Synods & Sophistry: Some Thoughts

[metis]

The conservative Catholics in the US are not making a stink about politics.

Oh yes they are, let me tell ya.

They are concerned with the ethics and moral teachings of the Church.

That as well.

Gay sex has always been a mortal sin, and same sex attraction has been labeled by previous papacies as intrinsically disordered. Yet Pope Francis makes remarks like "Who am I to judge?" Personally I'm highly sympathetic to Pope Francis' desire to focus on the ethics of compassion to the poor and our responsibility to our planet home. I'm just saying that the objections of Trad Caths is religious, not political.

There's a difference between the words "sin" and "sinner", so what PF is basically saying is that it's "kosher" to condemn the "sin" but not the "sinner". Jesus said much the same when he asked let he whom has not sinned cast the first stone?

PF is the first pope of the Jesuit order, and because they tend to be more freethinkers, they and the magisterium often were at odds historically, and it continues.

 

[metis]

He is treating things that have been considered mortal sins for 2000 years as if they are no longer sins.

Most modern Catholic theologians don't use the term "mortal sin" but use "serious sin" more nowadays. As one who attends mass weekly, I can't remember how far back I would have to go when I last heard "mortal sin".

 

[metis]

The Catholic church by definition is conservative, because it teaches that the doctrines of the church are infallible.

Only when a pope speaks "ex cathedra", and that's only been done twice in Church history.

 

[exchemist]

The issue is not that Christianity has undergone doctrinal development in its two-thousand-year history. The issue is that the demands of secular modernity on certain issues of moral doctrine demand a rejection of perennial Christian teaching. It demands a rejection of clear Scriptural teaching. That is that those who die in unrepentant sexual sin will be denied the beatific vision.


The job of the Catholic Church is to teach and safeguard the Christian faith, not to sacralize the fashionable opinions of an irreligious culture. Doctrine is real whether Francis and his bishops like it or not. And if the Church cannot bring itself to uphold the convictions it claims to hold then to Hell with it.


To claim that the current conditions of humanity are so fundamentally different that God can no longer hold us to the moral truths he himself revealed in Scripture is not a claim I can entertain assuming Christianity is true. (An open question for me at this point). In any case the notion that God has suddenly and oh so conveniently changed his mind on issues of sexual morality (primarily) is an attempt to scratch itching ears.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2 Timothy 4:2-4
​

I don't suggest God has "changed His mind" on sexual morality. I think it is noteworthy that Christ had almost nothing to say on the subject, apart from marital fidelity.

It seems to me the church has constructed a doubtful doctrinal edifice on the basis of very little, for instance inventing the rather bogus concept of "natural law", leading for instance to the ludicrous, damaging, and universally ignored ban on contraception itself. It is also indisputably the case that societies have changed over the last 2000 years. This raises at least the possibility that some of the restrictions that applied 2000 years ago originally may no longer be fit for purpose. Premarital sex, in the era of reliable contraception, would be an example.

 

[sayak83]

Pope Francis clearly desires to reform Catholic practice and doctrine in a more progressive direction. But he cannot do so outright without risking a schism. (Thus, the endless synods). Pope Francis' problem is that the conservatives and traditionalists insist (correctly given the Church's own teaching) that the moral doctrines the progressives wish to undermine or even renounce are non-negotiable truths revealed by God and the natural law. This conservative intransigence is the main hurdle getting in the way of the Francis project thus his endless attacks on conservatives and traditionalists as right-wing ideologues.

There are, as I understand it, only three non-negotiable truths from the pov of a Catholic Christian
The two commandments of Jesus:-
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
And The status of Jesus as part of the triune as God-as-Son who willingly came and died and resurrected, thus mending the breach that sin (great and small) had caused in the relationship of God with the world and humans.

All this is very personal and is associated with an inner personal journey of a person and his/her personal relationship with oneself, with neighbors and with God. Thus the Chruch is nothing by a loose congregation of people who have chosen to embark on this common journey from the state of alienation to the state of reconciliation. In this context, the church as some sort upholder of moral standards (like the much vilified pharisees of the NT) make no sense. The very concepts of conservative values, liberal values etc should have no meaning to a church. Christianity has very little to do with any values.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes. He is the moral and religious leader of the Catholic church. Part of his job is to teach very clearly what is right and what is wrong. That's his JOB. "Who am I to judge?" Well, heck, he is the Pope, that's who.

And as Pope, he will be aware of Christ's message to those who would judge;

Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?


It seems to me that if Pope Francis has a personal mission, it is that the guidance and values of the church should be more closely aligned with the gospel of love, as clearly articulated in the sermon on the mount.

 

[sayak83]

And as Pope, he will be aware of Christ's message to those who would judge;

Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?


It seems to me that if Pope Francis has a personal mission, it is that the guidance and values of the church should be more closely aligned with the gospel of love, as clearly articulated in the sermon on the mount.

I feel it is yet another example of how people continue to be confused about absolutely clear things. Jesus says repeatedly that his kingdom is not of this earth...thus creating a significant break with the Jewish idea of a God obedient kingdom on earth established by a messiah. Yet historically all the church denominations have gone on to establish exactly that...creating kingdoms and theocracies on earth. I have seen evangelicals trained in trying to do things in "what would Jesus do in this or that case. Well....He would give up all material possessions and leave...that is what he did and will do in all cases. It kind of strange make-believe and self-convincing culture that goes in there. I continue to be bemused by it.

 

[Alien826]

I don't suggest God has "changed His mind" on sexual morality. I think it is noteworthy that Christ had almost nothing to say on the subject, apart from marital fidelity.

It seems to me the church has constructed a doubtful doctrinal edifice on the basis of very little, for instance inventing the rather bogus concept of "natural law", leading for instance to the ludicrous, damaging, and universally ignored ban on contraception itself. It is also indisputably the case that societies have changed over the last 2000 years. This raises at least the possibility that some of the restrictions that applied 2000 years ago originally may no longer be fit for purpose. Premarital sex, in the era of reliable contraception, would be an example.

Well said.

I'm probably not qualified, as a generally non-religious person, to comment on what seems to be an internal dispute in the Catholic church. Nevertheless, I find an organization that states that abortion is wrong and then goes on to (attempt to) ban something (contraception) that is the best thing we have to reduce abortion to be seriously lacking in common sense to say the least.

Maybe it's what you get when the rules are written by (supposedly) celibate men, who neither have sex, nor bear unwanted children.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And as Pope, he will be aware of Christ's message to those who would judge;

Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?


It seems to me that if Pope Francis has a personal mission, it is that the guidance and values of the church should be more closely aligned with the gospel of love, as clearly articulated in the sermon on the mount.

The passage you quote is a passage warning against hypocrisy. It is not meant to imply that right and wrong don't exist.

John 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Only when a pope speaks "ex cathedra", and that's only been done twice in Church history.

I'm not referring to papal infallibility. I'm referring to the infallibility of the church, such as the ecumenical councils, bible, etc.

 

[sayak83]

The passage you quote is a passage warning against hypocrisy. It is not meant to imply that right and wrong don't exist.

John 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.

Oh well.
John 8:-
8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Right judgement can only be given by a being who is without sin....and no such person exists. And the person who is without sin, chooses to no longer condemn but rather to inspire people to leave sin through inner transformation of the spirit.

John 7:37
Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Oh well.
John 8:-
8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Right judgement can only be given by a being who is without sin....and no such person exists. And the person who is without sin, chooses to no longer condemn but rather to inspire people to leave sin through inner transformation of the spirit.

John 7:37
Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.

You realize you are quoting a story that was added to the gospel of John CENTURIES later?

 

[sayak83]

You realize you are quoting a story that was added to the gospel of John CENTURIES later?

Either you are discussing what the historical Jesus may have said (in which the entire John's gospel is to be discarded as most historians believe) or you are discussing Christology and Christian theology (in which the entire NT has to be taken as God-inspired). Pick a stream and be consistent.

 

[metis]

I'm not referring to papal infallibility. I'm referring to the infallibility of the church, such as the ecumenical councils, bible, etc.

The Bible is not considered inerrant in all matters as it's common knowledge that there are variations of many narratives. As far as the ecumenical councils are concerned, only their most basic teachings are considered as such. However, that does not mean that an individual Catholic must blindly accept it as it's binding only on those who teach within the Church.

When I asked our priest if I could be admitted back into the Church after being away for over 20 years, I also explained to him that as a scientist and that I'm always going to ask questions and not assume things but that I could help with certain activities within the church. He said that's fine and admitted me back in. The church has gone downhill ever since.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Either you are discussing what the historical Jesus may have said (in which the entire John's gospel is to be discarded as most historians believe) or you are discussing Christology and Christian theology (in which the entire NT has to be taken as God-inspired). Pick a stream and be consistent.

In this particular case, there is absolutely no doubt that Jesus never said it. It is a legend that developed later in history and was spliced into the gospel of John centuries later. My understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that Christians assign inerrancy to the original gospel. Thus even for those who mistakenly think that the gospels are accurate accounts, they do not include these later addendums.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Bible is not considered inerrant in all matters as it's common knowledge that there are variations of many narratives. As far as the ecumenical councils are concerned, only their most basic teachings are considered as such. However, that does not mean that an individual Catholic must blindly accept it as it's binding only on those who teach within the Church.

Yes, I've been told the same by many Catholics regarding the bible. However, the Bible is considered infallible in its moral teachings, and our discussion is centered around what appears to be Pope Francis' desire to change the moral teachings of the church.

My understanding of ecumenical councils is different than yours. I have been taught that the CC considers all their writings to be infallible. Now, I'm no expert in Catholicism, so I may very well be wrong. But honestly you are the first educated Catholic who has ever said that the teachings of ecumenical councils can be wrong on matters of faith and morals.

This is how Catholic Answers defines the infallibility of the church:

"Infallibility, (in general) exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; (in particular) in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals."

When I asked our priest if I could be admitted back into the Church after being away for over 20 years, I also explained to him that as a scientist and that I'm always going to ask questions and not assume things but that I could help with certain activities within the church. He said that's fine and admitted me back in. The church has gone downhill ever since.

LOL Cute. Well, Mr. Scientist, you are certainly my favorite online Catholic.

 

[sayak83]

In this particular case, there is absolutely no doubt that Jesus never said it. It is a legend that developed later in history and was spliced into the gospel of John centuries later. My understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that Christians assign inerrancy to the original gospel. Thus even for those who mistakenly think that the gospels are accurate accounts, they do not include these later addendums.

No you are wrong. All Christians consider the entire NT in toto as scripture and do not distinguish in terms of historicity. Historicity is primary a concern for historians, not Christians.

 

[sayak83]

In this particular case, there is absolutely no doubt that Jesus never said it. It is a legend that developed later in history and was spliced into the gospel of John centuries later. My understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that Christians assign inerrancy to the original gospel. Thus even for those who mistakenly think that the gospels are accurate accounts, they do not include these later addendums.

No you are wrong. All Christians consider the entire NT in toto as scripture and do not distinguish in terms of historicity. Historicity is primary a concern for historians, not Christians.

 

[metis]

and our discussion is centered around what appears to be Pope Francis' desire to change the moral teachings of the church.

It's more on how do we deal with people who may violate various teachings or even commit horrendous crimes? Jesus' emphasis on love has it that we still are to "love one another" even if we disagree with them or witness that they've committed a serious sin. Gandhi taught much the same.

But honestly you are the first educated Catholic who has ever said that the teachings of ecumenical councils can be wrong on matters of faith and morals.

I guess it's a matter of degrees. After all, it's basic human nature to question things. A survey of Catholics I saw maybe a decade ago had it that over 95% of Catholics disagree on the Vatican's teachings on birth control for just one example. OTOH, if one questions everything, then I guess (s)he needs to question whether the Church is an appropriate fit.

LOL Cute. Well, Mr. Scientist, you are certainly my favorite online Catholic.

Well, I guess at least my science is more consistent.

BTW, someday I should tell you the story of what brought me back to the Church, and if you think I'm nuts now, you haven't seen anything yet!

Take care, my friend.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No you are wrong. All Christians consider the entire NT in toto as scripture and do not distinguish in terms of historicity. Historicity is primary a concern for historians, not Christians.

Christians assume that the original gospels are historical. If you have a more complex view, then I salute you. But I would say that makes you untypical.

Christian scholars DO debate whether this passage is part of the Bible. Publishers of teh various translations usually seek a compromise position by including it, but putting it in italics or adding a footnote stating that the earlier manuscripts do not have this passage.