New Pope "reminiscent Of Medieval Times And The Inquisition" Says Kirchner

[rgs2001uk]

I do not even understand why any sane gay man would want to belong to some of these religious groups

Please ammend to read, why any sane person would want to belong............

BTW, for those who are practicing Catholics, THIS Pope's intention is to control your actions and speech

From JT above,

whats new, always been that way hasnt it?

No need to think, we will do the thinking for you.

Why is it when I ask these followers of Christ, to quote me chapter and verse where and what Christ ever said about homosexuality, they are at a loss to provide me with any information.

[lannarebirth]

Sort of. What about more progressive Catholics on social issues? Not such a perfect pope for them.

Agreed, but the Pope isn't there to represent Catholics or anyone's views or to be a "perfect pope" for anyone. He's there to represent God and his views, as he believes them to be and Jesuits aren't known for being progressive.

Perhaps Jesuits aren't known by some to be progressive, but within the Catholic church they certainly are. A central tenet of a Jesuit education is to be open to changing one's view. Still, there won't be much "progressive" coming forth on gay issues. They'll be at the back of a long line of things that will need addressing first.

My expectations of this Pope are that he will focus on organizational matters that have historically prevented or blocked communication and oversight within the church. I think he will also, by example, increase the church's outreach to the world's most impoverished and vulnerable peoples. Hopefully he'll treat nuns better.

If you understnad the church, even a little bit , you'll know it and this Pope have made extraordinary moves already in these past few days

Progressive in terms of social justice and some aspects of liberation theology (opposing unjust social and economic conditions as being contrary to Christ's views)? Certainly, without any doubt.

Progressive in terms of gay rights (and remember this is the Gay Forum, so posts on his election here are in that context) and connected issues? Definitely not. Not a chance. Its not a question of his being a Jesuit as his views are orthodox to the point of being reactionary for a Jesuit and he has actively opposed many of the more progressive Jesuit views on birth control, abortion, divorce and gay rights.

Its not that these issues are "at the back of a long line of things that will need addressing first", either. He has already addressed these issues and made his views very clear, from gay marriage and same-sex adoption to abortion, contraception and euthanasia and many Jesuits who are progressive on these issues strongly disagree with his views.

Having been raised as a Jesuit myself, I flatter myself that I do "understand the church, even a little bit" - that is why I think Pope Francis will be good for Catholicism generally, will be respected and will make the Catholic church more respected .... but "progressive" - not a chance.

When I say "progressive", I mean progressive within the context of the Roman Catholic Church. I mean, that's the only context that matters here as the Pope was always going to be elected from one of the 115 Cardinals within the conclave. I think Jingthing may mean "progressive" to include non Catholic theologians, which isn't relevant here.

[LeCharivari]

.....

The RC has a right to its religious doctrine, and they certainly are not forcing anyone to accept their faith. People can leave the church if they disagree. In any case, I do not even understand why any sane gay man would want to belong to some of these religious groups with their hostile positions on sexual orientation. There are plenty of religious groups to choose from that do not discriminate.

Unfortunately its not just a question of those who "can" leave the church, but those who are forced to leave it, such as John McNeill, the former Jesuit priest and author of The Church and the Homosexual (and central subject of the film taking a Chance on God released last year), published with the permission of Jesuit General Pedro Arrupe in 1977 but against the wishes of the Catholic church who expelled him in 1986 when his ministry was publicly supportive of LGBT groups and those with HIV.

He chose to belong to a particular "religious group" because of his beliefs, not because it conveniently suited his personal sexual preference to do so.

[LeCharivari]

When I say "progressive", I mean progressive within the context of the Roman Catholic Church. I mean, that's the only context that matters here as the Pope was always going to be elected from one of the 115 Cardinals within the conclave. I think Jingthing may mean "progressive" to include non Catholic theologians, which isn't relevant here.

Some Jesuits are progressive and Jesuits are far more likely to speak out than many Catholics who simply follow the party line, hence their reputation for being liberal, but sadly that does not apply to all and there is a very strong Jesuit lobby that is arch-conservative - which Pope Francis has led, both in the College of Cardinals and in Argentina.

[Jingthing]

Totally agree. There are different kinds of Jesuits. All you have to do is look at the Pope's record in Argentina and which governments he gave grief to and it's clear what kind he is.

[lannarebirth]

When I say "progressive", I mean progressive within the context of the Roman Catholic Church. I mean, that's the only context that matters here as the Pope was always going to be elected from one of the 115 Cardinals within the conclave. I think Jingthing may mean "progressive" to include non Catholic theologians, which isn't relevant here.

Some Jesuits are progressive and Jesuits are far more likely to speak out than many Catholics who simply follow the party line, hence their reputation for being liberal, but sadly that does not apply to all and there is a very strong Jesuit lobby that is arch-conservative - which Pope Francis has led, both in the College of Cardinals and in Argentina.

You weren't ever going to get a Pope that was pro gay marriage or pro gay adoption or no "pro-life". And really, would there be any reason for the Catholic church to exist if it stopped being "pro-life"? I think this Pope may surprise some with an evolving view on contraception. Mostly his legacy will be in those he appoints to the Catholic hierarchy and what if any reforms he brings reform to the Curia.

As for the rest of "who he will be" I think a lot of projection is going on amongst observers. We will have to wait and see.

[onthemoon]

...

I do not even understand why any sane gay man would want to belong to some of these religious groups with their hostile positions on sexual orientation.

...

Exactly.

As far as the choice of being in the Catholic church or not, yes, that is in modern times a choice, but historically, not always a choice. Google: Inquisition.

The reason the Catholic doctrine matters to non-Catholics is that many countries LEGAL SYSTEMS for ALL CITIZENS are still strongly influenced by Catholic doctrine. This Pope's specifically anti-gay activism in Argentina was directed at the legal system for his entire nation, not only internal Catholic church policies.

BTW, for those who are practicing Catholics, THIS Pope's intention is to control your actions and speech on social issues:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/03/15/the_pope_said_what_francis_worst_hits_on_abortion_gay_marriage_and_gay_adoption.html

“The text [of a joint statement of the bishops of Latin America] states in paragraph 436 that ‘we should commit ourselves to eucharistic coherence,

that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy

communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in

particular when abortion, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against

life and family are facilitated. This responsibility applies

particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals.’”

These bishops can lobby governments (as any interest group can), and they have the right to refuse service to people who do not agree with their doctrine.

I personally believe that they have no place in a modern secular democracy, so I hope no government would listen to them. No democracy can be based on religion, it is contradictory by definition.

[lannarebirth]

Totally agree. There are different kinds of Jesuits. All you have to do is look at the Pope's record in Argentina and which governments he gave grief to and it's clear what kind he is.

See, you're thinking politically, which is the wrong way to look at it. The possible benefit of of a Jesuit leader isn't in their being liberal or conservative, it is in their being ethical , fair minded and relatively more open to consideration of opposing views. If you saw the church as your adversary, which you seem to, wouldn't you prefer its leader be more likely to posess those ideals?

Edited March 16, 2013 by lannarebirth

[Jingthing]

He has not been known as any kind of activist internally in the Argentinian church with their internal corruption issues. I think the optimism about what this very old man will be able to accomplish, even if had the temperament, is understandable but irrational. I think he was picked mainly because his father was Italian and they wanted a South American. He knows nothing of the internal machinations in Rome and he will be easy mark to subdue even if he tries some kind of major cleanup. Some people are seeing Jesuit as some kind of brand that they enjoy. He's one specific man, not the brand.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Jingthing

[timewilltell]

Why do people even bother to get married anymore? Is it more about money and less about love? Do you need the government to allow you a certificate to love? If it is about sex then I seriously doubt any other person having the position to tell another who he can and cannot cavort with - children aside since they are not yet mature enough to be fit to make their own mind up!

[Jingthing]

Why do people even bother to get married anymore?

...

That's a personal choice. Gay people for the most part would like to be INCLUDED in the people that are allowed to have the same choices as their fellow citizens. That doesn't mean most gay people would get married if it were legal in their countries but the rate of usage isn't really relevant to the core issue of equal civil rights under SECULAR laws.

Also in the context of the Pope Francis discussion I am not aware of any comments he has made about the fiscal impact of gay marriage equality in Argentina; rather his focus seems to be mostly about the influence of SATAN. Inconvenient and unfair for secular people who don't believe ANY of that stuff.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Jingthing

[Mitker]

(...) To clarify, I think religions have every right to whatever morality definitions they have within their religions (...)

You pointed it exactly JT.

All the monotheist religions (let's put aside Buddhism and the debate about it being a religion or philosophy) take it for granted that they should be heard by the secular authorities as a valid player in matters of policies and morals. Even today, too many countries are still simply controlled by religious groups. They just don't realize/accept their value system is strictly a private one and has a zero relevance in the public domain. While their followers are naturally free to follow their convictions when taking a position in political matters, religious leaders should be barred of any attempt to leverage on civil structures.

The room left to them in the political arena illustrates the inertia of past times when states were to weak to compete with religious structures and often let them control civil society. A mature democracy should disregard any of their positions while respecting solely voters choices. It is not an option, it is a duty.

As you said, let's wait for a visit of Francesco in San Francisco