Pope Releases Apostolic Exhortation on the Church and Modern Family Life
April 8, 2016 9:17 AM Subscribe
With the release of “Amoris Laetitia,” (.pdf) or “Joy of Love,” Pope Francis has called for the Catholic Church, as the Guardian puts it, to "revamp its response to modern family life." As the New York Times notes, the document "calls for priests to welcome single parents, gay people and unmarried straight couples who are living together....But Francis once again closed the door on same-sex marriage, saying it cannot be seen as the equivalent of heterosexual unions."
More background and coverage:
* Apostolic exhortation: "It encourages a community of people to undertake a particular activity but does not define Church doctrine. It is considered lower in formal authority than a papal encyclical, but higher than other ecclesiastical letters, Apostolic Letters and other papal writings."
* How does Pope Francis's document on family life affect you?
* How Pope Francis’ ‘Amoris Laetitia’ Could Affect Families and the Church
* Pope Francis Opens Door for Divorcees to Take Communion, Closes It on Same-Sex Marriage
* Top 10 takeaways (and more coverage from America magazine).
* American columnist Charlie Pierce: "Does it go far enough? Not for me."
More background and coverage:
* Apostolic exhortation: "It encourages a community of people to undertake a particular activity but does not define Church doctrine. It is considered lower in formal authority than a papal encyclical, but higher than other ecclesiastical letters, Apostolic Letters and other papal writings."
* How does Pope Francis's document on family life affect you?
* How Pope Francis’ ‘Amoris Laetitia’ Could Affect Families and the Church
* Pope Francis Opens Door for Divorcees to Take Communion, Closes It on Same-Sex Marriage
* Top 10 takeaways (and more coverage from America magazine).
* American columnist Charlie Pierce: "Does it go far enough? Not for me."
saying it cannot be seen as the equivalent of heterosexual unions.
You were pretty close to being awesome, Frank, and you blew it.
posted by Hoopo at 9:34 AM on April 8, 2016 [18 favorites]
You were pretty close to being awesome, Frank, and you blew it.
posted by Hoopo at 9:34 AM on April 8, 2016 [18 favorites]
There's no lolxtians in my earlier comment, just a deep sadness at the hateful rhetoric spewing from someone who has purposefully stunted his experience in that which he so frequently issues decrees about.
Not all sections of Christianity embrace the hate like RCs do.
posted by dazed_one at 9:48 AM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not all sections of Christianity embrace the hate like RCs do.
posted by dazed_one at 9:48 AM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Two thousand years worth of momentum takes a while to slow.
It's baffling to me why clearly ridiculous institutions remain relevant
Because the entire institution is important to some of us. We may want to see changes in its dogma, too, like you. Do you imagine that solely because I am Catholic, I will refuse to associate with anyone who is trans, divorced, gay, or otherwise non-hetero, non-CIS, non-married? For real?
posted by wenestvedt at 9:50 AM on April 8, 2016 [36 favorites]
The church needs to meet people where they are. So pastors are to “avoid judgements which do not take into account the complexity of various situations” (296). People should not be “pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for personal and pastoral discernment” (298). In other words, one size does not fit all. People are encouraged to live by the Gospel, but should also be welcomed into a church that appreciates their particular struggles and treats them with mercy. “Thinking that everything is black and white” is to be avoided (305). And the church cannot apply moral laws as if they were “stones to throw at people’s lives” (305). Overall, he calls for an approach of understanding, compassion and accompaniment.Also:
It's baffling to me why clearly ridiculous institutions remain relevant
Because the entire institution is important to some of us. We may want to see changes in its dogma, too, like you. Do you imagine that solely because I am Catholic, I will refuse to associate with anyone who is trans, divorced, gay, or otherwise non-hetero, non-CIS, non-married? For real?
posted by wenestvedt at 9:50 AM on April 8, 2016 [36 favorites]
Not all sections of Christianity embrace the hate like RCs do.
....I thought you said that there was no "lolxians" in your comments.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:50 AM on April 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
....I thought you said that there was no "lolxians" in your comments.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:50 AM on April 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
I thought you said that there was no "lolxians" in your comments.
I'm not laughing. Are you? Did you read the "against nature" stuff that the head of the RC Church said in this most recent statement? Is that not hateful?
posted by dazed_one at 9:53 AM on April 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
I'm not laughing. Are you? Did you read the "against nature" stuff that the head of the RC Church said in this most recent statement? Is that not hateful?
posted by dazed_one at 9:53 AM on April 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
The section in which Fr. Martin observes
...makes me wonder about whether the "softer" American Catholics can take a different approach than the crazy hardliners in Africa. Because that would be good, and an entree to changing the dogma that most people of modern sensibilities recognize as just wrong.
posted by wenestvedt at 9:55 AM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
“Each country or region…can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs” (3). What makes sense pastorally in one country may even seem out of place in another.
...makes me wonder about whether the "softer" American Catholics can take a different approach than the crazy hardliners in Africa. Because that would be good, and an entree to changing the dogma that most people of modern sensibilities recognize as just wrong.
posted by wenestvedt at 9:55 AM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yow, 264 pages? I suppose I have some reading ahead of me when I can get the time.
I do note, however, at the very beginning he seems to be arguing for a sort of Federalized Catholicism. Point 3 in his introduction
I did find the denunciations of patriarchy and a sort of half hearted embrace of feminism to be a bit bizarre coming from a document written by an institution that denies women any positions of power at all, and expels people for suggesting that this should change.
I also note that in general it seems to be rather vague, hemming and hawing back and forth on many issues. On the one hand X, but on the other hand Y.
In fact, the only places where it abandons this cultivated air of uncertainty I've found on skimming over it are places where it reaffirms standard Catholic doctrine. The document has no back and forth, no gentle suggestions of merits on both sides when it comes to contraception and same sex marriage. Those passages tend to stand out as islands of certainty in a document generally delighting in imprecision, presenting both sides, and trying very hard to avoid taking any position at all.
I suppose it represents a baby step towards a more moral position for the Church, but such a small step and with such reaffirmations of the general immorality of the Church that I find myself wondering why it was written at all.
Like cotton candy, it seems to be sweet but empty. And there's the occasional razor blade hidden within.
posted by sotonohito at 9:55 AM on April 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
I do note, however, at the very beginning he seems to be arguing for a sort of Federalized Catholicism. Point 3 in his introduction
Since “time is greater than space”, I wouldHas anyone had time to dig deeper and see if this is developed more later in the document, and if so what it develops into?
make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal,
moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by
interventions of the magisterium. Unity of
teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the
Church, but this does not preclude various ways
of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or
drawing certain consequences from it. This will
always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards
the entire truth (cf. Jn 16:13), until he leads us
fully into the mystery of Christ and enables us to
see all things as he does. Each country or region,
moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its
culture and sensitive to its traditions and local
needs. For “cultures are in fact quite diverse and
every general principle… needs to be inculturated,
if it is to be respected and applied”.3
I did find the denunciations of patriarchy and a sort of half hearted embrace of feminism to be a bit bizarre coming from a document written by an institution that denies women any positions of power at all, and expels people for suggesting that this should change.
I also note that in general it seems to be rather vague, hemming and hawing back and forth on many issues. On the one hand X, but on the other hand Y.
In fact, the only places where it abandons this cultivated air of uncertainty I've found on skimming over it are places where it reaffirms standard Catholic doctrine. The document has no back and forth, no gentle suggestions of merits on both sides when it comes to contraception and same sex marriage. Those passages tend to stand out as islands of certainty in a document generally delighting in imprecision, presenting both sides, and trying very hard to avoid taking any position at all.
I suppose it represents a baby step towards a more moral position for the Church, but such a small step and with such reaffirmations of the general immorality of the Church that I find myself wondering why it was written at all.
Like cotton candy, it seems to be sweet but empty. And there's the occasional razor blade hidden within.
posted by sotonohito at 9:55 AM on April 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
Two thousand years worth of momentum takes a while to slow.
When it's this slow, you do have to question the wisdom of having two thousand year old institutions to begin with. The Catholic Church is not even close to where it needs to be. Even putting aside issues with LGBT people, refusing to ordain women means the Church is still treating a majority of the world's population as spiritual second class citizens. You can't do this sort of thing and credibly call yourself the Universal Church. Change needs to come quickly, people should be out of patience.
/Catholic
posted by Drinky Die at 9:58 AM on April 8, 2016 [23 favorites]
When it's this slow, you do have to question the wisdom of having two thousand year old institutions to begin with. The Catholic Church is not even close to where it needs to be. Even putting aside issues with LGBT people, refusing to ordain women means the Church is still treating a majority of the world's population as spiritual second class citizens. You can't do this sort of thing and credibly call yourself the Universal Church. Change needs to come quickly, people should be out of patience.
/Catholic
posted by Drinky Die at 9:58 AM on April 8, 2016 [23 favorites]
Ah, I see that I'm still an abomination. Oh well.
posted by Mary Ellen Carter at 10:00 AM on April 8, 2016 [36 favorites]
posted by Mary Ellen Carter at 10:00 AM on April 8, 2016 [36 favorites]
I suppose it represents a baby step towards a more moral position for the Church, but such a small step and with such reaffirmations of the general immorality of the Church that I find myself wondering why it was written at all.
Because there are still parts of the world where people who got divorced and remarried are being barred from practicing a sacrament in their faith because priests were confused about whether it was cool for them to take the sacrament or not. This is a "baby step" for us in the west - but in some parts of the world, this is a major leap.
Did you read the "against nature" stuff that the head of the RC Church said in this most recent statement? Is that not hateful?
I would call it "profoundly disappointing and sad" before I could call it "hateful". And I also question - when you call it 'hateful", what are you trying to do? Convince existing Catholics to change? Or are you just trying to shame them?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:03 AM on April 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
Because there are still parts of the world where people who got divorced and remarried are being barred from practicing a sacrament in their faith because priests were confused about whether it was cool for them to take the sacrament or not. This is a "baby step" for us in the west - but in some parts of the world, this is a major leap.
Did you read the "against nature" stuff that the head of the RC Church said in this most recent statement? Is that not hateful?
I would call it "profoundly disappointing and sad" before I could call it "hateful". And I also question - when you call it 'hateful", what are you trying to do? Convince existing Catholics to change? Or are you just trying to shame them?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:03 AM on April 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
Lots of words deleted.
odinsdream, I don't think you're engaging with any of this. I'm sorry you don't know any moderate Catholics.
posted by wenestvedt at 10:04 AM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
odinsdream, I don't think you're engaging with any of this. I'm sorry you don't know any moderate Catholics.
posted by wenestvedt at 10:04 AM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Lots of us know plenty of moderate Catholics. That doesn't mean that the stuff coming from Rome can't also be disappointing, enraging, make us feel like shit, etc. Both those things can exist at the same time.
posted by rtha at 10:06 AM on April 8, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by rtha at 10:06 AM on April 8, 2016 [23 favorites]
And I also question - when you call it 'hateful", what are you trying to do? Convince existing Catholics to change? Or are you just trying to shame them?
I know you're not asking me, but "it's against nature" is a shameful position. I for one am pretty well OK if someone wants to point fingers at people for being part of an organization that preaches this kind of thing. Not sure what other organizations would get a pass on that around here.
posted by Hoopo at 10:15 AM on April 8, 2016 [17 favorites]
I know you're not asking me, but "it's against nature" is a shameful position. I for one am pretty well OK if someone wants to point fingers at people for being part of an organization that preaches this kind of thing. Not sure what other organizations would get a pass on that around here.
posted by Hoopo at 10:15 AM on April 8, 2016 [17 favorites]
when you call it 'hateful", what are you trying to do? Convince existing Catholics to change? Or are you just trying to shame them?
Since I don't think I can change anyone's mind about their religion in a discussion on the internet, when I call it "hateful" I'm just commenting on the statement made by the Pope. I would also, like you, call it sad and disappointing. Commenting about the post is what we do on this site, right?
When someone criticizes hurtful rhetoric and you dismiss it as as "lolxtian" comments, what do you hope to accomplish?
posted by dazed_one at 10:15 AM on April 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
Since I don't think I can change anyone's mind about their religion in a discussion on the internet, when I call it "hateful" I'm just commenting on the statement made by the Pope. I would also, like you, call it sad and disappointing. Commenting about the post is what we do on this site, right?
When someone criticizes hurtful rhetoric and you dismiss it as as "lolxtian" comments, what do you hope to accomplish?
posted by dazed_one at 10:15 AM on April 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
And I also question - when you call it 'hateful", what are you trying to do?
I can't speak for others in this thread, but when I call something hateful, I'm trying to use language that most adequately captures the bigotry being expressed.
It's language that cuts through bullshit about loving the sinner and hating the sin; it's language that places the bigotry squarely within the misogynist, homophobic, and transphobic cultural conservatism it belongs to. Soft-peddled bigotry is still bigotry.
My concern is not convincing Catholics to change. My concern is naming my experience of the world. Telling us that we can't call such views "hateful" because is a classic example of tone policing. You can believe this is a positive step, without believing that if it's not enough for the people negatively affected, that they should be diplomatic and grateful about--not being hated quite so much?
Most Catholics I know believe that more change than this is needed, anyway. Changing their minds is beside the point.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 10:18 AM on April 8, 2016 [32 favorites]
I can't speak for others in this thread, but when I call something hateful, I'm trying to use language that most adequately captures the bigotry being expressed.
It's language that cuts through bullshit about loving the sinner and hating the sin; it's language that places the bigotry squarely within the misogynist, homophobic, and transphobic cultural conservatism it belongs to. Soft-peddled bigotry is still bigotry.
My concern is not convincing Catholics to change. My concern is naming my experience of the world. Telling us that we can't call such views "hateful" because is a classic example of tone policing. You can believe this is a positive step, without believing that if it's not enough for the people negatively affected, that they should be diplomatic and grateful about--not being hated quite so much?
Most Catholics I know believe that more change than this is needed, anyway. Changing their minds is beside the point.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 10:18 AM on April 8, 2016 [32 favorites]
I'm sorry you don't know any moderate Catholics.
Since moving to RI, I have really come to appreciate the wide strange diversity of Catholics. Despite the Church's claims, Catholics are a remarkably heterogeneous bunch of people, much more so than smaller, newer sects. While everyone gives at least a vague nod to Rome, there is a lot of picking and choosing how much the doctrines are weighted in one's private life. It's pretty interesting, especially as one who grew up in a conservative Lutheran sect that was much more uniform in its beliefs (if also more poorly educated about those beliefs). It's certainly unfair to paint all Catholics with a brush sized for the Vatican.
However, for people who have spent their entire lives being othered by an organization which may have cost them friends, family, jobs, life opportunities, and, possibly, put their health and lives n direct danger, it's even more unfair to expect them to quietly wait around while the Vatican pulls itself into the 20th, never mind the 21st, century. Pope Francis deserves some praise for the changes he has made, but that doesn't mean that that praise has to come from LGBT people who are still waiting to be recognized as full human beings (much less not be identified as the moral equivalent of nuclear weapons). Surely, the moderate Catholic can recognize the criticisms of their spiritual leader's stance without taking it personally -- especially if they agree in their hearts that the Pope has not gone far enough.
To be fair to Catholics, similar criticisms can be leveled at most religious, political, and cultural organizations who have spent the last century wishing that lesbians, gays, and bisexuals (and especially trans people) would just shut up, stop being embarrassing, and settle for what humanity and rights the straight and cis majority is willing to grudgingly allow them (when those organizations are not opening advocating internment camps and death, of course).
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:22 AM on April 8, 2016 [29 favorites]
Since moving to RI, I have really come to appreciate the wide strange diversity of Catholics. Despite the Church's claims, Catholics are a remarkably heterogeneous bunch of people, much more so than smaller, newer sects. While everyone gives at least a vague nod to Rome, there is a lot of picking and choosing how much the doctrines are weighted in one's private life. It's pretty interesting, especially as one who grew up in a conservative Lutheran sect that was much more uniform in its beliefs (if also more poorly educated about those beliefs). It's certainly unfair to paint all Catholics with a brush sized for the Vatican.
However, for people who have spent their entire lives being othered by an organization which may have cost them friends, family, jobs, life opportunities, and, possibly, put their health and lives n direct danger, it's even more unfair to expect them to quietly wait around while the Vatican pulls itself into the 20th, never mind the 21st, century. Pope Francis deserves some praise for the changes he has made, but that doesn't mean that that praise has to come from LGBT people who are still waiting to be recognized as full human beings (much less not be identified as the moral equivalent of nuclear weapons). Surely, the moderate Catholic can recognize the criticisms of their spiritual leader's stance without taking it personally -- especially if they agree in their hearts that the Pope has not gone far enough.
To be fair to Catholics, similar criticisms can be leveled at most religious, political, and cultural organizations who have spent the last century wishing that lesbians, gays, and bisexuals (and especially trans people) would just shut up, stop being embarrassing, and settle for what humanity and rights the straight and cis majority is willing to grudgingly allow them (when those organizations are not opening advocating internment camps and death, of course).
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:22 AM on April 8, 2016 [29 favorites]
When someone criticizes hurtful rhetoric and you dismiss it as as "lolxtian" comments, what do you hope to accomplish?
Encourage them to use more productive words, perhaps? Or encourage them to confine their criticism to the statement and not to the entirety of the institution?
Look, I was really, really disappointed too. I think that the "against nature" phrase was shaming, and I am very disappointed that someone who's been so open towards opening up the church has still not been able to make this one step. But "I was disappointed" and "that 'against nature' phrase really sucked" is vastly different from "the Roman Catholic Church is hateful". One of those ways to say it could get you agreement and open discussion; the other way, though, you run the risk of making a Catholic person feel like they're getting it from both sides ("Dammit, first the Pope chickened out of making real change, and now I've got the crowd telling me I'm evil just because I happen to be Catholic myself - I can't win").
I guess it depends on what your'e trying to do, though.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:26 AM on April 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Encourage them to use more productive words, perhaps? Or encourage them to confine their criticism to the statement and not to the entirety of the institution?
Look, I was really, really disappointed too. I think that the "against nature" phrase was shaming, and I am very disappointed that someone who's been so open towards opening up the church has still not been able to make this one step. But "I was disappointed" and "that 'against nature' phrase really sucked" is vastly different from "the Roman Catholic Church is hateful". One of those ways to say it could get you agreement and open discussion; the other way, though, you run the risk of making a Catholic person feel like they're getting it from both sides ("Dammit, first the Pope chickened out of making real change, and now I've got the crowd telling me I'm evil just because I happen to be Catholic myself - I can't win").
I guess it depends on what your'e trying to do, though.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:26 AM on April 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
You know, rather than making excuses about the glacial pace of change that this ancient institution must take, there was a guy named Martin who changed things up pretty fast, and I hear there's a whole proliferation of folks who have followed in that guy's footsteps. They don't even get burned at the stake anymore.
posted by rikschell at 10:33 AM on April 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 10:33 AM on April 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
encourage them to confine their criticism to the statement and not to the entirety of the institution
Sorry you feel you're getting it from both sides, but the Pope is the head of your institution. The things he says and does are representative of that institution and belief in his position and the power it holds are integral to the entirety of that institution. If he says hateful things, concluding that the institution has hate within it is not really a leap of logic.
posted by dazed_one at 10:34 AM on April 8, 2016 [29 favorites]
Sorry you feel you're getting it from both sides, but the Pope is the head of your institution. The things he says and does are representative of that institution and belief in his position and the power it holds are integral to the entirety of that institution. If he says hateful things, concluding that the institution has hate within it is not really a leap of logic.
posted by dazed_one at 10:34 AM on April 8, 2016 [29 favorites]
I have dear friends employed by Church institutions who cannot be honest about who they are, who can't bring their partners along and introduce them truthfully, who have spent their lives in quiet ostracism from their religion while being spiritually faithful. Some are church musicians and teachers; two used to be priests and likely still would be if not for hate, and yes, it is hate. I am tired of being told to use "productive words" when I see some of the best people I know being harmed by this rhetoric, these policies.
posted by thetortoise at 10:34 AM on April 8, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by thetortoise at 10:34 AM on April 8, 2016 [17 favorites]
Martin Luther had a lot of issues. Probably not the best example to cite as a force for positive change.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:38 AM on April 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:38 AM on April 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
"the Roman Catholic Church is hateful"
Any institution that espouses misogynist, homophobic, and transphobic views is a hateful institution.
Anyone who is Catholic and doesn't hold the same views has to navigate, for themselves, how that squares with their faith. It's not our responsibility to make their allegiance to a hateful institution easier by not naming the hate.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 10:39 AM on April 8, 2016 [28 favorites]
Any institution that espouses misogynist, homophobic, and transphobic views is a hateful institution.
Anyone who is Catholic and doesn't hold the same views has to navigate, for themselves, how that squares with their faith. It's not our responsibility to make their allegiance to a hateful institution easier by not naming the hate.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 10:39 AM on April 8, 2016 [28 favorites]
Mod note: That the Catholic Church and individual Catholics are two different things is an important thing for folks to try to keep in mind in here on all fronts, including being decent to fellow mefites who identify as Catholic and on the flip side being willing to accept that someone being strongly critical of the Church as an institution isn't a personal attack. There's difficult stuff in here and legit reasons for people to be unhappy with the state of things; let's try and make it work conversationally.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:39 AM on April 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:39 AM on April 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
I don't really think it's reasonable to expect to get all the benefits of comfortably belonging to a powerful global institution AND never have to have a passing unpleasant feeling about the fact that that institution insists on treating millions of people as less than fully human. It certainly isn't reasonable to expect the people who are being treated as less than human to make it easier for you by only discussing the fact that they are being treated as less than human in the nicest and softest and prettiest terms.
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 10:41 AM on April 8, 2016 [33 favorites]
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 10:41 AM on April 8, 2016 [33 favorites]
It certainly isn't reasonable to expect the people who are being treated as less than human to make it easier for you by only discussing the fact that they are being treated as less than human in the nicest and softest and prettiest terms.
yeah I thought that was usually called a "tone argument"
posted by Hoopo at 10:44 AM on April 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
yeah I thought that was usually called a "tone argument"
posted by Hoopo at 10:44 AM on April 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
I've read some of the Pope's theological writings, and, like any good Pope--especially a Jesuit Pope--he is as smart as they come, and very, very specific in the doctrinal distinctions he makes.
That's why it's mystifying to me that the document (no, I haven't read it) is apparently "muddy" in places. For example--and this is a big one--he says, vaguely, that divorced/remarried Catholics should be made to feel more welcome...but he doesn't say they can receive Communion!
That's kind of a big deal, as this non-Roman Catholic understands it. Perhaps he expects the next Pope to be more specific?
posted by kozad at 10:53 AM on April 8, 2016
That's why it's mystifying to me that the document (no, I haven't read it) is apparently "muddy" in places. For example--and this is a big one--he says, vaguely, that divorced/remarried Catholics should be made to feel more welcome...but he doesn't say they can receive Communion!
That's kind of a big deal, as this non-Roman Catholic understands it. Perhaps he expects the next Pope to be more specific?
posted by kozad at 10:53 AM on April 8, 2016
That's why it's mystifying to me that the document (no, I haven't read it) is apparently "muddy" in places
As my dad used to say, he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.
posted by dazed_one at 10:56 AM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
As my dad used to say, he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.
posted by dazed_one at 10:56 AM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
“Thinking that everything is black and white” is to be avoided (305).
Jumpin' Jesus on a Pogo Stick! I survived 12 long years of Catholic school, and that is not a comment I ever expected to come from a cleric, let alone the Pope.
I mean, orthodoxy is Their Thing. It's Their Only Thing!
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE!
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 11:05 AM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Jumpin' Jesus on a Pogo Stick! I survived 12 long years of Catholic school, and that is not a comment I ever expected to come from a cleric, let alone the Pope.
I mean, orthodoxy is Their Thing. It's Their Only Thing!
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE!
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 11:05 AM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
For example--and this is a big one--he says, vaguely, that divorced/remarried Catholics should be made to feel more welcome...but he doesn't say they can receive Communion!
I'm pretty sure the current system at least in North America deals with this by kinda retconning a divorce into an annulment after the fact. Pretty sure Francis made this even easier for the Church to do, as well. I know they were kinda loosey goosey with this stuff before, at least in the case of my parents, when my dad wanted to get remarried to a Catholic.
posted by Hoopo at 11:09 AM on April 8, 2016
I'm pretty sure the current system at least in North America deals with this by kinda retconning a divorce into an annulment after the fact. Pretty sure Francis made this even easier for the Church to do, as well. I know they were kinda loosey goosey with this stuff before, at least in the case of my parents, when my dad wanted to get remarried to a Catholic.
posted by Hoopo at 11:09 AM on April 8, 2016
Y'know, for all the people issuing apologias about the Church and its doctrines to those of us who are trans/bi/lesbian/gay/_____, I'd point you at Matthew 12:30.
If the Church is not with us, it is against us. And if your life includes support for an institution that is against us, well, don't be expecting any ally cookies anytime soon.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:17 AM on April 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
If the Church is not with us, it is against us. And if your life includes support for an institution that is against us, well, don't be expecting any ally cookies anytime soon.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:17 AM on April 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
Cheap shot, totally unwarranted, and not at all what I meant.
And you don't think that your original comment wasn't a cheap shot? "It's baffling to me why clearly ridiculous institutions remain relevant."
Perhaps because for a large amount of people, the Catholic Church is not only the most ancient institution still around, but it is also intensely significant to their faith, partly in due part because of its age and history, but for many other deeper and significant reasons. And perhaps because large amounts of Catholics would in fact like to see change in their church. 60% of Catholics (http://publicreligion.org/2015/04/attitudes-on-same-sex-marriage-by-religious-affiliation-and-denominational-family) were polled as being in favor of same-sex marriage, which, for the record, is a result more progressive than if you poll Americans nationally (not that this necessarily says a lot, but still).
I think the United States is a fairly backwaters nation, but whenever the United States makes some progress (like making same-sex marriage legal nationwide), I don't go around ridiculing the United States and mocking those who are so happy that their country finally better represents them.
posted by Dalby at 11:19 AM on April 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
And you don't think that your original comment wasn't a cheap shot? "It's baffling to me why clearly ridiculous institutions remain relevant."
Perhaps because for a large amount of people, the Catholic Church is not only the most ancient institution still around, but it is also intensely significant to their faith, partly in due part because of its age and history, but for many other deeper and significant reasons. And perhaps because large amounts of Catholics would in fact like to see change in their church. 60% of Catholics (http://publicreligion.org/2015/04/attitudes-on-same-sex-marriage-by-religious-affiliation-and-denominational-family) were polled as being in favor of same-sex marriage, which, for the record, is a result more progressive than if you poll Americans nationally (not that this necessarily says a lot, but still).
I think the United States is a fairly backwaters nation, but whenever the United States makes some progress (like making same-sex marriage legal nationwide), I don't go around ridiculing the United States and mocking those who are so happy that their country finally better represents them.
posted by Dalby at 11:19 AM on April 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm not laughing. Are you? Did you read the "against nature" stuff that the head of the RC Church said in this most recent statement? Is that not hateful?
posted by dazed_one
It's also just plain old incorrect, non-factual. Trans people are completely normal.
posted by agregoli at 11:23 AM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dazed_one
It's also just plain old incorrect, non-factual. Trans people are completely normal.
posted by agregoli at 11:23 AM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I would call it "profoundly disappointing and sad" before I could call it "hateful". And I also question - when you call it 'hateful", what are you trying to do? Convince existing Catholics to change? Or are you just trying to shame them?
Those exact same words, emerging from the mouth of Jerry Falwell or Ted Cruz or Fred Phelps, would rightfully be condemned as hate speech. He just equivocated trans people with nuclear holocaust, and he's using his position as the head of the institution to try to influence the beliefs and actions of millions of people. If we can't call that hateful, then why do we even have the word?
60% of Catholics were polled as being in favor of same-sex marriage, which, for the record, is a result more progressive than if you poll Americans nationally
Totally agree with you: many moderate Catholics hold much less odious beliefs than the Vatican, and don't condone what the Pope says. I should point out, though, that by official decree, anyone who denies papal authority is somewhere between "revisionist" and "apostate." You don't get to call yourself a baseball player if you disavow the existence of the infield fly rule.
posted by Mayor West at 11:23 AM on April 8, 2016 [15 favorites]
Those exact same words, emerging from the mouth of Jerry Falwell or Ted Cruz or Fred Phelps, would rightfully be condemned as hate speech. He just equivocated trans people with nuclear holocaust, and he's using his position as the head of the institution to try to influence the beliefs and actions of millions of people. If we can't call that hateful, then why do we even have the word?
60% of Catholics were polled as being in favor of same-sex marriage, which, for the record, is a result more progressive than if you poll Americans nationally
Totally agree with you: many moderate Catholics hold much less odious beliefs than the Vatican, and don't condone what the Pope says. I should point out, though, that by official decree, anyone who denies papal authority is somewhere between "revisionist" and "apostate." You don't get to call yourself a baseball player if you disavow the existence of the infield fly rule.
posted by Mayor West at 11:23 AM on April 8, 2016 [15 favorites]
large amounts of Catholics would in fact like to see change in their church. 60% of Catholics were polled as being in favor of same-sex marriage
That so many would disagree with what their religion says is an abomination and yet continue to think that the institution is relevant isn't baffling and ridiculous to you?
posted by dazed_one at 11:26 AM on April 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
That so many would disagree with what their religion says is an abomination and yet continue to think that the institution is relevant isn't baffling and ridiculous to you?
posted by dazed_one at 11:26 AM on April 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
You the spy movie trope of old CIA/MI6 agents getting nostalgic for the Soviet Union, because at least you knew where you stood with them? That's kind of how I feel about Benedict whenever one of these comes out.
posted by officer_fred at 11:30 AM on April 8, 2016
posted by officer_fred at 11:30 AM on April 8, 2016
This exhortation is being called a step forward in the Catholic Church's position on gays and lesbians, but it mirrors exactly and makes explicit reference to the 1986 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (written and delivered by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Alberto Bovone), which says emphatically that "Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life. As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God's personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord's grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way." The 1986 letter also states, again emphatically, that "increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. ... The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church."
There is no way that the new exhortation is in any way a step forward, notwithstanding its gentler tone, given its exact adherence to and explicit reference to the older letter, which essentially relegates homosexuals who do not vow and practice chastity to the status of non-persons.
posted by blucevalo at 11:33 AM on April 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
There is no way that the new exhortation is in any way a step forward, notwithstanding its gentler tone, given its exact adherence to and explicit reference to the older letter, which essentially relegates homosexuals who do not vow and practice chastity to the status of non-persons.
posted by blucevalo at 11:33 AM on April 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think most religious people's beliefs go deeper than mere church doctrine. If the church says X but you disagree with that stance, it doesn't mean you're going to all of a sudden leave the church over that. Disagreeing with the church does not make you a bad religious person (regardless of what the church might want you to think) and everyone (including the clergy) picks and chooses which parts they focus on. But the actual faith part is outside of all that.
posted by downtohisturtles at 11:33 AM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 11:33 AM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
That so many would disagree with what their religion says is an abomination and yet continue to think that the institution is relevant isn't baffling and ridiculous to you?
No, it's not.
I should point out, though, that by official decree, anyone who denies papal authority is somewhere between "revisionist" and "apostate." You don't get to call yourself a baseball player if you disavow the existence of the infield fly rule.
What exactly are you referring to? Papal Infallibility for instance is a thing, but it's quite limited. So sure, if you reject the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception, then according to the rules of Catholicism, you can't be a Catholic. But beyond that, beyond these ex cathedra rulings, things are largely fair game, within the context that the Pope is still the Church's leader.
Which is to say, while at this point in time same-sex marriage might not be permitted, you're not an apostate for being for same-sex marriage in the Church.
posted by Dalby at 11:34 AM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
No, it's not.
I should point out, though, that by official decree, anyone who denies papal authority is somewhere between "revisionist" and "apostate." You don't get to call yourself a baseball player if you disavow the existence of the infield fly rule.
What exactly are you referring to? Papal Infallibility for instance is a thing, but it's quite limited. So sure, if you reject the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception, then according to the rules of Catholicism, you can't be a Catholic. But beyond that, beyond these ex cathedra rulings, things are largely fair game, within the context that the Pope is still the Church's leader.
Which is to say, while at this point in time same-sex marriage might not be permitted, you're not an apostate for being for same-sex marriage in the Church.
posted by Dalby at 11:34 AM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not saying that Luther was any kind of paragon, just that I am baffled at how many Catholics don't see leaving as an option. (I mean, I understand. I was raised Catholic, and many Catholics go to great lengths to build social worlds that don't include non-Catholics. It can seem like a cultural fait accompli. But instead of being a cafeteria Catholic, you can actually find a denomination that lines up with your beliefs and they will be happy to have you!)
posted by rikschell at 11:35 AM on April 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 11:35 AM on April 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
That so many would disagree with what their religion says is an abomination and yet continue to think that the institution is relevant isn't baffling and ridiculous to you?
My take- on the surface is would seem so. But Catholicism is also a culture and and identity as well as a religion, and not easily shed for some. For many their faith is about way more than what the people at the top are decreeing, and they don't care if that makes them "apostate".
It's like, you might not like what the president of Iran says, but you're still Persian. That is not really the perfect analogy, but it's the best I can think of now. And this is not to gloss over the Catholic church's hate. I agree with those calling that out.
posted by beau jackson at 11:36 AM on April 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
My take- on the surface is would seem so. But Catholicism is also a culture and and identity as well as a religion, and not easily shed for some. For many their faith is about way more than what the people at the top are decreeing, and they don't care if that makes them "apostate".
It's like, you might not like what the president of Iran says, but you're still Persian. That is not really the perfect analogy, but it's the best I can think of now. And this is not to gloss over the Catholic church's hate. I agree with those calling that out.
posted by beau jackson at 11:36 AM on April 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
As examples of how people are indoctrinated into still buying into the Church way past it making any sense to do so, these lines were delivered to me in Catholic School by the priest in charge of educating our young minds:
"There is a word for people who do not agree fully with the teachings of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. That word is Protestant." (this was delivered as an insult for those missing the nuance).
"The only wholly unforgiveable sin is doubting the Holy Spirit. One moment of doubt and your soul is damned to eternal Hell."
I was eight years old. I already knew that this org was not for me. For one thing, I had already doubted, so fuck it.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 11:39 AM on April 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
"There is a word for people who do not agree fully with the teachings of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church. That word is Protestant." (this was delivered as an insult for those missing the nuance).
"The only wholly unforgiveable sin is doubting the Holy Spirit. One moment of doubt and your soul is damned to eternal Hell."
I was eight years old. I already knew that this org was not for me. For one thing, I had already doubted, so fuck it.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 11:39 AM on April 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Fair enough, but when an institution that purports to be representative of it's follower's beliefs in fact runs counter to what they believe, that smacks of irrelevance.
I guess, under the assumption that the only reason someone can have for belonging to a Church is because it represents 100% of their beliefs.
Maybe, you know, the Catholic Church represents the majority of people's beliefs, and it's just a select few incredibly important beliefs but few in proportion, when it comes to same-sex marriage, and birth control, and the ordination of women, that are out of alignment. And maybe there's more to belonging to the Catholic Church than simply the politics of today, and maybe there's some spiritual matter about the Church that also makes being a member of it important.
posted by Dalby at 11:44 AM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I guess, under the assumption that the only reason someone can have for belonging to a Church is because it represents 100% of their beliefs.
Maybe, you know, the Catholic Church represents the majority of people's beliefs, and it's just a select few incredibly important beliefs but few in proportion, when it comes to same-sex marriage, and birth control, and the ordination of women, that are out of alignment. And maybe there's more to belonging to the Catholic Church than simply the politics of today, and maybe there's some spiritual matter about the Church that also makes being a member of it important.
posted by Dalby at 11:44 AM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's the standard "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of thing. The only difference with Francis is that he actually means love-love and not tough love like many others do. But it's still just a boxing glove over an incoming fist if you're on the receiving end.
rikschell:
posted by charred husk at 11:47 AM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
rikschell:
"Not saying that Luther was any kind of paragon, just that I am baffled at how many Catholics don't see leaving as an option. "The cultural aspect was already mentioned. Beyond that, if you believe in the woo, there's only one place you can go if you really believe in the transubstantiation. And for many, that's more important than statements from their "leader" in Rome whom they can ignore in many cases.
posted by charred husk at 11:47 AM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Couple comments removed; let's skip sarcastic-type framing of otherwise reasonable sentiments, it just sort of torpedoes things in an unnecessary way.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:49 AM on April 8, 2016
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:49 AM on April 8, 2016
maybe there's some spiritual matter about the Church that also makes being a member of it important
There are other places one can get spiritual assistance that don't come packaged with hate and discrimination. Personally, the hate and discrimination would taint any 'spiritual' benefit the institution could give me, but if some would place their personal spiritual well-being granted by membership of a particular institution over the pain and hurt that the institution causes to others, it's almost impossible to budge them from that position.
posted by dazed_one at 11:49 AM on April 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
There are other places one can get spiritual assistance that don't come packaged with hate and discrimination. Personally, the hate and discrimination would taint any 'spiritual' benefit the institution could give me, but if some would place their personal spiritual well-being granted by membership of a particular institution over the pain and hurt that the institution causes to others, it's almost impossible to budge them from that position.
posted by dazed_one at 11:49 AM on April 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
There are other places one can get spiritual assistance
Unless of course you believe the Catholic Church is the only legitimate church there is allowed to be because of historical and religious reasons, and that one's job is to therefore make it right rather than to leave.
posted by Dalby at 11:51 AM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Unless of course you believe the Catholic Church is the only legitimate church there is allowed to be because of historical and religious reasons, and that one's job is to therefore make it right rather than to leave.
posted by Dalby at 11:51 AM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think most religious people's beliefs go deeper than mere church doctrine. If the church says X but you disagree with that stance, it doesn't mean you're going to all of a sudden leave the church over that.
I think this is the point of fundamental disconnect for me. I completely understand that the importance of church in someone's life far exceeds the pew on Sundays, and that the church's role as a cultural and social institution is central to many people's lives. But I've made it a central tenet of my life to distance myself from groups whose views I disagree with. There is no institution with whom I associate that that I wouldn't drop like a sack of potatoes if its leadership came out with a statement like "yup, we'll allow the gays to worship and tithe, but they can't get married and P.S. trans people are a cancer." Even if I was surrounded by people with similar values to my own, who also pledged allegiance to this group despite not being transphobic or horrible, that would be the end. I'd bail on a political party, I'd disavow my alma mater, I would quit a job, I would stop talking to friends. Would it be unpleasant or difficult, and fill me with cognitive dissonance? Of course. But the cost of not being a terrible human being is not supporting people who encourage terrible things.
posted by Mayor West at 11:53 AM on April 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
I think this is the point of fundamental disconnect for me. I completely understand that the importance of church in someone's life far exceeds the pew on Sundays, and that the church's role as a cultural and social institution is central to many people's lives. But I've made it a central tenet of my life to distance myself from groups whose views I disagree with. There is no institution with whom I associate that that I wouldn't drop like a sack of potatoes if its leadership came out with a statement like "yup, we'll allow the gays to worship and tithe, but they can't get married and P.S. trans people are a cancer." Even if I was surrounded by people with similar values to my own, who also pledged allegiance to this group despite not being transphobic or horrible, that would be the end. I'd bail on a political party, I'd disavow my alma mater, I would quit a job, I would stop talking to friends. Would it be unpleasant or difficult, and fill me with cognitive dissonance? Of course. But the cost of not being a terrible human being is not supporting people who encourage terrible things.
posted by Mayor West at 11:53 AM on April 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
Pray tell, exactly how do the laity change the church other than voting with their feet? Neither the laity nor secular authorities have had much luck at bringing actual child rapists to justice so one wonders how, precisely, congregations are supposed to change the Church when part of the whole point is obeying the Pope?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:54 AM on April 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:54 AM on April 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
For any religious organization that attracts more than a handful of members, it is unlikely that a given person will ever agree 100% with its teachings, because the teachings themselves will have become a negotiated position reached by some sort of leadership cohort that leverages whatever bases of power are available within the organization.
In fact, that's pretty much true for any kind of organization you can think of, religious or not.
posted by AndrewInDC at 11:54 AM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
In fact, that's pretty much true for any kind of organization you can think of, religious or not.
posted by AndrewInDC at 11:54 AM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Pray tell, exactly how do the laity change the church other than voting with their feet?
Well, I'll tell you what's not going to make the Catholic Church more progressive: all the progressives leaving.
posted by Dalby at 11:58 AM on April 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
Well, I'll tell you what's not going to make the Catholic Church more progressive: all the progressives leaving.
posted by Dalby at 11:58 AM on April 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
"Mary Beth Maxwell, of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), said her group was disappointed by the document.
"“This was the culmination of two years of often contentious conversations by church leaders, deeply divided on their approach to LGBT people and our families,” said Maxwell, the HRC Foundation’s senior vice-president for programs, research and training. “In many ways, it’s not surprising that while he didn’t make more bold commitments to full inclusion that many people long for, it does seek to create a culture that’s more loving than judging.”"
posted by MonkeyToes at 11:59 AM on April 8, 2016
"“This was the culmination of two years of often contentious conversations by church leaders, deeply divided on their approach to LGBT people and our families,” said Maxwell, the HRC Foundation’s senior vice-president for programs, research and training. “In many ways, it’s not surprising that while he didn’t make more bold commitments to full inclusion that many people long for, it does seek to create a culture that’s more loving than judging.”"
posted by MonkeyToes at 11:59 AM on April 8, 2016
Sure, AndrewinDC. And the teachings of this church are hatred, discrimination, relegating us to second-class citizens... that's not a point of opinion on which reasonable people can disagree, it's an obscenity.
Well, I'll tell you what's not going to make the Catholic Church more progressive: all the progressives leaving.
That's not an answer to the question. How are the laity supposed to change the Church when they have no power?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:00 PM on April 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, I'll tell you what's not going to make the Catholic Church more progressive: all the progressives leaving.
That's not an answer to the question. How are the laity supposed to change the Church when they have no power?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:00 PM on April 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
That's not an answer to the question. How are the laity supposed to change the Church when they have no power?
It's a silly question to start with, and clearly one in bad faith.
posted by Dalby at 12:01 PM on April 8, 2016
It's a silly question to start with, and clearly one in bad faith.
posted by Dalby at 12:01 PM on April 8, 2016
Well, I'll tell you what's not going to make the Catholic Church more progressive: all the progressives leaving.
I disagree. The Catholic Church has power because of the number of people that call themselves Catholic. The less people, the less power.
posted by dazed_one at 12:01 PM on April 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
I disagree. The Catholic Church has power because of the number of people that call themselves Catholic. The less people, the less power.
posted by dazed_one at 12:01 PM on April 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
It's a silly question to start with, and clearly one in bad faith.
O RLY?
You said:
one's job is to therefore make it right rather than to leave
So. As someone in a congregation, how exactly is one to 'make it right' (by e.g. making the church stop treating us TBLG folks as disordered, unnatural, and second class)? How is that question silly or in bad faith when you raised the point in the first place?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:03 PM on April 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
O RLY?
You said:
one's job is to therefore make it right rather than to leave
So. As someone in a congregation, how exactly is one to 'make it right' (by e.g. making the church stop treating us TBLG folks as disordered, unnatural, and second class)? How is that question silly or in bad faith when you raised the point in the first place?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:03 PM on April 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Not saying that Luther was any kind of paragon, just that I am baffled at how many Catholics don't see leaving as an option.
You kind of address this, but I have at least one friend who returned to the Catholic Church after some years of being out because it made dealing with her family and childhood friends much much easier (and, if you are from RI, if you are going to ditch your family and childhood friends, you might as well leave the state). I find her decision a bit odd, given her politics, but I see that it's more difficult to leave than it was for me to abandon my sect.
I read an article a while back that suggested there was a kind of osmotic action where liberal Catholics were becoming Anglicans, while conservative Anglicans were shifting Catholic, but I have no idea if that is a real trend or not.
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:03 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
You kind of address this, but I have at least one friend who returned to the Catholic Church after some years of being out because it made dealing with her family and childhood friends much much easier (and, if you are from RI, if you are going to ditch your family and childhood friends, you might as well leave the state). I find her decision a bit odd, given her politics, but I see that it's more difficult to leave than it was for me to abandon my sect.
I read an article a while back that suggested there was a kind of osmotic action where liberal Catholics were becoming Anglicans, while conservative Anglicans were shifting Catholic, but I have no idea if that is a real trend or not.
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:03 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
My mother, with a gay brother (and yet to be realized gay son) converted from being a lifelong Anglican to Catholic when I was about 13, for reasons that have never been clear.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:05 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:05 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
As someone in a congregation, how exactly is one to 'make it right' (by e.g. making the church stop treating us TBLG folks as disordered, unnatural, and second class)? How is that question silly or in bad faith when you raised the point in the first place?
One makes it right simply by being a Catholic who is against that. Because societies become more progressive as time goes on, and naturally if progressives don't leave the Catholic Church en masse, then congregations will become more progressive, and the leadership positions in the Catholic Churches will be filled by progressives, so on and so on.
posted by Dalby at 12:06 PM on April 8, 2016
One makes it right simply by being a Catholic who is against that. Because societies become more progressive as time goes on, and naturally if progressives don't leave the Catholic Church en masse, then congregations will become more progressive, and the leadership positions in the Catholic Churches will be filled by progressives, so on and so on.
posted by Dalby at 12:06 PM on April 8, 2016
The whole point is that it's completely beside the point to condemn Catholics for staying in the Catholic Church, while they themselves are wishing just as much as anyone else for there to be progress and condemning the Church just as much.
posted by Dalby at 12:07 PM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Dalby at 12:07 PM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Pray tell, exactly how do the laity change the church other than voting with their feet?
I think it's a good question. Here are some thought from a non-expert: It seems to me that this document could be the pope's attempt to steer the church more towards what progressive Catholics are expecting, opening up a few cracks, while still basically toeing the conservative line. If the church was fun of hard-liners, we'd probably see a much different document.
And some of the church's institutions like some of the great American nuns also seem to be kind of vanguards of the good that the church could represent, and catholics around them might represent a supportive community that makes the work possible. That is to say, maybe there is something of a bottom-up change happening? Maybe through communities like the Catholic worker as well? Though admittedly it would be a pretty soft power... (edit: as in, weak).
It's an interesting question because I grew up in a Baptist church, where the people are supposed to have the power, by design. But orthodoxy is still enforced, mostly through peer-pressure and shaming rather than formal hierarchy.
posted by beau jackson at 12:08 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sure, AndrewinDC. And the teachings of this church are hatred, discrimination, relegating us to second-class citizens... that's not a point of opinion on which reasonable people can disagree, it's an obscenity.
That's the potential impact of one of its views. As noted earlier, these things play out differently in different parts of the world. Which leads me to...
So. As someone in a congregation, how exactly is one to 'make it right' (by e.g. making the church stop treating us TBLG folks as disordered, unnatural, and second class)?
In my experience, your responsibility is to do what you can within your parish. The reason why Catholic parishes in the United States are generally more liberal than elsewhere is in large part a function of what the laity want to see in our communities. This eventually has the effect of influencing the kind of leaders who rise to the top in the Church hierarchy. It's a slow process, but it's how the organization works, in practice.
posted by AndrewInDC at 12:09 PM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's the potential impact of one of its views. As noted earlier, these things play out differently in different parts of the world. Which leads me to...
So. As someone in a congregation, how exactly is one to 'make it right' (by e.g. making the church stop treating us TBLG folks as disordered, unnatural, and second class)?
In my experience, your responsibility is to do what you can within your parish. The reason why Catholic parishes in the United States are generally more liberal than elsewhere is in large part a function of what the laity want to see in our communities. This eventually has the effect of influencing the kind of leaders who rise to the top in the Church hierarchy. It's a slow process, but it's how the organization works, in practice.
posted by AndrewInDC at 12:09 PM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
One makes it right simply by being a Catholic who is against that. Because societies become more progressive as time goes on, and naturally if progressives don't leave the Catholic Church en masse, then congregations will become more progressive, and the leadership positions in the Catholic Churches will be filled by progressives, so on and so on.
oh okay us queer folks just have to be patient about being recognized as human beings by the single largest institution on the planet.
The whole point is that it's completely wrong to condemn Catholics for staying in the Catholic Church, while they themselves are wishing just as much as anyone else for there to be progress and condemning the Church just as much.
Nah. In the mid-20th century we rejected, as a society, "I was just following orders." Supporting a corrupt institution is supporting what that corrupt institution does, even if you are speaking out against it.
Again, Matthew 12:30. Not with us = against us. And since congregations actually have no power except over actual centuries to make change... how long did it take to take back Galileo's heresy again? Do forgive me, won't you, if I'm not really into the idea that maybe in 300 years the church might start thinking many of my friends aren't actually like nuclear holocaust.
That's the potential impact of one of its views.
No. That is the actual stated view. Trans people are unnatural and equated with nuclear holocaust. Lesbian and gay (and bi...) people getting married isn't equal to straight people getting married. That is hateful and bigoted on its face and there's no whitewashing that gets around that fact.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:14 PM on April 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
oh okay us queer folks just have to be patient about being recognized as human beings by the single largest institution on the planet.
The whole point is that it's completely wrong to condemn Catholics for staying in the Catholic Church, while they themselves are wishing just as much as anyone else for there to be progress and condemning the Church just as much.
Nah. In the mid-20th century we rejected, as a society, "I was just following orders." Supporting a corrupt institution is supporting what that corrupt institution does, even if you are speaking out against it.
Again, Matthew 12:30. Not with us = against us. And since congregations actually have no power except over actual centuries to make change... how long did it take to take back Galileo's heresy again? Do forgive me, won't you, if I'm not really into the idea that maybe in 300 years the church might start thinking many of my friends aren't actually like nuclear holocaust.
That's the potential impact of one of its views.
No. That is the actual stated view. Trans people are unnatural and equated with nuclear holocaust. Lesbian and gay (and bi...) people getting married isn't equal to straight people getting married. That is hateful and bigoted on its face and there's no whitewashing that gets around that fact.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:14 PM on April 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
> Or encourage them to confine their criticism to the statement and not to the entirety of the institution?
It's literally a statement from the institution. It couldn't be more institutional if it tried. If it's not supposed to represent the entirety of the institution, then it would be not coming from the Vatican.
posted by rtha at 12:15 PM on April 8, 2016 [9 favorites]
It's literally a statement from the institution. It couldn't be more institutional if it tried. If it's not supposed to represent the entirety of the institution, then it would be not coming from the Vatican.
posted by rtha at 12:15 PM on April 8, 2016 [9 favorites]
oh okay us queer folks just have to be patient about being recognized as human beings by the single largest institution on the planet.
Literally no one has either said or implied that.
Supporting a corrupt institution is supporting what that corrupt institution does, even if you are speaking out against it.
By that logic all Americans support current United States foreign policy even if they speak out and vote against it, because they still support the United States.
posted by Dalby at 12:17 PM on April 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Literally no one has either said or implied that.
Supporting a corrupt institution is supporting what that corrupt institution does, even if you are speaking out against it.
By that logic all Americans support current United States foreign policy even if they speak out and vote against it, because they still support the United States.
posted by Dalby at 12:17 PM on April 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
One other thing to consider is that while progressive Catholic adults are indeed free to leave the church, where does that leave the young gay Catholic kid for whom leaving is not yet an option? They'll be left with no one in their corner whatsoever. I might have shaken my head at the tone argument and #notallcatholics derail this post took, but I also don't automatically judge any Catholic who chooses to stay.
I felt the same way when the Mormon church came out with their horrible new policy last year re: excluding children of same-sex couples. Someone needs to stick around to go to bat for our most vulnerable members.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 12:18 PM on April 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
I felt the same way when the Mormon church came out with their horrible new policy last year re: excluding children of same-sex couples. Someone needs to stick around to go to bat for our most vulnerable members.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 12:18 PM on April 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Nope, because in actual real world terms it's pretty hard to immigrate to other countries. It's not hard, on a practical level, to stop supporting the church.
Literally no one has either said or implied that.
You did, actually. By saying over time it'll get more progressive.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:19 PM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Literally no one has either said or implied that.
You did, actually. By saying over time it'll get more progressive.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:19 PM on April 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
By that logic all Americans support current United States foreign policy even if they speak out and vote against it
This is a not good analogy. You do not get to choose where you are born. It is not easy to emigrate, and at least the USA gives you some input into how institutions are run.
I understand that Catholics do not all subscribe to everything the Church preaches. But they do belong to and support an organization that discriminates against LGBT people. Justify it however you want, but I can't see how there's any getting around that.
posted by Hoopo at 12:22 PM on April 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's not hard, on a practical level, to stop supporting the church.
If you are a Christian, who believes in the Catholic Church's unique legitimacy, then it's pretty hard to stop supporting the Church.
You did, actually. By saying over time it'll get more progressive.
Yes, I did, and those are completely two different statements without any logical relationship.
posted by Dalby at 12:23 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
If you are a Christian, who believes in the Catholic Church's unique legitimacy, then it's pretty hard to stop supporting the Church.
You did, actually. By saying over time it'll get more progressive.
Yes, I did, and those are completely two different statements without any logical relationship.
posted by Dalby at 12:23 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
No dude, they really aren't. The only way for me and people like me, and my trans friends, to be recognized as fully human beings by the church is for the progressives to take over. You said that'll happen slowly over time. Ergo, we just have to be patient. That is literally the only conclusion that can be drawn from your statements, and pretending otherwise doesn't change that.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:25 PM on April 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:25 PM on April 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
The only way for me and people like me, and my trans friends, to be recognized as fully human beings by the church is for the progressives to take over. You said that'll happen slowly over time. Ergo, we just have to be patient.
I never said you can't criticize the Church now. I never said you're not right to demand to be recognized as fully human beings by the Church right this instant.
All I've said is that it's unfair to criticize practicing Catholics who want the exact same things you do, just as fast as you do.
posted by Dalby at 12:27 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I never said you can't criticize the Church now. I never said you're not right to demand to be recognized as fully human beings by the Church right this instant.
All I've said is that it's unfair to criticize practicing Catholics who want the exact same things you do, just as fast as you do.
posted by Dalby at 12:27 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
If they don't want human equality as fast as I do they are not my allies and I can criticize them until the cows come home.
If anyone doesn't demand equality for all humans right now they are not my allies.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:28 PM on April 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
If anyone doesn't demand equality for all humans right now they are not my allies.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:28 PM on April 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
You don't think there aren't trans-Catholics who want to see the Church changed just as much, if not more, than you?
posted by Dalby at 12:28 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Dalby at 12:28 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
If they don't want human equality as fast as I do they are not my allies and I can criticize them until the cows come home.
If anyone doesn't demand equality for all humans right now they are not my allies.
And nothing I've said or argued for is against this.
posted by Dalby at 12:29 PM on April 8, 2016
If anyone doesn't demand equality for all humans right now they are not my allies.
And nothing I've said or argued for is against this.
posted by Dalby at 12:29 PM on April 8, 2016
Yes, actually, when you said it's unfair for me to criticize. That is what you said. The actual words you typed.
It is absolutely 100% fair for me to criticize anyone who insists on supporting an institution that does not recognize me as fully human.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:30 PM on April 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
It is absolutely 100% fair for me to criticize anyone who insists on supporting an institution that does not recognize me as fully human.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:30 PM on April 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
It seems, FFFM, that Dalby's idea of how best to change the Catholic Church differs from yours because of experience, connection to family friends, etc. Maybe he's right, maybe he's not. However, you both have common goals, and shaming him for his sincere choice isn't likely to make them happen any faster. Your point has been made. Time to let the thread move on, perhaps.
posted by haiku warrior at 12:33 PM on April 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by haiku warrior at 12:33 PM on April 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Dalby, I used "he." I apologize if that is the incorrect gender.
posted by haiku warrior at 12:35 PM on April 8, 2016
posted by haiku warrior at 12:35 PM on April 8, 2016
For the record, I'm not even a Catholic. But yes, time to move on indeed.
posted by Dalby at 12:35 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Dalby at 12:35 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
This thread is evidence that this pope's brand of outreach just doesn't work anymore. There was a period, perhaps in the '60s through the late '80s, where the sort of wink-and-nod dissent, the Jesuits in street clothes laughing off church teaching on television, the soft-peddling of "hard sayings," worked.
But the world has changed too much---as described by someone above, simply hearing the Catholic Church say the same things she's always said, just maybe said in a different way, is ultimately still a boxing glove over a fist for those who've left those teachings far behind. Now, long after the '60s through '80s generation has had its own children, if you're not immediately and 100% a totally on board LGBT ally, you're an enemy. You're with us or you're against us. Matthew chapter 10, indeed. Just being "cool" and "not a preachy asshole" doesn't cut it anymore.
I feel for people still caught in between camps, trying valiantly to hold the "extremes" together. I don't know what the answer is. These days you really have to choose or hide who you are. But expecting the Catholic Church to reverse her teachings on integral Christian and anthropological realities like marriage, sexuality, natural law, etc., is just as unrealistic as expecting the sexual revolution suddenly to reverse course.
posted by resurrexit at 12:46 PM on April 8, 2016
But the world has changed too much---as described by someone above, simply hearing the Catholic Church say the same things she's always said, just maybe said in a different way, is ultimately still a boxing glove over a fist for those who've left those teachings far behind. Now, long after the '60s through '80s generation has had its own children, if you're not immediately and 100% a totally on board LGBT ally, you're an enemy. You're with us or you're against us. Matthew chapter 10, indeed. Just being "cool" and "not a preachy asshole" doesn't cut it anymore.
I feel for people still caught in between camps, trying valiantly to hold the "extremes" together. I don't know what the answer is. These days you really have to choose or hide who you are. But expecting the Catholic Church to reverse her teachings on integral Christian and anthropological realities like marriage, sexuality, natural law, etc., is just as unrealistic as expecting the sexual revolution suddenly to reverse course.
posted by resurrexit at 12:46 PM on April 8, 2016
Mod note: fffm et al: this does need to be a positions stated, let it drop sort of thing at this point.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:47 PM on April 8, 2016
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:47 PM on April 8, 2016
integral Christian and anthropological realities like marriage, sexuality, natural law, etc
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:49 PM on April 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:49 PM on April 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
Catholicism is also a culture and and identity as well as a religion, and not easily shed for some.
I have referred to my leaving the Church as "the most brutal breakup I've ever had."
It was brutal because it was very isolating. My non-Catholic spouse and non-Catholic friends took the "it's about time!" approach and couldn't understand why I was grieving, much less what I was grieving. My Catholic relatives and Catholic friends censured my character or debated my choices. I felt disrespected by everyone, on all sides.
My heart goes out to any and all people struggling to reconcile their individual conscience against the institutional and social scaffolding that helped create that conscience.
posted by sobell at 12:53 PM on April 8, 2016 [24 favorites]
I have referred to my leaving the Church as "the most brutal breakup I've ever had."
It was brutal because it was very isolating. My non-Catholic spouse and non-Catholic friends took the "it's about time!" approach and couldn't understand why I was grieving, much less what I was grieving. My Catholic relatives and Catholic friends censured my character or debated my choices. I felt disrespected by everyone, on all sides.
My heart goes out to any and all people struggling to reconcile their individual conscience against the institutional and social scaffolding that helped create that conscience.
posted by sobell at 12:53 PM on April 8, 2016 [24 favorites]
But expecting the Catholic Church to reverse her teachings on integral Christian and anthropological realities like marriage, sexuality, natural law, etc., is just as unrealistic as expecting the sexual revolution suddenly to reverse course.
and
"Let's think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings, Let's think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation.
"With this attitude, man commits a new sin, that against God the Creator. The true custody of creation does not have anything to do with the ideologies that consider man like an accident, like a problem to eliminate.
"God has placed man and woman and the summit of creation and has entrusted them with the earth. The design of the Creator is written in nature."
The presumption that the Church is defending "the natural order of things" is just as offensive as comparing a transgender person to a nuclear explosion. Science has been telling us for decades that gender fluidity and sexual fluidity are naturally occurring across a host of species. This man/woman-duality sanctity-of-marriage crap is a cultural invention, not a scientific or natural one.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:55 PM on April 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
and
"Let's think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings, Let's think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation.
"With this attitude, man commits a new sin, that against God the Creator. The true custody of creation does not have anything to do with the ideologies that consider man like an accident, like a problem to eliminate.
"God has placed man and woman and the summit of creation and has entrusted them with the earth. The design of the Creator is written in nature."
The presumption that the Church is defending "the natural order of things" is just as offensive as comparing a transgender person to a nuclear explosion. Science has been telling us for decades that gender fluidity and sexual fluidity are naturally occurring across a host of species. This man/woman-duality sanctity-of-marriage crap is a cultural invention, not a scientific or natural one.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:55 PM on April 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
I'm not sure about the idea that a Catholic would have to leave the church or they're essentially supporting/agreeing with this statement. In the past I've definitely put forth this idea (sometimes quite aggressively, see past MeFi comments), but have reined it in significantly lately. Not sure exactly why, but it's probably due to talking with and reading things from people with progressive views who belong to a church, temple, mosque, etc with leadership that is socially regressive, often repugnantly. Being non-religious for essentially my whole life has made it hard to put myself in their shoes. Maybe I should be more forceful on it, I don't know (my privilege is what gives me the option here, I guess).
posted by ODiV at 12:58 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ODiV at 12:58 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'll be happy to wait for evolved church policy when the church stops influencing laws that govern and institutions that serve non-Catholics.
posted by Orange Dinosaur Slide at 1:05 PM on April 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by Orange Dinosaur Slide at 1:05 PM on April 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
Wow, I had assumed that was a quote from the Pope's statement.
posted by ODiV at 1:13 PM on April 8, 2016
posted by ODiV at 1:13 PM on April 8, 2016
Read it as "perceived" or "apparent" then. Gosh.
posted by resurrexit at 1:16 PM on April 8, 2016
posted by resurrexit at 1:16 PM on April 8, 2016
After dwelling over things, it's probably not even best to rely on the unique religious function of the Catholic Church for some Christians.
The Boy Scouts for the longest time, and still to this day, suffers from various forms of discrimination. I'm thankful for all those who remained in the Boy Scouts, which would have remained around even if there had been an exodus by progressives, and made things safe for those of us who remained. And now, there's been some progress. There's still more to go admittedly, but I can't fathom someone criticizing those souls who stayed within the Boy Scouts and did the best they could whenever they could on the local and national level.
So to try to summarize, whatever institution is in question, is going to stick around regardless. There is value in (1) sticking around to help those who remain, (2) sticking around to help change things, because why should *we* be the ones to leave, and not the others ones, especially when, (3) the institution in question is the one in possession of the mass of resources and influence, why not try to take over that institution and wield it for good when some splinter group won't be able to do as much?
Perhaps instead of dropping at the sound of a nail when disagreement occurs, perhaps there's reason to instead stay and battle things out.
posted by Dalby at 1:17 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Boy Scouts for the longest time, and still to this day, suffers from various forms of discrimination. I'm thankful for all those who remained in the Boy Scouts, which would have remained around even if there had been an exodus by progressives, and made things safe for those of us who remained. And now, there's been some progress. There's still more to go admittedly, but I can't fathom someone criticizing those souls who stayed within the Boy Scouts and did the best they could whenever they could on the local and national level.
So to try to summarize, whatever institution is in question, is going to stick around regardless. There is value in (1) sticking around to help those who remain, (2) sticking around to help change things, because why should *we* be the ones to leave, and not the others ones, especially when, (3) the institution in question is the one in possession of the mass of resources and influence, why not try to take over that institution and wield it for good when some splinter group won't be able to do as much?
Perhaps instead of dropping at the sound of a nail when disagreement occurs, perhaps there's reason to instead stay and battle things out.
posted by Dalby at 1:17 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Read it as "perceived" or "apparent" then.
That doesn't make it any better.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:18 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
That doesn't make it any better.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:18 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm still confused as to how Catholics should try to influence the institution beyond their own churches. How? Letters? What does the Pope/Vatican listen to?
posted by agregoli at 1:19 PM on April 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 1:19 PM on April 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Uh because the actual people in the actual Boy Scouts can effect change which is totally different just ugggggh
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:19 PM on April 8, 2016
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:19 PM on April 8, 2016
What does the Pope/Vatican listen to?
God, allegedly, who is apparently a total jerk on the issue.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:20 PM on April 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
God, allegedly, who is apparently a total jerk on the issue.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:20 PM on April 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm still confused as to how Catholics should try to influence the institution beyond their own churches.
Where do you think Church authorities come from? The Pope, and its Cardinals. They're not plucked out of a magical kingdom of Catholic Orthodoxy. They come from diverse communities of varying degrees of progressiveness.
posted by Dalby at 1:22 PM on April 8, 2016
Where do you think Church authorities come from? The Pope, and its Cardinals. They're not plucked out of a magical kingdom of Catholic Orthodoxy. They come from diverse communities of varying degrees of progressiveness.
posted by Dalby at 1:22 PM on April 8, 2016
How does that answer the question?
posted by agregoli at 1:25 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by agregoli at 1:25 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure about the idea that a Catholic would have to leave the church or they're essentially supporting/agreeing with this statement.
The thing is, though, that if you're a Catholic, and you participate in Church life--you volunteer at the church, you participate in your church's fundraising activities, you put your tithe in the collection plate--you're actively and materially contributing to the ongoing oppression of people. Maybe you even got real lucky and have one of those rare churches where the local priests are a bit more welcoming--I was raised Catholic; I'm aware that it could happen. But even if your particular church is nothing but supportive and fully embraces the queer and the trans, you're still supporting an institution that says that we're less than human. And that's a hurtful thing that you, personally, are doing, even if you're the nice kind of Catholic who disagrees with the Church about a bunch of things that it sees as integral parts of your faith.
Read it as "perceived" or "apparent" then. Gosh.
In a thread where a bunch of hurting people are being tone policed, expressing frustration that your statements weren't read more generously seems pretty entitled.
posted by mishafletch at 1:26 PM on April 8, 2016 [19 favorites]
The thing is, though, that if you're a Catholic, and you participate in Church life--you volunteer at the church, you participate in your church's fundraising activities, you put your tithe in the collection plate--you're actively and materially contributing to the ongoing oppression of people. Maybe you even got real lucky and have one of those rare churches where the local priests are a bit more welcoming--I was raised Catholic; I'm aware that it could happen. But even if your particular church is nothing but supportive and fully embraces the queer and the trans, you're still supporting an institution that says that we're less than human. And that's a hurtful thing that you, personally, are doing, even if you're the nice kind of Catholic who disagrees with the Church about a bunch of things that it sees as integral parts of your faith.
Read it as "perceived" or "apparent" then. Gosh.
In a thread where a bunch of hurting people are being tone policed, expressing frustration that your statements weren't read more generously seems pretty entitled.
posted by mishafletch at 1:26 PM on April 8, 2016 [19 favorites]
I'm not being fighty, just....it DOES seem lile the answer is, make your community great and inclusive and just...wait?
posted by agregoli at 1:26 PM on April 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 1:26 PM on April 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
As for why more Catholics don't leave, I'd say that for a great many people it winds up being something like Dalby said:
Maybe, you know, the Catholic Church represents the majority of people's beliefs, and it's just a select few incredibly important beliefs but few in proportion, when it comes to same-sex marriage, and birth control, and the ordination of women, that are out of alignment.
For those not directly impacted by the hate, it is easy to simply brush it aside, it is easy to reduce it to a list of "things I agree with" vs "things I disagree with" and decide that on the whole there are more items in the first list so it really isn't that big a deal. Or maybe its a theoretical kind of big deal, but nothing worth leaving the Church over.
To those who are directly impacted, or who have less emotional investment with the Church, this viewpoint seems, at absolute best, callous and at worst it seems deliberately cruel.
So there's a tendency of people on opposite sides of this to talk past each other. To those who are either not Catholic, or who are Catholic and either directly hurt by the Church's position, the position of the Church is seen as irredeemable, not a simple matter of academic disagreement where reasonable people of good will can shake hands and get along despite things. To the people on the pro-civil rights side the position of the Church is huge, one that can't be overlooked or worked around. It is as big a deal as murder, or rape, or genocide to people on that side.
While to people on the other side it's merely one point of disagreement, perhaps bad, but nothing significant enough to merit severing ties with the Church over.
To the second sort of person the vocal, angry, objections seem out of place, rude, divisive. To the first sort of person calling the message of the Church hateful seems both accurate and restrained. To the second sort of person, the first sort is over reacting and being uncivil in an environment where civility is sorely needed. Because to the second sort of person it just isn't a big deal.
I'd ask the second sort of person to try and see it from the standpoint of the first sort. This isn't just a matter of airy academic debate, it is a matter that is directly and often personally harmful and hateful. It isn't just one point of disagreement among a number of equally important and valid points, it is an existential matter. The position of the Church is, to the people taking the first viewpoint, a direct attack on the very core of their being, a denial of the essential humanity of either themselves or people they care about. Is it any wonder that to people who see it from that lens, the Church seems hateful and the position of those who stand by it seems baffling and like a betrayal?
posted by sotonohito at 1:27 PM on April 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
Maybe, you know, the Catholic Church represents the majority of people's beliefs, and it's just a select few incredibly important beliefs but few in proportion, when it comes to same-sex marriage, and birth control, and the ordination of women, that are out of alignment.
For those not directly impacted by the hate, it is easy to simply brush it aside, it is easy to reduce it to a list of "things I agree with" vs "things I disagree with" and decide that on the whole there are more items in the first list so it really isn't that big a deal. Or maybe its a theoretical kind of big deal, but nothing worth leaving the Church over.
To those who are directly impacted, or who have less emotional investment with the Church, this viewpoint seems, at absolute best, callous and at worst it seems deliberately cruel.
So there's a tendency of people on opposite sides of this to talk past each other. To those who are either not Catholic, or who are Catholic and either directly hurt by the Church's position, the position of the Church is seen as irredeemable, not a simple matter of academic disagreement where reasonable people of good will can shake hands and get along despite things. To the people on the pro-civil rights side the position of the Church is huge, one that can't be overlooked or worked around. It is as big a deal as murder, or rape, or genocide to people on that side.
While to people on the other side it's merely one point of disagreement, perhaps bad, but nothing significant enough to merit severing ties with the Church over.
To the second sort of person the vocal, angry, objections seem out of place, rude, divisive. To the first sort of person calling the message of the Church hateful seems both accurate and restrained. To the second sort of person, the first sort is over reacting and being uncivil in an environment where civility is sorely needed. Because to the second sort of person it just isn't a big deal.
I'd ask the second sort of person to try and see it from the standpoint of the first sort. This isn't just a matter of airy academic debate, it is a matter that is directly and often personally harmful and hateful. It isn't just one point of disagreement among a number of equally important and valid points, it is an existential matter. The position of the Church is, to the people taking the first viewpoint, a direct attack on the very core of their being, a denial of the essential humanity of either themselves or people they care about. Is it any wonder that to people who see it from that lens, the Church seems hateful and the position of those who stand by it seems baffling and like a betrayal?
posted by sotonohito at 1:27 PM on April 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
Where do you think Church authorities come from? The Pope, and its Cardinals. They're not plucked out of a magical kingdom of Catholic Orthodoxy. They come from diverse communities of varying degrees of progressiveness.
They kind of are plucked out of a magical kingdom of Catholic Orthodoxy. People in any system will tend to select people who think like themselves to promote, because they think they're right. Heterodox priests tend not to become heterodox bishops tend not to become heterodox cardinals etc.
posted by Etrigan at 1:29 PM on April 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
They kind of are plucked out of a magical kingdom of Catholic Orthodoxy. People in any system will tend to select people who think like themselves to promote, because they think they're right. Heterodox priests tend not to become heterodox bishops tend not to become heterodox cardinals etc.
posted by Etrigan at 1:29 PM on April 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
In other words, Matthew 12:30.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:31 PM on April 8, 2016
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:31 PM on April 8, 2016
GenjiandProust: Despite the Church's claims, Catholics are a remarkably heterogeneous bunch of people, much more so than smaller, newer sects.
You don't say - the Catholic Church has a strong presence around the world, with some countries hewing to very conservative views, but in the US, Catholics Are More Progressive Than The Vatican, And Almost Everyone Else (as of October 2014). Looking more broadly,
posted by filthy light thief at 1:32 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
You don't say - the Catholic Church has a strong presence around the world, with some countries hewing to very conservative views, but in the US, Catholics Are More Progressive Than The Vatican, And Almost Everyone Else (as of October 2014). Looking more broadly,
Most Catholics worldwide disagree with church teachings on divorce, abortion and contraception and are split on whether women and married men should become priests, according to a large new poll released Sunday (Feb 8, 2014) and commissioned by the U.S. Spanish-language network Univision. On the topic of gay marriage, two-thirds of Catholics polled agree with church leaders.So Pope Francis is moving the official Church in the right direction, but behind its followers.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:32 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Comment removed; if you're responding to criticism from trans folks with, essentially, "yeah but there are Catholic trans people" dismissals we're into what feels like you-should-drop-it-now territory.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:47 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:47 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
The funny thing is, these lines from Mayor West:
/Warning: I'm not a Christian, just a curious consumer of Western Culture.
posted by benito.strauss at 2:00 PM on April 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
There is no institution with whom I associate that that I wouldn't drop like a sack of potatoes if its leadership came out with a statement like "yup, we'll allow the gays to worship and tithe, but they can't get married and P.S. trans people are a cancer." Even if I was surrounded by people with similar values to my own, who also pledged allegiance to this group despite not being transphobic or horrible, that would be the end. I'd bail on a political party, I'd disavow my alma mater, I would quit a job, I would stop talking to friends. ...remind me the most of Jesus.
/Warning: I'm not a Christian, just a curious consumer of Western Culture.
posted by benito.strauss at 2:00 PM on April 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
But even if your particular church is nothing but supportive and fully embraces the queer and the trans, you're still supporting an institution that says that we're less than human. And that's a hurtful thing that you, personally, are doing, even if you're the nice kind of Catholic who disagrees with the Church about a bunch of things that it sees as integral parts of your faith
I think this, along with sotonohito's comment above, really parses reality and the evolution of thought on these issues quite well. I don't get people who are sitting on the fence these days claiming to be "moderate"; 20, 30 years ago, sure. It used to be that both sides recognized that "your right to swing your fist around ends at my face"; now, both parties claim a right to "you come here and smash your face into my fist."
There's no middle ground that hasn't been thoroughly explored---and rejected---as the irreconcilable nature of this conflict has revealed itself.
posted by resurrexit at 2:05 PM on April 8, 2016
I think this, along with sotonohito's comment above, really parses reality and the evolution of thought on these issues quite well. I don't get people who are sitting on the fence these days claiming to be "moderate"; 20, 30 years ago, sure. It used to be that both sides recognized that "your right to swing your fist around ends at my face"; now, both parties claim a right to "you come here and smash your face into my fist."
There's no middle ground that hasn't been thoroughly explored---and rejected---as the irreconcilable nature of this conflict has revealed itself.
posted by resurrexit at 2:05 PM on April 8, 2016
People who chose to comment on-line are not a good representative of the views of most of the population.
Also, my view of the last 30-40 years is that there was always a lot of punching, but most of it went one way. I'm one of those who will try to find sympathy with multiple sides of an argument, but the change that I've seen over the last 20 year is that people have started punching back.
posted by benito.strauss at 2:16 PM on April 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
Also, my view of the last 30-40 years is that there was always a lot of punching, but most of it went one way. I'm one of those who will try to find sympathy with multiple sides of an argument, but the change that I've seen over the last 20 year is that people have started punching back.
posted by benito.strauss at 2:16 PM on April 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
now, both parties claim a right to "you come here and smash your face into my fist."
No, that's a ridiculous false equivalency. It is "you have to stop punching us now" and your side saying "stop bashing your face into my fist," actually.
There's no middle ground that hasn't been thoroughly explored---and rejected---as the irreconcilable nature of this conflict has revealed itself.
That's because there is no middle ground between "we demand full equality" and "no you can't have it."
Equality is 100% or it is not equal. There's no 'negotiation,' there's no 'middle ground.' I am either a full human being deserving of the same rights, treatment, and dignity that you are or I am not.
benito-strauss nails it. Punching back is not the same damn thing as being punched in the first place.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:32 PM on April 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
No, that's a ridiculous false equivalency. It is "you have to stop punching us now" and your side saying "stop bashing your face into my fist," actually.
There's no middle ground that hasn't been thoroughly explored---and rejected---as the irreconcilable nature of this conflict has revealed itself.
That's because there is no middle ground between "we demand full equality" and "no you can't have it."
Equality is 100% or it is not equal. There's no 'negotiation,' there's no 'middle ground.' I am either a full human being deserving of the same rights, treatment, and dignity that you are or I am not.
benito-strauss nails it. Punching back is not the same damn thing as being punched in the first place.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:32 PM on April 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
I will also add that I found it only moderately amusing that a document titled "Joy of Love" was so vague, and bland, and seemingly joyless and loveless.
But I do find a bitter humor in the way that "Joy of Love" has shown so clearly the hate the Church and its supporters bear for GLBT people. The Joy of Love is apparently meant only for straight people, for everyone else there is the other thing.
posted by sotonohito at 2:35 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
But I do find a bitter humor in the way that "Joy of Love" has shown so clearly the hate the Church and its supporters bear for GLBT people. The Joy of Love is apparently meant only for straight people, for everyone else there is the other thing.
posted by sotonohito at 2:35 PM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Would you have said there's some middle ground to be found between black people being segregated and being legally equal?
No?
Then don't even bother with the tiresome argument that this is somehow different. We don't choose to be the way we are (not that it would matter anyway). Nobody would choose a life where we have to hear such garbage about us being 'unnatural' and unequal.
Civil rights are civil rights are civil rights. They are either 100% or they are nonexistent, and as odinsdream said above, we will keep yelling and screaming until you and everyone who agrees with you accedes, because literally no other outcome is acceptable. We. Must. Be. Treated. Equally. This is not a philosophical point on which people may disagree, this is literally life or death, it is our dignity and our happiness and our right to live our lives the same way you live yours.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:36 PM on April 8, 2016 [15 favorites]
No?
Then don't even bother with the tiresome argument that this is somehow different. We don't choose to be the way we are (not that it would matter anyway). Nobody would choose a life where we have to hear such garbage about us being 'unnatural' and unequal.
Civil rights are civil rights are civil rights. They are either 100% or they are nonexistent, and as odinsdream said above, we will keep yelling and screaming until you and everyone who agrees with you accedes, because literally no other outcome is acceptable. We. Must. Be. Treated. Equally. This is not a philosophical point on which people may disagree, this is literally life or death, it is our dignity and our happiness and our right to live our lives the same way you live yours.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:36 PM on April 8, 2016 [15 favorites]
I undertook a fair bit of research into the life of the multi-murderer Dr. Henry H. Holmes for my recent novel. Along with killing twenty or more people, he was a polygamist married to four women at the same time who were unaware of each other. He killed one of his wives. After his crimes were discovered and he was executed, he was buried in a Catholic consecrated cemetery because, you know, he never divorced. Murder could be forgiven. Divorce was living in sin.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 2:52 PM on April 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 2:52 PM on April 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
I wonder when the obligation to move/elope kicks in. Like, what is the equation of 'limited/lack of ability to promote change'+'difficulty of leaving' that = appropriate to stay and do your best from where you are, and how much effort one would have to put into the task of leaving.
Like, when the first few states started having civil unions, should anybody in other states who supported civil rights have at least begun job searching in those states? What if they found a good job, but it meant moving away from their family? What if their family included interdependence for proximity things like childcare and eldercare? Or does the more aspirationally democratic nature of American states mean that it is never an obligation to seek to move? Or maybe even that there is positive value in staying and fighting to liberalize where you are?
I'm thinking of the boycotts of NC based on the 'bathroom law'. Part of me cheers and part of me hopes that the companies that are boycotting are somehow pairing that with funneling support to the people living in NC who have defensible reasons for not moving (whatever would count as defensible) and who are working for progress?
By definition, it is the most independent - financially, physically, emotionally mobile - members of a group who can choose to leave. Those are usually also the people who might be able to exercise a disproportionate amount of power within the group, due to the same advantages that make them mobile.
I think there is a big spectrum in the process of change from something like the extremely hierarchical and old etc Catholic church and a purportedly democratic American state. But... it is a spectrum and not a hard line. Pulling towards progressive values happens both by the experienced loss of the people who walk away and the by the people who stay.
I personally have pretty little tolerance for keeping an affiliation that is not committed egalitarian. But I have some tolerance.
I have dual US-Canadian citizenship but I moved away from Canada to the US during a time where same sex marriage was already the law in Canada but not in the US, and without exploring every single avenue that could have permitted me to advance my journey in Canada.
My only explicit, self-identified religious affiliations, such as they are, are with Jewish groups committed to egalitarianism. But I have studied (as an adult, by choice) at schools that were not, and I have donated money to organizations that advance women's rabbinic leadership in Orthodox Judaism. And I have not done the same to organizations like that in Catholicism or Islam not because I think think they're any less important but because on some level my sense of being Jewish includes the feeling of connection to Orthodox Jews who have sometimes very different perspectives on egalitarianism than I do. I could choose to carefully avoid acting on that feeling though I'd still have to decide on the extent. Not going to restaurants with orthodox kosher certification? Actively looking for brands of groceries that are not heckshered? (From a very quick perusal, my Bustelo coffee, my Skippy peanut butter, and my Domino sugar all happen have heckshers).
I am concerned about this seeming as treating this question too much like an academic exercise. To some extent for me, it is and it isn't. I definitely would not call on anybody to suppress their anger/recoil. For certain things, I have a fair share of it myself. And... depending on context I do sometimes try to moderate it, and I do ask myself whether it's a betrayal of myself or my values, and I do ask myself what more I could be doing to advance my values.
When I think about this document, I feel the impatience with an institution like the Church. But... it's been thousands of years of patriarchy and homophobia and oppression, and in the scheme of that the 40 or so years by which certain segments of 'secular' Western society is ahead of the Catholic church just does not seem like that much. NOT to push anybody to stay in when their heart pushes them away. But to say that if Europe could go from systematically executing Jews, homosexuals, the disabled, and Roma (and I'm glad for the non-targeted people who could have left who both stayed & helped, even against much longer (short-term) odds (it was *not* a democratic governance by that point) and greater personal danger than leaving or staying in the church), to secular tolerance and gay marriage, and then around back towards xenophobia and Islamophobia, all within about 70 years, it seems a bit premature to me to assume that the Catholic Church is a lost cause. In (non-American, mainly) parts of the Catholic Church, this statement actually *is* progress in a positive direction. And it looks a lot like the steps in positive directions that Reform Judaism started taking in the 60s & 70s, which then moved from tolerance towards acceptance towards embracing, and which were steadily followed by similar trajectories in other 'branches' of Judaism, and which seem in progress, if frustratingly slow, even in Orthodox Judaism now, with little trickles getting into/emerging from ultra-orthodox Judaism.
So I guess I think it's worthwhile to make a distinction between degrees of badness and to allow for a strategic approach to change that tolerates & embraces diverse strategies. Some people will do their best to make a difference by walking fast and far away, some by hanging around the peripheries, and some by staying inside and pushing out.
Where exactly is the line where it makes sense, morally and/or strategically, to condemn someone for doing too much to perpetuate the status quo and not enough to leave or change it? It's not so straightforward to me. (And what exactly does condemn entail, anyway? Refuse to vote for? to be friends with? to attend the wedding? to acknowledge in public? Actively denounce systematically? Actively denounce just when the topic happens to come up?) Does the answer have to be the same for everybody in every case in order to be sound?
I lean towards no. I think about the question of white people unfriending Facebook friends who post racist things. And the argument that it is exactly white people who should be staying connected and engaging and pushing and fighting, because the personal damage is less (even though that is a case where walking away is mostly supremely easy and the chances of actually changing someone's mind are generally a little long). And that people who are less personally vulnerable may in some cases be better allies by sticking around in places in which it would be horrific to even ask vulnerable people not to walk away.
In this particular case, purely as a question of strategy, it makes more sense to me to funnel time, resources, and energy, into decreasing the power of religious establishments rather than into condemning individuals who affiliate with them. Decreasing the political power through political activism at home & supporting indigenous political activism abroad, decreasing the economic and social power by constructing/supporting alternate forms of economic and social safety networks. So as much as I fully support anyone who wants/needs to walk completely away in doing that, it makes no sense to me for that to my only or even primary measure of a person's commitment to positive progress.
posted by Salamandrous at 6:50 PM on April 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
Like, when the first few states started having civil unions, should anybody in other states who supported civil rights have at least begun job searching in those states? What if they found a good job, but it meant moving away from their family? What if their family included interdependence for proximity things like childcare and eldercare? Or does the more aspirationally democratic nature of American states mean that it is never an obligation to seek to move? Or maybe even that there is positive value in staying and fighting to liberalize where you are?
I'm thinking of the boycotts of NC based on the 'bathroom law'. Part of me cheers and part of me hopes that the companies that are boycotting are somehow pairing that with funneling support to the people living in NC who have defensible reasons for not moving (whatever would count as defensible) and who are working for progress?
By definition, it is the most independent - financially, physically, emotionally mobile - members of a group who can choose to leave. Those are usually also the people who might be able to exercise a disproportionate amount of power within the group, due to the same advantages that make them mobile.
I think there is a big spectrum in the process of change from something like the extremely hierarchical and old etc Catholic church and a purportedly democratic American state. But... it is a spectrum and not a hard line. Pulling towards progressive values happens both by the experienced loss of the people who walk away and the by the people who stay.
I personally have pretty little tolerance for keeping an affiliation that is not committed egalitarian. But I have some tolerance.
I have dual US-Canadian citizenship but I moved away from Canada to the US during a time where same sex marriage was already the law in Canada but not in the US, and without exploring every single avenue that could have permitted me to advance my journey in Canada.
My only explicit, self-identified religious affiliations, such as they are, are with Jewish groups committed to egalitarianism. But I have studied (as an adult, by choice) at schools that were not, and I have donated money to organizations that advance women's rabbinic leadership in Orthodox Judaism. And I have not done the same to organizations like that in Catholicism or Islam not because I think think they're any less important but because on some level my sense of being Jewish includes the feeling of connection to Orthodox Jews who have sometimes very different perspectives on egalitarianism than I do. I could choose to carefully avoid acting on that feeling though I'd still have to decide on the extent. Not going to restaurants with orthodox kosher certification? Actively looking for brands of groceries that are not heckshered? (From a very quick perusal, my Bustelo coffee, my Skippy peanut butter, and my Domino sugar all happen have heckshers).
I am concerned about this seeming as treating this question too much like an academic exercise. To some extent for me, it is and it isn't. I definitely would not call on anybody to suppress their anger/recoil. For certain things, I have a fair share of it myself. And... depending on context I do sometimes try to moderate it, and I do ask myself whether it's a betrayal of myself or my values, and I do ask myself what more I could be doing to advance my values.
When I think about this document, I feel the impatience with an institution like the Church. But... it's been thousands of years of patriarchy and homophobia and oppression, and in the scheme of that the 40 or so years by which certain segments of 'secular' Western society is ahead of the Catholic church just does not seem like that much. NOT to push anybody to stay in when their heart pushes them away. But to say that if Europe could go from systematically executing Jews, homosexuals, the disabled, and Roma (and I'm glad for the non-targeted people who could have left who both stayed & helped, even against much longer (short-term) odds (it was *not* a democratic governance by that point) and greater personal danger than leaving or staying in the church), to secular tolerance and gay marriage, and then around back towards xenophobia and Islamophobia, all within about 70 years, it seems a bit premature to me to assume that the Catholic Church is a lost cause. In (non-American, mainly) parts of the Catholic Church, this statement actually *is* progress in a positive direction. And it looks a lot like the steps in positive directions that Reform Judaism started taking in the 60s & 70s, which then moved from tolerance towards acceptance towards embracing, and which were steadily followed by similar trajectories in other 'branches' of Judaism, and which seem in progress, if frustratingly slow, even in Orthodox Judaism now, with little trickles getting into/emerging from ultra-orthodox Judaism.
So I guess I think it's worthwhile to make a distinction between degrees of badness and to allow for a strategic approach to change that tolerates & embraces diverse strategies. Some people will do their best to make a difference by walking fast and far away, some by hanging around the peripheries, and some by staying inside and pushing out.
Where exactly is the line where it makes sense, morally and/or strategically, to condemn someone for doing too much to perpetuate the status quo and not enough to leave or change it? It's not so straightforward to me. (And what exactly does condemn entail, anyway? Refuse to vote for? to be friends with? to attend the wedding? to acknowledge in public? Actively denounce systematically? Actively denounce just when the topic happens to come up?) Does the answer have to be the same for everybody in every case in order to be sound?
I lean towards no. I think about the question of white people unfriending Facebook friends who post racist things. And the argument that it is exactly white people who should be staying connected and engaging and pushing and fighting, because the personal damage is less (even though that is a case where walking away is mostly supremely easy and the chances of actually changing someone's mind are generally a little long). And that people who are less personally vulnerable may in some cases be better allies by sticking around in places in which it would be horrific to even ask vulnerable people not to walk away.
In this particular case, purely as a question of strategy, it makes more sense to me to funnel time, resources, and energy, into decreasing the power of religious establishments rather than into condemning individuals who affiliate with them. Decreasing the political power through political activism at home & supporting indigenous political activism abroad, decreasing the economic and social power by constructing/supporting alternate forms of economic and social safety networks. So as much as I fully support anyone who wants/needs to walk completely away in doing that, it makes no sense to me for that to my only or even primary measure of a person's commitment to positive progress.
posted by Salamandrous at 6:50 PM on April 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
I do my best not to spew shit and I'm sorry what I said excreted shittily. I definitely don't want to pressure anyone who doesn't have the teaspoons to engage with my thinking process. I absolutely think it's fine for anybody who finds even the discussion repellent to skip it and/or call it shit, and no one has to be gentle with me to secure my allyship. Thank you for reading my post even though you didn't have teaspoons left and thank you for expressing your feelings. I 100% acknowledge your humanity. I think I didn't put enough time or energy into making clear that I do find the church's official position reprehensible. I could definitely have voiced that louder and more often in the post.
My exploration and implementation of what that means for my own actions (social, political, financial, kosher-stamped shopping, moving and migration, etc) is personal and to the extent that the questions are practical, maybe belong more on on Ask than here and to the extent they are broader, can definitely be explored in contexts where there there are fewer people emotionally and practically implicated or where participation/reading is more 'opt-in' than on Metafilter.
I aknowledge the humanity of every living person. I aknowledge the humanity of every living person. I aknowledge the humanity of every living person.
posted by Salamandrous at 2:57 AM on April 9, 2016
My exploration and implementation of what that means for my own actions (social, political, financial, kosher-stamped shopping, moving and migration, etc) is personal and to the extent that the questions are practical, maybe belong more on on Ask than here and to the extent they are broader, can definitely be explored in contexts where there there are fewer people emotionally and practically implicated or where participation/reading is more 'opt-in' than on Metafilter.
I aknowledge the humanity of every living person. I aknowledge the humanity of every living person. I aknowledge the humanity of every living person.
posted by Salamandrous at 2:57 AM on April 9, 2016
I don't see how the pope's remarks will affect anything happening on the ground in the vast bureaucracy of the Catholic Church. Case in point, the Dominican Republic's Cardinal Rodríguez, who in 2013 said that gay and married US Ambassador Wally Brewster is a faggot (“maricón”) and who more recently suggested that Brewster stay in the embassy and focus on housework, since he is the wife of a man.
Luckily, Brewster and his husband, Bob Satawake, ignore him, and throw much better parties than the Cardinal could ever hope to. Which is important, because it's making a public health difference: being gay begins to be less stigmatized in the DR.
posted by Short Attention Sp at 5:15 AM on April 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Luckily, Brewster and his husband, Bob Satawake, ignore him, and throw much better parties than the Cardinal could ever hope to. Which is important, because it's making a public health difference: being gay begins to be less stigmatized in the DR.
posted by Short Attention Sp at 5:15 AM on April 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hmmm. The UK's ambassador to Ukraine is a lesbian and her presence seems to be improving matters there marginally. I wonder if more progressive nations sending gay ambassadors would be an effective strategy for general improvement of life for gay people in regressive nations.
I'd also like to know if the Pope's kinder and gentler will have any teeth or if various high ranking members of the Church will continue to use homophobic slurs? I mean, I know the Pope has the power to expel people who violate important policies, but so far petty little things like truth and health (Archbishop Chimoio is still an Archbishop despite flatly lying and claiming that condoms are laced with HIV), or endangering the lives of gay people by using and encouraging the use of homophobic slurs (Archbishop Jude Thaddeus Okolo is also still an Archbishop), or helping protect rapists and pedophiles (Cardinal Law is still a Cardinal and helps select the pope).
But Fr. Greg Reynolds was excommunicated, with Francis' approval, simply because he supported the idea of women being priests. Note, critically, he did **NOT** ordain any women against Church rules, he merely supported changing Church rules.
So now we know what really matters.
Spreading lies that will cause more people to get AIDS and die is perfectly fine and will result in absolutely no penalty of any sort, not even a statement from the Pope that he wishes the liar in question would stop lying, and certainly not a demotion or being removed from power.
Using homophobic language and tacitly encouraging the torture and murder of gay people is also perfectly fine, and will have no penalty of any sort, not even a statement from the Pope that he doesn't support such language, and certainly no demotion or removal from power.
Protecting rapists and pedophiles for decades, actively helping supply them with a continuous stream of fresh victims, will result in absolutely no penalty of any sort, the perpetrator will keep his rank and be permitted to take part in Church elections and help chose the next pope rather than being expelled from the priesthood in shame or even being demoted to Priest First Class and sent to a backwater hellhole to spend the rest of his life building a church out of rubble.
But a priest who merely *advocates* for a change in Church policy regarding the ordination of women? Now that's a serious crime and he will not merely be demoted or stripped of his priestly rank, but excommunicated from the Church entirely.
I pay a lot more attention to actions than words. The Pope talks pretty, no argument. But what he **DOES** shows what he truly believes. And clearly he believes in helping rapists, murdering gay people, and spreading AIDS. All the pretty talk in the world won't change that.
Note, I'm not saying that the Pope has an obligation to excommunicate Law, Chimoio, and Okolo if he wishes to be a good person. I understand that Catholic rules on excommunication aren't rules about being a good person. But there are options other than excommunication, he could at least expel Law and the others from the priesthood, or failing that bust them down to the lowest possible rank and assign them to toilet cleaning duty in the middle of nowhere. But no, they remain in power and continue using that power to produce great harm.
Actions matter, pretty words don't.
posted by sotonohito at 6:05 AM on April 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
I'd also like to know if the Pope's kinder and gentler will have any teeth or if various high ranking members of the Church will continue to use homophobic slurs? I mean, I know the Pope has the power to expel people who violate important policies, but so far petty little things like truth and health (Archbishop Chimoio is still an Archbishop despite flatly lying and claiming that condoms are laced with HIV), or endangering the lives of gay people by using and encouraging the use of homophobic slurs (Archbishop Jude Thaddeus Okolo is also still an Archbishop), or helping protect rapists and pedophiles (Cardinal Law is still a Cardinal and helps select the pope).
But Fr. Greg Reynolds was excommunicated, with Francis' approval, simply because he supported the idea of women being priests. Note, critically, he did **NOT** ordain any women against Church rules, he merely supported changing Church rules.
So now we know what really matters.
Spreading lies that will cause more people to get AIDS and die is perfectly fine and will result in absolutely no penalty of any sort, not even a statement from the Pope that he wishes the liar in question would stop lying, and certainly not a demotion or being removed from power.
Using homophobic language and tacitly encouraging the torture and murder of gay people is also perfectly fine, and will have no penalty of any sort, not even a statement from the Pope that he doesn't support such language, and certainly no demotion or removal from power.
Protecting rapists and pedophiles for decades, actively helping supply them with a continuous stream of fresh victims, will result in absolutely no penalty of any sort, the perpetrator will keep his rank and be permitted to take part in Church elections and help chose the next pope rather than being expelled from the priesthood in shame or even being demoted to Priest First Class and sent to a backwater hellhole to spend the rest of his life building a church out of rubble.
But a priest who merely *advocates* for a change in Church policy regarding the ordination of women? Now that's a serious crime and he will not merely be demoted or stripped of his priestly rank, but excommunicated from the Church entirely.
I pay a lot more attention to actions than words. The Pope talks pretty, no argument. But what he **DOES** shows what he truly believes. And clearly he believes in helping rapists, murdering gay people, and spreading AIDS. All the pretty talk in the world won't change that.
Note, I'm not saying that the Pope has an obligation to excommunicate Law, Chimoio, and Okolo if he wishes to be a good person. I understand that Catholic rules on excommunication aren't rules about being a good person. But there are options other than excommunication, he could at least expel Law and the others from the priesthood, or failing that bust them down to the lowest possible rank and assign them to toilet cleaning duty in the middle of nowhere. But no, they remain in power and continue using that power to produce great harm.
Actions matter, pretty words don't.
posted by sotonohito at 6:05 AM on April 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
Actions matter, pretty words don't.
ding ding ding
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:58 AM on April 9, 2016
ding ding ding
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:58 AM on April 9, 2016
One makes it right simply by being a Catholic who is against that
The Roman Catholic Church and the terrible ideas its hierarchy espouse have influence and the power to hurt because of the huge number of people around the world who call themselves Roman Catholic. It is not enough to simply be a 'Catholic who is against that' when your being a Catholic is what gives the power to cause harm to the words of the leaders of the church. Unless, as an insider trying to change the institution for the better from within, you're standing up in front of the parish and pointing out the hate in the Pope's statements and the discrimination baked into the church's doctrine, you're not the solution, you're part of the problem.
posted by dazed_one at 9:27 AM on April 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Roman Catholic Church and the terrible ideas its hierarchy espouse have influence and the power to hurt because of the huge number of people around the world who call themselves Roman Catholic. It is not enough to simply be a 'Catholic who is against that' when your being a Catholic is what gives the power to cause harm to the words of the leaders of the church. Unless, as an insider trying to change the institution for the better from within, you're standing up in front of the parish and pointing out the hate in the Pope's statements and the discrimination baked into the church's doctrine, you're not the solution, you're part of the problem.
posted by dazed_one at 9:27 AM on April 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
can definitely be explored in contexts where there there are fewer people emotionally and practically implicated
NOPE.
Nothing about us without us.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:01 AM on April 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
NOPE.
Nothing about us without us.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:01 AM on April 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Unless, as an insider trying to change the institution for the better from within, you're standing up in front of the parish and pointing out the hate in the Pope's statements and the discrimination baked into the church's doctrine, you're not the solution, you're part of the problem.
This is an absolutely valid point in principle, and an absolutely unreasonable expectation in practice. You’re not talking about a country, a political system, a political party, it’s not a democratic organisation, it’s not representative of all its nominal members across the world, and you cannot expect its nominal members to have the same level of interest in reforming that institution itself. Maybe they just don’t care about fighting that battle, because they live their lives independently from the religious doctrine and because their society has moved on, and the law is not based on religious laws. Look at Ireland - did people waste time fighting to change the Catholic Church from within? They campaigned for a referendum and won.
All the battles won against the influence of backwards religious doctrines were won in courts and in parliaments and in polling booths, not in parishes or cathedrals.
posted by bitteschoen at 11:36 AM on April 9, 2016
This is an absolutely valid point in principle, and an absolutely unreasonable expectation in practice. You’re not talking about a country, a political system, a political party, it’s not a democratic organisation, it’s not representative of all its nominal members across the world, and you cannot expect its nominal members to have the same level of interest in reforming that institution itself. Maybe they just don’t care about fighting that battle, because they live their lives independently from the religious doctrine and because their society has moved on, and the law is not based on religious laws. Look at Ireland - did people waste time fighting to change the Catholic Church from within? They campaigned for a referendum and won.
All the battles won against the influence of backwards religious doctrines were won in courts and in parliaments and in polling booths, not in parishes or cathedrals.
posted by bitteschoen at 11:36 AM on April 9, 2016
did people waste time fighting to change the Catholic Church from within
I think we agree. It's mostly a waste of time trying to fight from within the corrupt organization.
Maybe they just don’t care about fighting that battle, because they live their lives independently from the religious doctrine and because their society has moved on, and the law is not based on religious laws
In Ireland they held a referendum and changed the government's stance on marriage equality, but that referendum didn't change the Catholic Church's stance. More and more progressive countries are changing their laws and embracing equality, but the RC Church is not. It is one of the bastions of the bigoted line of thinking, and its huge membership base, whether they personally do or do not agree with the discrimination, lend strength to the prejudiced side of the debate preached by the leaders of the institution.
We are winning the war against prejudice but it's a slow, hard slog. The going would be easier if more people, especially those who call themselves Roman Catholic, would call the Church on it's reprehensible stance and back their disgust with a threat to walk away or, even better, stop supporting the edifice of hate entirely.
posted by dazed_one at 11:57 AM on April 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think we agree. It's mostly a waste of time trying to fight from within the corrupt organization.
Maybe they just don’t care about fighting that battle, because they live their lives independently from the religious doctrine and because their society has moved on, and the law is not based on religious laws
In Ireland they held a referendum and changed the government's stance on marriage equality, but that referendum didn't change the Catholic Church's stance. More and more progressive countries are changing their laws and embracing equality, but the RC Church is not. It is one of the bastions of the bigoted line of thinking, and its huge membership base, whether they personally do or do not agree with the discrimination, lend strength to the prejudiced side of the debate preached by the leaders of the institution.
We are winning the war against prejudice but it's a slow, hard slog. The going would be easier if more people, especially those who call themselves Roman Catholic, would call the Church on it's reprehensible stance and back their disgust with a threat to walk away or, even better, stop supporting the edifice of hate entirely.
posted by dazed_one at 11:57 AM on April 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
it’s not a democratic organisation
+
All the battles won against the influence of backwards religious doctrines were won in courts and in parliaments and in polling booths, not in parishes or cathedrals.
=
Not possible to change the Church.
Therefore, pls to be rereading odinsdream's spectacular comment.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:01 PM on April 9, 2016
+
All the battles won against the influence of backwards religious doctrines were won in courts and in parliaments and in polling booths, not in parishes or cathedrals.
=
Not possible to change the Church.
Therefore, pls to be rereading odinsdream's spectacular comment.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:01 PM on April 9, 2016
OK. For the various Roman Catholics:
1: The Roman Catholic Church is institutionally and politically homophobic and transphobic. I assume that this is not in doubt to anyone?
2: It gains its political power from its members and donations.
This means that every time you voluntarily go to church and every time you throw money in the collecting plate you are willingly and directly supporting a homophobic and transphobic organisation that uses its money and the influence it claims due to the sheer number of Catholics there are. In short if you go to church, mark yourself as Catholic on the census, or throw money into the collection plate you are a willing part of the problem and make the problem worse.
So what are you doing to mitigate your support of a homophobic and transphobic institution? When you are supporting the people trying to make the problem worse, washing your hands is reminiscent of Pontius Pilate.
This doesn't mean that there are no answers. It is entirely possible to be a Roman Catholic and also an LGBT activist to a degree that massively outweighs what you are doing against gay rights and trans rights by supporting the Roman Catholic Church. Just about everything is problematic in one way or another.
If you claim you are trying to reform the Church from within, how? What is your roadmap for changing the Curia? How are you going to try to get a decent human being elected Pope when you have no vote? If you want me to believe that you are serious about changing the Church from within and expect your reward for that attempt to be more than twenty years of boredom show me how what you are doing and helping with can plausibly lead to a reversal within my lifetime. It doesn't have to be likely (any more than the Greens or the Libertarians winning the presidential election in my lifetime is) but it needs to be plausible with you working directly towards it. Otherwise what are you working towards?
It is doubly hard because the Roman Catholic Church claims infallibility on matters of faith and morals as long as the bishops are in agreement that there's one definitive position. (All of which applies here - and I'm only slightly paraphrasing from Lumen Gentium 25 - for those unaware Lumen Gentium is one of the main outputs of Vatican II). As on contraception the Roman Catholic Church has painted itself into a corner here.
And if you think that outsiders should wait for so-called moderates in the Roman Catholic Church to change it and pop into threads like these to defend the Roman Catholic Church from being called on its bigotry, you are part of the problem. Not just supporting the bigoted organisation but defending its bigotry. My writing is nowhere near the standard of Martin Luther King, but your behaviour is exactly that of the White Moderate he was talking about in the Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
1: The Roman Catholic Church is institutionally and politically homophobic and transphobic. I assume that this is not in doubt to anyone?
2: It gains its political power from its members and donations.
This means that every time you voluntarily go to church and every time you throw money in the collecting plate you are willingly and directly supporting a homophobic and transphobic organisation that uses its money and the influence it claims due to the sheer number of Catholics there are. In short if you go to church, mark yourself as Catholic on the census, or throw money into the collection plate you are a willing part of the problem and make the problem worse.
So what are you doing to mitigate your support of a homophobic and transphobic institution? When you are supporting the people trying to make the problem worse, washing your hands is reminiscent of Pontius Pilate.
This doesn't mean that there are no answers. It is entirely possible to be a Roman Catholic and also an LGBT activist to a degree that massively outweighs what you are doing against gay rights and trans rights by supporting the Roman Catholic Church. Just about everything is problematic in one way or another.
If you claim you are trying to reform the Church from within, how? What is your roadmap for changing the Curia? How are you going to try to get a decent human being elected Pope when you have no vote? If you want me to believe that you are serious about changing the Church from within and expect your reward for that attempt to be more than twenty years of boredom show me how what you are doing and helping with can plausibly lead to a reversal within my lifetime. It doesn't have to be likely (any more than the Greens or the Libertarians winning the presidential election in my lifetime is) but it needs to be plausible with you working directly towards it. Otherwise what are you working towards?
It is doubly hard because the Roman Catholic Church claims infallibility on matters of faith and morals as long as the bishops are in agreement that there's one definitive position. (All of which applies here - and I'm only slightly paraphrasing from Lumen Gentium 25 - for those unaware Lumen Gentium is one of the main outputs of Vatican II). As on contraception the Roman Catholic Church has painted itself into a corner here.
And if you think that outsiders should wait for so-called moderates in the Roman Catholic Church to change it and pop into threads like these to defend the Roman Catholic Church from being called on its bigotry, you are part of the problem. Not just supporting the bigoted organisation but defending its bigotry. My writing is nowhere near the standard of Martin Luther King, but your behaviour is exactly that of the White Moderate he was talking about in the Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.posted by Francis at 1:50 PM on April 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
*applause*
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:06 PM on April 9, 2016
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:06 PM on April 9, 2016
I kind of... don't understand the MLK quote here. He was a reverend in a church that enshrined gender inequality and did not accept same sex relationships. His status as a reverend in that church is partly what gave him the social and political power to do the advocacy he did.
If anything doesn't that serve as an example of exculpating participation in problematic power structures?
posted by Salamandrous at 7:50 PM on April 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
If anything doesn't that serve as an example of exculpating participation in problematic power structures?
posted by Salamandrous at 7:50 PM on April 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can't speak for Francis, but I believe the MLK quote was used because it describes the ignorance displayed by the "moderate" member of the privileged when they tell the oppressed to be calm and wait for a gradual change to occur and the anger and disappointment that such statements can arouse.
posted by dazed_one at 10:13 PM on April 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dazed_one at 10:13 PM on April 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
If anything doesn't that serve as an example of exculpating participation in problematic power structures?
Nope. Like Gandhi, MLK was pretty awesome along some axes, and awful along others.
My interpretation echoes dazed_one's: save me from the Privileged Moderate.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:06 PM on April 10, 2016
Nope. Like Gandhi, MLK was pretty awesome along some axes, and awful along others.
My interpretation echoes dazed_one's: save me from the Privileged Moderate.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:06 PM on April 10, 2016
I mean seriously, substitute "cis/straight" for "white" and "anywhere under the queerbrella" for Negro and come on, it's really amazingly obvious.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:08 PM on April 10, 2016
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:08 PM on April 10, 2016
And for the record the two of you are exactly right :)
posted by Francis at 2:20 PM on April 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Francis at 2:20 PM on April 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older You're in charge, pal. Just look at the size of... | In the greatest city in the world.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Thanks for the post, Monkey Toes!
posted by wenestvedt at 9:28 AM on April 8, 2016 [1 favorite]