both things can be true: cyclical ups and downs in religiosity and an overall trend that aims in one direction. That is in fact what I believe - it's the "saw" graph - periods of religiosity will be followed by secularizing trends, but each peak of religiosity will be smaller than the last one - more or less - and thus the overall movement will still be toward secular trends. If we think about the history of religiosity in the West, in say, the last 600 years or so, this generally obtains. There are peaks and valleys all along that time line, but that line points firmly toward more secularity.
As so often things depend on what time frame one chooses. Shorter time frames will generally be noisier and it's harder to extrapolate the bigger trend from a shorter period. That's the danger. Now, I am obviously extrapolating trends - some will, and have claimed that I have done so mistakenly - in my defense, I am consciously trying not to cherry pick periods of time to fit my thesis, but looking for sufficiently long term trends that the directionality is valid, without it being so long that it becomes inapplicable due to radically different circumstances (like trying to gauge religiosity of societies from 7000 B.C.). The RCC provides a good time frame here, if we take into account its history from the beginnings through till today.
posted by VikingSword at 6:11 PM on October 14, 2014
As so often things depend on what time frame one chooses. Shorter time frames will generally be noisier and it's harder to extrapolate the bigger trend from a shorter period. That's the danger. Now, I am obviously extrapolating trends - some will, and have claimed that I have done so mistakenly - in my defense, I am consciously trying not to cherry pick periods of time to fit my thesis, but looking for sufficiently long term trends that the directionality is valid, without it being so long that it becomes inapplicable due to radically different circumstances (like trying to gauge religiosity of societies from 7000 B.C.). The RCC provides a good time frame here, if we take into account its history from the beginnings through till today.
posted by VikingSword at 6:11 PM on October 14, 2014
Conservative Catholic leaders decry draft document on gays, divorcees
posted by VikingSword at 6:32 PM on October 14, 2014
posted by VikingSword at 6:32 PM on October 14, 2014
Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.
The latter half of this sentence seems oddly specific; does anyone here know if there was some particular incident or proposal this is referencing?
posted by heisenberg at 8:16 PM on October 14, 2014
The latter half of this sentence seems oddly specific; does anyone here know if there was some particular incident or proposal this is referencing?
posted by heisenberg at 8:16 PM on October 14, 2014
Catholic Synod: Cardinal 'demoted' by Pope Francis
"Although it does not challenge the Church's stance on gay marriage, the document was praised by liberal clergymen and activists.
However, it was also criticised by more traditional and conservative Church figures who rejected it.
Cardinal Burke was among the most publicly critical of the bishops involved in the discussions.
For weeks, there had been rumours that the Pope would demote him, says the BBC's James Reynolds in Rome.
Last year, a survey launched by Pope Francis suggested that the majority of Catholics rejected Church teaching on issues such as sex and contraception."
posted by VikingSword at 9:23 AM on October 18, 2014
"Although it does not challenge the Church's stance on gay marriage, the document was praised by liberal clergymen and activists.
However, it was also criticised by more traditional and conservative Church figures who rejected it.
Cardinal Burke was among the most publicly critical of the bishops involved in the discussions.
For weeks, there had been rumours that the Pope would demote him, says the BBC's James Reynolds in Rome.
Last year, a survey launched by Pope Francis suggested that the majority of Catholics rejected Church teaching on issues such as sex and contraception."
posted by VikingSword at 9:23 AM on October 18, 2014
BBC - Catholic synod: Pope Francis setback on gay policy
"Pope Francis has suffered a setback as proposals for wider acceptance of gay people failed to win a two-thirds majority at a Catholic Church synod.
A draft report issued halfway through the meeting had called for greater openness towards homosexuals and divorced Catholics who have remarried.
But those paragraphs were not approved, and were stripped from the final text.
The report will inform further debate before the synod reconvenes in larger numbers in a year's time.
Correspondents say the text welcoming gay people and remarried Catholics had been watered down in the final version that was voted on - but it appears that they still met with resistance from conservatives.
All other parts of the draft report were accepted by the synod."
posted by marienbad at 3:01 PM on October 18, 2014
"Pope Francis has suffered a setback as proposals for wider acceptance of gay people failed to win a two-thirds majority at a Catholic Church synod.
A draft report issued halfway through the meeting had called for greater openness towards homosexuals and divorced Catholics who have remarried.
But those paragraphs were not approved, and were stripped from the final text.
The report will inform further debate before the synod reconvenes in larger numbers in a year's time.
Correspondents say the text welcoming gay people and remarried Catholics had been watered down in the final version that was voted on - but it appears that they still met with resistance from conservatives.
All other parts of the draft report were accepted by the synod."
posted by marienbad at 3:01 PM on October 18, 2014
And as if to illustrate further the dilemma I outlined in my long post, we now have this:
Catholics, Africans, gays and the race card
The growth of the RCC is concentrated in developing countries, which are overwhelmingly conservative. Meanwhile, the leadership in the West is acutely aware of being increasingly out of step with their Western audiences, and tilting further to the conservative side would only exacerbate the problem, they need to move to the liberal side not to lose the West completely. That sets up intolerable tension, which is whiplashing the church as seen here wrt. to their stance on gay people, divorced couples, cohabitation and so on. There are no easy solutions.
I believe the analysis I wrote out in the first post in this thread will become ever more relevant as time goes on. I see no relief for the RCC. All things must pass, and the RCC is not an exception.
posted by VikingSword at 10:26 PM on October 20, 2014
Catholics, Africans, gays and the race card
The growth of the RCC is concentrated in developing countries, which are overwhelmingly conservative. Meanwhile, the leadership in the West is acutely aware of being increasingly out of step with their Western audiences, and tilting further to the conservative side would only exacerbate the problem, they need to move to the liberal side not to lose the West completely. That sets up intolerable tension, which is whiplashing the church as seen here wrt. to their stance on gay people, divorced couples, cohabitation and so on. There are no easy solutions.
I believe the analysis I wrote out in the first post in this thread will become ever more relevant as time goes on. I see no relief for the RCC. All things must pass, and the RCC is not an exception.
posted by VikingSword at 10:26 PM on October 20, 2014
It makes sense but I wonder at how many points during the last two millenia a similar analysis would have concluded that the Church was beset with internal tensions so severe and obstacles so insurmountable that its dissolution was inevitable.
posted by XMLicious at 3:59 AM on October 21, 2014
posted by XMLicious at 3:59 AM on October 21, 2014
At a few of those points the church did, in fact, fracture.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 9:00 AM on October 21, 2014
posted by vibratory manner of working at 9:00 AM on October 21, 2014
I think there's been constant fracturing but it doesn't seem as though VikingSword is just predicting more of the same or repeats of events of the past.
posted by XMLicious at 10:24 AM on October 21, 2014
posted by XMLicious at 10:24 AM on October 21, 2014
« Older #Gamergate, as we know it now, is a hate group. | Dropbox (not) hacked, but hackers claim 7 million... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by koeselitz at 12:33 AM on October 14, 2014