Change of Catholic Beliefs

frag420

Now you will have to excuse my laymans terms as I am not too well versed in religion but I have a queery following a chat I had with some friends over the weekend.

Now from what we can gather the Catholic Church says that homosexuality is a sin and wrong. That sex before marraige and contraception is wrong, divorce etc etc etc

This is what has been taught throughout the years and many followers of Catholicism hold these beliefs strongly. The current pope has spoken out strongly against sex before marraige, homosexuality,divorce and contraception.

But who do you listen to? The pope or your head?? The reason I ask is that say hypothetically a new Pope was brought in and he had more liberal views on these things and saw that contraception was a good thing as it helped stop the spread of disease. HE believed that homosexuality was ok because the love between two people was strong and that was what was most important in a relationship. That divorce was ok as people make mistakes, we are human after all and that two people who have fallen out of love or who cannot sustain a marriage should be given the opportunity to find love with someone else and not suffer. You can see where I am going here.....................

If this was to happen would you change your strongly held beliefs because the church said it was ok now and that they were no longer sins? Or would you perhaps disobey the church and hold onto those beliefs??

Again this is a hypothetical before people start coming in with " sure it will never happen bla bla bla". Jusy suspend your belief for a while and have a think about it.

Thanks

Slav

frag420 wrote: »

But who do you listen to? The pope or your head??

My head? You mean that voices I hear? No, I'd stick with the Pope - those voices make even less sense (yet).

Seriously, if you are a Catholic then you actually don't have to blindly agree with everything Pope says unless he speaks ex cathedra. You are free to disagree and argue against what Pope says but you are obviously expected then to present arguments that would be as good as Pope's. For example, if you disagree with the stance on contraception then come up with good quality counter arguments to Humanae Vitae.

If you are not Catholic then why should you bother at all? I'm not a Catholic and I cannot think of a single reason why should I be bothered with CC teachings or Pope sayings (even though I generally like Benedict XVI) or how it all interpreted by the members of the CC (even though I generally like them even more than Benedict XVI). Private business is so private.

dvae

I'm not a catholic, but these views that the pope holds on homosexuality,
divorce and so on are actually in keeping with biblical teaching.
how could the pope go against gods law and principles as written in the bible.
as an example, if i were catholic, and the pope decided to change on of the ten
commandments, i would have to ask myself if i was in the right religion.

frag420

Yeah but has not the Catholic Church changed its beliefs on various things throughout the years??

Eating meat on a friday etc??

doctoremma

dvae wrote: »

I'm not a catholic, but these views that the pope holds on homosexuality,
divorce and so on are actually in keeping with biblical teaching.
how could the pope go against gods law and principles as written in the bible.
as an example, if i were catholic, and the pope decided to change on of the ten
commandments, i would have to ask myself if i was in the right religion.

See here for the abolition of limbo:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549439/The-Pope-ends-state-of-limbo-after-800-years.html

"There is greater theological awareness today that God is merciful and wants all human beings to be saved. Grace has priority over sin, and the exclusion of innocent babies from heaven does not seem to reflect Christ's special love for the little ones," the report says. "Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered... give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge."

Is it not plausible that, through study and re-interpretation, that changes in stances on other issues could occur?

totus tuus

doctoremma wrote: »

See here for the abolition of limbo:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549439/The-Pope-ends-state-of-limbo-after-800-years.html

"There is greater theological awareness today that God is merciful and wants all human beings to be saved. Grace has priority over sin, and the exclusion of innocent babies from heaven does not seem to reflect Christ's special love for the little ones," the report says. "Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered... give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge."

Is it not plausible that, through study and re-interpretation, that changes in stances on other issues could occur?

The common teaching and traditional catechesis of the Church has always included the belief in “Limbo.” While the Church never made the teaching a dogma that is binding on the faithful!

http://scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703978770/6-what-is-the-church%E2%80%99s-teaching-on-%E2%80%9Climbo%E2%80%9D/

totus tuus

frag420 wrote: »

Yeah but has not the Catholic Church changed its beliefs on various things throughout the years??

Eating meat on a friday etc??

That is a discipline, not a belief and it's still in place. However, one can replace not eating meat with some other form of penance.

Canon 1250 states that the days and times of penance for the whole Church are the Fridays of the entire year, and the season of Lent. And canon 1251 gives further details on just how Catholics are to make these days penitential: Unless a solemnity falls on a Friday, abstinence from meat, or some other food as determined by the Bishops’ Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays; while Ash Wednesday and Good Friday are days of both abstinence and fasting.

dvae

doctoremma wrote: »

Is it not plausible that, through study and re-interpretation, that changes in stances on other issues could occur?

as I'm not catholic i never believed in limbo myself.
through study and re-interpretation changes can and should be
some times embraced, but the bible clearly states gods view on homosexuality
and divorce in many scriptures.
if something reads black we can't read it an interpret it as white.

doctoremma

dvae wrote: »

as I'm not catholic i never believed in limbo myself.
through study and re-interpretation changes can and should be
some times embraced, but the bible clearly states gods view on homosexuality
and divorce in many scriptures.
if something reads black we can't read it an interpret it as white.

So is it your assertion that those Christian churches more tolerant of homosexuality (indeed, allowing blessings and so on in some cases) are not reinterpreting the bible, more actively going against its teachings?

If you take the premise that "women should not teach in church/have authority over men" as a biblical order, this can be circumvented by other verses that refer positively to women in authority.

Is it not possible that verses regarding respect and honour towards your neighbour are interpreted to supercede a ban on homosexual relationships?

Snappy Smurf

If a new Pope said any of those things we'd know instantly that he was an anti-pope and thus invalid and apostate. No pope can change Sacred Tradition or Scripture. The Pope is servant to Tradition, not master.

I don't think such a man under the guise of pope would last very long.

totus tuus

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

If a new Pope said any of those things we'd know instantly that he was an anti-pope and thus invalid and apostate. No pope can change Sacred Tradition or Scripture. The Pope is servant to Tradition, not master.

I don't think such a man under the guise of pope would last very long.

Excactly!!!

Without these two witnesses, (Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition) any Pope can interpret what he likes!

frag420

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

If a new Pope said any of those things we'd know instantly that he was an anti-pope and thus invalid and apostate. No pope can change Sacred Tradition or Scripture. The Pope is servant to Tradition, not master.

I don't think such a man under the guise of pope would last very long.

Well if he was voted in by his pears then surely they would be in agreement with him perhaps or how would he get the vote.

But going back to original poat I did ask you to suspend your belief as it is a hypothetical.

Onesimus

frag420 wrote: »

Well if he was voted in by his pears then surely they would be in agreement with him perhaps or how would he get the vote.

But going back to original poat I did ask you to suspend your belief as it is a hypothetical.

And what is this hypothetical question supposed to resolve exactly?

Fanny Cradock

frag420 wrote: »

But who do you listen to? The pope or your head??

This is just positing false alternatives. I'm not sure if this was deliberate or not. But it's quite possible that a Catholic (I'm not RC, btw) can simultaneously use their head and agree with Catholic doctrine.

frag420 wrote: »

Again this is a hypothetical before people start coming in with " sure it will never happen bla bla bla". Jusy suspend your belief for a while and have a think about it.

Thanks

From the man on the street to others a little more notable, people are disagreeing with the Catholic Church whilst also choosing to remain within it. There isn't a need to enter into a hypothetical scenario. I'm confused by the question.

Snappy Smurf

frag420 wrote: »

Well if he was voted in by his pears then surely they would be in agreement with him perhaps or how would he get the vote.

But going back to original poat I did ask you to suspend your belief as it is a hypothetical.

No need to suspend my belief. I told you what would happen. Catholics would recognise that the pope had lost his office through heresy and he would cease to be pope.

There is an article about it here: http://www.olrl.org/misc/sedevacant_md.shtml

tommy2bad

Well the Pope could say anything and if he declared it dogma then you would have to believe it.
So what? By the time it got that far it would be common practice anyway and have gone through so many discussions and debates that it wouldn't be a surprise or even all that notable.

Don't get bogged down with the notion that religion never changes or has never changed since time began. It changes as much as anything else, as much as science even. Just very slowly so we don't notice it much.
Their are posters saying that you cant go against tradition or scripture but what they mean is tradition and scripture as we now understand it. 500 years ago it was understood differently, 2013 years ago completely differently.

We grow and learn and with the help of the holy spirit change as much as brings us closer to God.

Snappy Smurf

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well the Pope could say anything and if he declared it dogma then you would have to believe it.
So what? By the time it got that far it would be common practice anyway and have gone through so many discussions and debates that it wouldn't be a surprise or even all that notable.

Don't get bogged down with the notion that religion never changes or has never changed since time began. It changes as much as anything else, as much as science even. Just very slowly so we don't notice it much.
Their are posters saying that you cant go against tradition or scripture but what they mean is tradition and scripture as we now understand it. 500 years ago it was understood differently, 2013 years ago completely differently.

We grow and learn and with the help of the holy spirit change as much as brings us closer to God.

There is the legitimate development of doctrine, whereby the truth is more deeply understood, explained, and clarified, but 360 degree changes of doctrine are impossible.

tommy2bad

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

There is the legitimate development of doctrine, whereby the truth is more deeply understood, explained, and clarified, but 360 degree changes of doctrine are impossible.

You mean like slavery is OK to slavery is not OK? Or is it still OK just not in good taste?
Things change, not God, us.

Snappy Smurf

tommy2bad wrote: »

You mean like slavery is OK to slavery is not OK? Or is it still OK just not in good taste?
Things change, not God, us.

The Church did not say slavery was OK. Read this nuanced article: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1201

tommy2bad

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

The Church did not say slavery was OK. Read this revisionist apologitics: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1201

FYP

Manach

Offhand 500 years ago post Trent the Catholic doctrines then and now are recognizably the same from a historical layman's perspective - that is the take-away from my academic study of Elizabethan times.

Northclare

A friend of mine went to confession this year.
He told the priest he was gay and acting out on his desires.

The priest told him not to worry about what the pope or the church thinks it's all a load of ****,and that being Gay was ok and times are changing.

Then he asked my friend, do you like reading ?
My friend said I do yeah....
The priest told him "I bought a great book by John Donoghue called Anam Cara you should check it out"

The guy looked down there's the priest with the John Donoghue book, on the table beside the priest along with a Sufism book lol

I think there needs to be more priests who look outside the box

tommy2bad

Northclare wrote: »

A friend of mine went to confession this year.


I think there needs to be more priests who look outside the box

Doc Farrell

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

There is the legitimate development of doctrine, whereby the truth is more deeply understood, explained, and clarified, but 360 degree changes of doctrine are impossible.

360 degrees brings you right back to where you started, I think you mean 180 degrees?

totus tuus

Northclare wrote: »

I think there needs to be more priests who look outside the box

I think priests like that should be turfed out! Michael Voris latest vid sez it all!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlaFkxrW5JM

Quatermain

totus tuus wrote: »

I think priests like that should be turfed out! Michael Voris latest vid sez it all!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlaFkxrW5JM

Good Lord, man. You make it sound like they're Sith, or something. I don't think they do themselves any favours by starting their video with the phrase "join us in combat".

Also, surely a gay clergyman should be admissible, seeing as how they're supposed to remain celibate anyway. After all, we did establish that the Church hates the sin, not the sinner.

totus tuus

Quatermain wrote: »

Also, surely a gay clergyman should be admissible, seeing as how they're supposed to remain celibate anyway. After all, we did establish that the Church hates the sin, not the sinner.

The Roman Catholic Church forbids the ordination of men who have "deeply rooted homosexual tendencies," as it is expressed in a 2005 document, called Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

Any priest that tells a penitent to ignore the teachings of the Church and calls it rubbish is not worthy of his vocation and should be reported to his Bishop!

We should hate the sin and not the sinner, but even Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to not sin no more!

tommy2bad

Manach wrote: »

Offhand 500 years ago post Trent the Catholic doctrines then and now are recognizably the same from a historical layman's perspective - that is the take-away from my academic study of Elizabethan times.

And since then,
Immaculate Conception
Papal Infallibility
Bodily Assumption of Mary into Heaven
Not a huge change but change none the less. All dogmas now but you could be a good catholic and disbelieve them before.
My point was that change dose occur and will occur again. What that change will be is a matter of politics and cultural influences and most importantly the guidance of the holy spirit.

I think snowballs will last in hell sooner than the 'gay agenda' taking hold in catholic doctrine but that will be the rock they perish on. Inference intentional.

Quatermain

So, the better option would be to tell the young man to be afraid and ashamed of what he is, and then cast him out on his ear? You think this priest should be reported for what, exactly? Being an understanding human being?

totus tuus

Quatermain wrote: »

So, the better option would be to tell the young man to be afraid and ashamed of what he is, and then cast him out on his ear? You think this priest should be reported for what, exactly? Being an understanding human being?

The young man confessed to what he did not what he is - big difference!!

Snappy Smurf

tommy2bad wrote: »

And since then,
Immaculate Conception
Papal Infallibility
Bodily Assumption of Mary into Heaven
Not a huge change but change none the less. All dogmas now but you could be a good catholic and disbelieve them before.
My point was that change dose occur and will occur again. What that change will be is a matter of politics and cultural influences and most importantly the guidance of the holy spirit.

I think snowballs will last in hell sooner than the 'gay agenda' taking hold in catholic doctrine but that will be the rock they perish on. Inference intentional.

Hardly. Gay sex has been around for a long time. The ancient Romans and Greeks were all into that sort of thing. The Christians stood as witnesses against that sort of thing.

Quatermain

Northclare wrote: »

A friend of mine went to confession this year.
He told the priest he was gay and acting out on his desires.

Apparently, he did confess as to what he is...

totus tuus

Quatermain wrote: »

Apparently, he did confess as to what he is...

So!

Quatermain

totus tuus wrote: »

So!

Great response. He told the priest he was gay. The priest offered a consoling and sympathetic ear. This is the be-all and end-all of this segment of the discussion. You seem angry at this. Angry enough to amend your posts, apparently...

Slav

Is not what happens during confession supposed to be kept strictly between the two? Discussing someone's else confession is pretty disgusting already, isn't it?

totus tuus

Quatermain wrote: »

Great response. He told the priest he was gay. The priest offered a consoling and sympathetic ear. This is the be-all and end-all of this segment of the discussion. You seem angry at this. Angry enough to amend your posts, apparently...

I changed my post because It was uncharitable, and why would I be angry, dissapointed would be closer to the mark! The sympathetic ear for the pentitent's predicament isn't the problem, it's telling him to disregard the teachings of the Church and ignore what the Pope says, which is downright dissentful and leading others astray - is it any wonder there is conflict in the Church.

Sonics2k

Wait, I'm confused here.

I thought that the stance of the RCC was that Homosexuality is bad, but a person can 'redeem' themselves if they stay celibate, realise homosexuality is a sin, and dedicate themselves to Jesus Christ and God.

So, what exactly is the problem with them being a Priest?

Priests = celibate, dedicated to God, and think homosexuality is a sin.
What's the problem with homosexual priests?

Snappy Smurf

Sonics2k wrote: »

Wait, I'm confused here.

I thought that the stance of the RCC was that Homosexuality is bad, but a person can 'redeem' themselves if they stay celibate, realise homosexuality is a sin, and dedicate themselves to Jesus Christ and God.

So, what exactly is the problem with them being a Priest?

Priests = celibate, dedicated to God, and think homosexuality is a sin.
What's the problem with homosexual priests?

The Church holds that the homosexual priest, even if celibate, is not able to relate fully to men and women because of his condition.

Sonics2k

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

The Church holds that the homosexual priest, even if celibate, is not able to relate fully to men and women because of his condition.

Why?

I'm not trolling here, I'm genuinely trying to understand, because it just doesn't make any sense to me.

doctoremma

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

The Church holds that the homosexual priest, even if celibate, is not able to relate fully to men and women

Couldn't you argue that someone who is celibate is unable to relate fully to men and women? Or that a white priest is unable to relate to anyone of colour? Or that a male priest is unable to relate to women?

Are you suggesting that homosexual priests in particular lack wisdom, empathy, understanding?

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

because of his condition.

It's not a disease.

tommy2bad

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Hardly. Gay sex has been around for a long time. The ancient Romans and Greeks were all into that sort of thing. The Christians stood as witnesses against that sort of thing.

Sorry that wasnt clear, I was thinking in a western context. It is the least of concerns outside the liberal west.

Northclare

My friend discussed his confession with me,it's no big deal...
If I thought my post could help anyone in any kind of turmoil,ill happily do so.

There's nothing wrong with being Gay,it's been scientifically proven.

My friends anonymity wasn't broken.

The Catholic Church needs to wake up,that priest was honest and didn't judge or throw any rhetoric at that guy...

What's the big deal like.

newmug

Northclare wrote: »

My friend discussed his confession with me,it's no big deal...
If I thought my post could help anyone in any kind of turmoil,ill happily do so.

There's nothing wrong with being Gay,it's been scientifically proven.

My friends anonymity wasn't broken.

The Catholic Church needs to wake up,that priest was honest and didn't judge or throw any rhetoric at that guy...

What's the big deal like.

Whats the big deal???????

There's something some of you non-catholics, and former Catholics who weren't clued in, arent getting - the Pope doesn't make up the rules, GOD DID!

No ordinary man, even if he is the Pope, can change that. If it is changed by someone other than God, then it is a lie.

God said being gay is a sin. If God said it, well then its a big fcukin deal!!! He also said murder is a sin, stealing is a sin, etc., and by extension, physically harming anyone in any way is a sin, and over-charging someone or ripping them off is also a sin. But there's a few people I'd like to box the head off I can tell you. Do I do it? No. Why? Because God said not to. End of.

Northclare

Prove it mate....

Where in the New Testament did God say its a sin.

newmug

Northclare wrote: »

Prove it mate....

Where in the New Testament did God say its a sin.

Its in the Old Testament

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm/


I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it is a sin.

Wiggles88

newmug wrote: »

Whats the big deal???????

There's something some of you non-catholics, and former Catholics who weren't clued in, arent getting - the Pope doesn't make up the rules, GOD DID!

No ordinary man, even if he is the Pope, can change that. If it is changed by someone other than God, then it is a lie.

God said being gay is a sin. If God said it, well then its a big fcukin deal!!! He also said murder is a sin, stealing is a sin, etc., and by extension, physically harming anyone in any way is a sin, and over-charging someone or ripping them off is also a sin. But there's a few people I'd like to box the head off I can tell you. Do I do it? No. Why? Because God said not to. End of.

Trimming your beard, eating shellfish, letting eunuchs into the church, letting women teach, working on the sabbath were all considered sins in the bible yet they have been either ignored or interpreted to mean something else than their literal interpretations, so why not the same with being gay?

doctoremma

newmug wrote: »

But there's a few people I'd like to box the head off I can tell you. Do I do it? No. Why? Because God said not to. End of.

Actually, having a second go at this statement, I've noticed something far more sinister...

The only reason you don't beat people up is because god told you not to?

Northclare

It's not a sin.

doctoremma

Northclare wrote: »

It's not a sin.

In my opinion, your word is as good any!

Northclare

doctoremma wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

It's not a sin.

In my opinion, your word is as good any!

I accept my contradictions.

Sonics2k

newmug wrote: »

Its in the Old Testament

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm/


I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it is a sin.

If you're going to quote Leviticus, then you damn well better take the rest of that part completely literally.

Go have a nice long read of it and see what Leviticus has to say about a lot of things. Because you can't agree with one part of it, and ignore the rest.

Think. Very. Carefully.