Maybe of interest to some

[Scott]

This has been posted in the World News Section and maybe of interest to posters in this forum:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/768155-synod-signals-catholic-shift-on-gays/#entry8529013

[isanbirder]

It signals the Church getting behind Pope Francis' emphasis on pastoral care, but it does not mean any change in doctrine.

Welcome, nevertheless.

[onthemoon]

Wow, I am impressed. I don't know whether this means a chance in doctrine, according to the news article it does sound so to me. In any case, it throws right-wing Christian extremists off their anti-gay campaigns.

As expected, the tread World New Section is already going downhill, as people don't get the significance of this. But then, I see this as good news if the posters think it is not a big deal and start to make jokes already: Being gay or not should indeed not be a big deal. Has the pope announced that red-haired people should be treated the same as all others, people wouldn't know what to discuss either.

The Catholic is slowly catching up to 21st century social reality, methinks.

Now, what do we do with Leviticus?

[isanbirder]

It is not a change in doctrine, onthemoon.

It is not a big deal, but it is a step in the right direction. And official progress by the Catholic Church is always likely to be slow.

In the early 90s, I lived in Chiangmai with my Chinese Catholic partner, who was dying of cancer. We used to go and see the local priest, Fr O'Brien (in fact the man who organised the exodus of religious from Shanghai in 1948-9). He treated us as simply human beings, never mind gay, never mind being a couple. He never for one moment lectured us about being gay. His pastoral care gave my friend much courage to face his approaching death. Many (not all) Catholic priests would behave in the same way, not according to strict Vatican doctrine. He, by the way, was a Jesuit, like Pope Francis.

Don't always judge the Church by official pronouncements; it's getting there, slowly slowly. Too slowly for many of us!

Sorry, I forgot about Leviticus Not surprising, as Christians do not feel themselves bound by obsolete Jewish laws.

Edited October 14, 2014 by isanbirder

[Jingthing]

Religions can change.

In the article, Steinlauf wrote, “I reject the idea that the Bible declares that the only sacred love that can exist is the love between a man and a woman. Love is queer — it can never be limited to our categorization of roles and gender. Love is commitment, presence and kindness so awesome and mysterious that nothing in our power can contain it.”

http://jewishtimes.com/29476/conservative-rabbi-comes-out-to-congregants/#.VDz7wGf1S9o

Hopefully, someday Islam will progress as well. No, not anytime SOON, of course. For that you would really have to believe in MIRACLES.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

...

Sorry, I forgot about Leviticus Not surprising, as Christians do not feel themselves bound by obsolete Jewish laws.

Neither do most Jews, mate. Best update your perspective on that.

[isanbirder]

...

Sorry, I forgot about Leviticus Not surprising, as Christians do not feel themselves bound by obsolete Jewish laws.

Neither do most Jews, mate. Best update your perspective on that.

I did realise that, JT, but I left you to speak for yourself.

And yes, religions do change.... but as you say, very slowly.

[onthemoon]

It is not a change in doctrine, onthemoon.

It is not a big deal, but it is a step in the right direction. And official progress by the Catholic Church is always likely to be slow.

In the early 90s, I lived in Chiangmai with my Chinese Catholic partner, who was dying of cancer. We used to go and see the local priest, Fr O'Brien (in fact the man who organised the exodus of religious from Shanghai in 1948-9). He treated us as simply human beings, never mind gay, never mind being a couple. He never for one moment lectured us about being gay. His pastoral care gave my friend much courage to face his approaching death. Many (not all) Catholic priests would behave in the same way, not according to strict Vatican doctrine. He, by the way, was a Jesuit, like Pope Francis.

Don't always judge the Church by official pronouncements; it's getting there, slowly slowly. Too slowly for many of us!

Sorry, I forgot about Leviticus Not surprising, as Christians do not feel themselves bound by obsolete Jewish laws.

Good to hear about your experience in Asia.

You do know about the "Letter to Laura", don't you? This is addressed to Christian extremists in the US.

You would be the first Christian I know who says that the Old Testament is irrelevant. Is there a new Catholic movement that disregards to Old Testament and only believes in the New Testament?

[isanbirder]

It is not a change in doctrine, onthemoon.

It is not a big deal, but it is a step in the right direction. And official progress by the Catholic Church is always likely to be slow.

In the early 90s, I lived in Chiangmai with my Chinese Catholic partner, who was dying of cancer. We used to go and see the local priest, Fr O'Brien (in fact the man who organised the exodus of religious from Shanghai in 1948-9). He treated us as simply human beings, never mind gay, never mind being a couple. He never for one moment lectured us about being gay. His pastoral care gave my friend much courage to face his approaching death. Many (not all) Catholic priests would behave in the same way, not according to strict Vatican doctrine. He, by the way, was a Jesuit, like Pope Francis.

Don't always judge the Church by official pronouncements; it's getting there, slowly slowly. Too slowly for many of us!

Sorry, I forgot about Leviticus Not surprising, as Christians do not feel themselves bound by obsolete Jewish laws.

Good to hear about your experience in Asia.

You do know about the "Letter to Laura", don't you? This is addressed to Christian extremists in the US.

You would be the first Christian I know who says that the Old Testament is irrelevant. Is there a new Catholic movement that disregards to Old Testament and only believes in the New Testament?

Where did I say that the Old Testament is irrelevant? The corpus of ancient Jewish law in Leviticus is indeed irrelevant, as the Letter to Laura demonstrates. Also, where OT and NT conflict, the NT has superseded the OT. But this does not imply that the OT is valueless.

[isanbirder]

It is not a change in doctrine, onthemoon.

It is not a big deal, but it is a step in the right direction. And official progress by the Catholic Church is always likely to be slow.

In the early 90s, I lived in Chiangmai with my Chinese Catholic partner, who was dying of cancer. We used to go and see the local priest, Fr O'Brien (in fact the man who organised the exodus of religious from Shanghai in 1948-9). He treated us as simply human beings, never mind gay, never mind being a couple. He never for one moment lectured us about being gay. His pastoral care gave my friend much courage to face his approaching death. Many (not all) Catholic priests would behave in the same way, not according to strict Vatican doctrine. He, by the way, was a Jesuit, like Pope Francis.

Don't always judge the Church by official pronouncements; it's getting there, slowly slowly. Too slowly for many of us!

Sorry, I forgot about Leviticus Not surprising, as Christians do not feel themselves bound by obsolete Jewish laws.

Good to hear about your experience in Asia.

You do know about the "Letter to Laura", don't you? This is addressed to Christian extremists in the US.

You would be the first Christian I know who says that the Old Testament is irrelevant. Is there a new Catholic movement that disregards to Old Testament and only believes in the New Testament?

Where did I say that the Old Testament is irrelevant? The corpus of ancient Jewish law in Leviticus is indeed irrelevant, as the Letter to Laura demonstrates. Also, where OT and NT conflict, the NT has superseded the OT. But this does not imply that the OT is valueless.

[onthemoon]

It is not a change in doctrine, onthemoon.

It is not a big deal, but it is a step in the right direction. And official progress by the Catholic Church is always likely to be slow.

In the early 90s, I lived in Chiangmai with my Chinese Catholic partner, who was dying of cancer. We used to go and see the local priest, Fr O'Brien (in fact the man who organised the exodus of religious from Shanghai in 1948-9). He treated us as simply human beings, never mind gay, never mind being a couple. He never for one moment lectured us about being gay. His pastoral care gave my friend much courage to face his approaching death. Many (not all) Catholic priests would behave in the same way, not according to strict Vatican doctrine. He, by the way, was a Jesuit, like Pope Francis.

Don't always judge the Church by official pronouncements; it's getting there, slowly slowly. Too slowly for many of us!

Sorry, I forgot about Leviticus Not surprising, as Christians do not feel themselves bound by obsolete Jewish laws.

Good to hear about your experience in Asia.

You do know about the "Letter to Laura", don't you? This is addressed to Christian extremists in the US.

You would be the first Christian I know who says that the Old Testament is irrelevant. Is there a new Catholic movement that disregards to Old Testament and only believes in the New Testament?

Where did I say that the Old Testament is irrelevant? The corpus of ancient Jewish law in Leviticus is indeed irrelevant, as the Letter to Laura demonstrates. Also, where OT and NT conflict, the NT has superseded the OT. But this does not imply that the OT is valueless.

I am not a scholar in theology. I learned at Catholic School (before my First Confirmation) that the Bible is one entire book, consisting of two chapters called Testaments. Of course, I was appalled by all the violence in the OT and couldn't bring that in context with the NT. However, I have never been told that we can only pick the cherries (most of which would be fron the NT in my case), we were told to believe it all.

You say above: "Christians do not feel themselves bound by obsolete Jewish laws". So, do you pick your cherries, or do you just disregard the OT? I am not sure.

[isanbirder]

The Church does (for example, it disregards the laws about slavery, for obvious reasons).... and increasingly individual Catholics do, though we're not supposed to.

Remember also that Jesus says somewhere that the new covenant supersedes the old, which is a fair reason for "cherrypicking".

We also, sometimes, actually use our commonsense, though you might dispute this.

Back on topic, it appears that an American cardinal has been sidelined for his opposition to the more relaxed attitude towards gays.

[Jingthing]

Maybe not ready for Vatican prime time?

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Catholic bishops scrapped their landmark welcome to gays Saturday, showing deep divisions at the end of a two-week meeting sought by Pope Francis to chart a more merciful approach to ministering to Catholic families.

The bishops failed to approve even a watered-down section on ministering to homosexuals that stripped away the welcoming tone of acceptance contained in a draft document earlier in the week.

Rather than considering gays as individuals who had gifts to offer the church, the revised paragraph referred to homosexuality as one of the problems Catholic families have to confront. It said "people with homosexual tendencies must be welcomed with respect and delicacy," but repeated church teaching that marriage is only between man and woman. The paragraph failed to reach the two-thirds majority needed to pass.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1e103500d3d04da78b9117e5737a92fe/bishops-revise-document-gays-expect-approval

[Scott]

Well, at least they aren't gathering faggots (as in the bundles of sticks used for fuel) to burn us at the stake.

The path to somewhere positive has to start with dialogue and that dialogue has begun. I am not a fan of the Church, but since it speaks to many, even small steps are welcomed.

[sirineou]

This story reminds me of the politician who praised his opponent by stating that his opponent no longer beat his wife.

I guess any small step towards reason is a welcome step, I will get really excited at the press release where the Vatican apologizes for its two thousand years of religious oppression, based on religious delusion, apologize for the countless lives they have compromised, and be glad that there is no heaven or hell , because id there was a hell it would be awfully uncomfortable for them there , what with the silly uniforms and all.

[isanbirder]

Maybe not ready for Vatican prime time?

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Catholic bishops scrapped their landmark welcome to gays Saturday, showing deep divisions at the end of a two-week meeting sought by Pope Francis to chart a more merciful approach to ministering to Catholic families.

The bishops failed to approve even a watered-down section on ministering to homosexuals that stripped away the welcoming tone of acceptance contained in a draft document earlier in the week.

Rather than considering gays as individuals who had gifts to offer the church, the revised paragraph referred to homosexuality as one of the problems Catholic families have to confront. It said "people with homosexual tendencies must be welcomed with respect and delicacy," but repeated church teaching that marriage is only between man and woman. The paragraph failed to reach the two-thirds majority needed to pass.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1e103500d3d04da78b9117e5737a92fe/bishops-revise-document-gays-expect-approval

Not exactly a setback (the paragraph did get a simple majority; the voting was 118 for, 62 against, a very narrow failure to reach the necessary two-thirds), but not the step forward Catholic gays were hoping for. On to the larger synod next year!

Edited October 19, 2014 by isanbirder

[Scott]

Here is what Yahoo has to say about it:

http://news.yahoo.com/bishops-revise-document-gays-expect-approval-125810087.html

Someone should keep track of who voted against it.....it makes it more interesting when they get busted in some sleazy hotel with a male prostitute snorting cocaine. Oh, wait, that's usually televangelists!

[isanbirder]

I suspect Vatican insiders know precisely who. Remember, most of the cardinals were appointed by the conservative popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Maybe Francis will appoint a new batch of liberal cardinals before the next synod!

By the way, our priests are widely believed to have quite other vices! You're on the wrong track, Scott!

[Jingthing]

It seems to me as they didn't pass any new gay friendly language, regardless of the Pope's leadership, this is not a step forward OR a backtrack, but rather an endorsement of the status quo (not gay welcoming).

[Scott]

It seems to me as they didn't pass any new gay friendly language, regardless of the Pope's leadership, this is not a step forward OR a backtrack, but rather an endorsement of the status quo (not gay welcoming).

You could be right, but I prefer to see the issue in a little more positive light. The Church has had a lot of sexual related issues, but they are starting to talk about it. I am sure this is uncomfortable for many, but I think it's a step forward, even if it is very, very small.

[Jingthing]

Microscopic.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Scott]

You can't expect them to be too understanding. It's completely acceptable for them to wear long flowing gown and look like they are ready for a red-carpet event. They don't want the rest of us joining their little club!

Oh, I wish Joan Rivers was alive. She'd let them have it.

[sirineou]

Though not gay my self, as an atheist and more importantly as a caring person, I find the church's hypocrisy over sexuality and in this case gay sexuality very troubling to say the least.

Below is my favorite comedy video by Jim Jefferies, IMO very funny, though some religious people might get offended by it, hope some of you enjoy it.

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iepuSIho0hY[media]

[Caitrin]

Important to add, Cardinal Raymond Burke bitched about this and called Pope Francis out.

Francis fired him. This pope ain't playing. He's also making sure reformers have majority committee assignments and he's keeping African cardinals (those who often supported anti-gay laws in their home countries) off the committees entirely.

I don't care about the words, or the supposed "retraction." This pope is angling for a reformer majority among the college of Cardinals. This signals he's biding his time until he has the "votes" so to speak. Shrewd, Francis, very shrewd.

Lapsed Catholic here.

[isanbirder]

Unfortunately, Caitrin, he hasn't much time to bide. Unless of course he lives to 93, like Leo the somethingth in the 1800s.

A reminder for everybody..... the Pope is primus inter pares; he is not a dictator, and has to play politics to get his way.