The Vatican teaches that homosexuals must be treated with dignity and respect but that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.”
Isn't it weird how Catholic "radical inclusion" is wildly insulting and still less inclusive than secular society?
Love thy neighbor. Except this one. And this one. And those over there. And so on.
No, no. Love them, but look down on them like the sinner that they are.
They’re acting like the schism isn’t already guaranteed. A not insignificant portion of Catholics look to the episcopal church as leaders on issues like lgbt treatment and women’s leadership. Meanwhile another not insignificant portion of Catholics look to the medieval church as a role model on such issues and have issues with Catholic stances on things like the death penalty, global poverty, and the environment.
The fact is that the liberation theologists, Catholic workers, and other branches of the Catholic left are just not following the same religion as groups like the Catholics who control the American Supreme Court, the neofrancoists, and those who still say mass in Latin. And stuck in the middle are folks like Joe Biden, many Jesuits, and pope Francis who understand that the Catholic Church has a lot of value in its stability but does need to change to reflect the times and isn’t in a stable position.
The schism is all but official. The question is which side gets to keep the pope, how many pieces are left, and how radical each is.
Anecdotal but all of the Catholics I know have either converted to the episcopal church or they just never go to mass or talk about it but say they’re catholic so grandma doesn’t get sad. You go to mass, and there are no young people whatsoever. I don’t have hard data to back this up but it seems like the Catholic Church in the US could just collapse before a significant schism reaches us.
Oh full agreement, I’m ex Catholic myself (pagan now but it wasn’t a direct conversion). And yeah that’s what Francis was for and what he’s trying to do. There are still young Catholics and I’d break them into two groups: religiously inclined people who like theological rigor or ritual and were probably raised Catholic, and those who find value in regressive traditionalism. The former tend to convert to something like episcopalianism if their values drive them from the church. The latter on the other hand drive more people from regular Catholic attendance
The question is which side gets to keep the pope,
I propose King Solomon's solution.
You jest, but I do think that violence and papal assassination are absolutely on the table here. I suspect we’re going to enter a second warring popes period or simply have a tense situation where both sides claim to hold a pope. Most likely Francis will fall left or liberal. Benedict just died otherwise I could see him providing legitimacy to the conservatives. But enough cardinals will probably split to pick a new pope.
If the conservatives get the Vatican it’ll probably be through Italian intervention and I would suspect that the liberals/left leaning will set up in France, South America, Ireland, or attempt to bargain for a square mile or so of Jerusalem.
If the liberals/left get the Vatican it’ll likely be thanks to pope Francis and I suspect the conservatives will set up in the United States, elsewhere in Italy, Spain, or attempt to get a small portion of Jerusalem.
There’s also a chance both are theologically stubborn enough to insist that their bishop of Rome is their leader and thus they either split the Vatican or attempt to get more of Rome.
I thought they claimed the pope is infallible so how can they challenge him?
Some people are nuts, if Jesus came down and told them to help the poor foreigners. They'd challenge his interpretation of tbe Bible im sure:C
I'm sure they would censor him for missinformation since his message would be detrimental to economic growth.
by the old and trusted "Screw you and your church. I'll go make my own own but with straight people and alter boys"
Only in special circumstances of speaking "ex cathedra"
Because they know it's all a lie?
but people are going to call them out on the bullshit. if they didn't care about appearances they would probably show up more frequently in close proximity to childrens.
NB: The current title of the article is :
Changed the title. Long live Lemmy, it's not perfect but at least we can do this haha
😉
Indeed, death to Reddit, long live Lemmy! 😛 It’s gotten really awesome for a decentralised volunteer run & donations based system. 👏👏👏
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It calls for a “radical inclusion” of LGBTQ+ Catholics and others who have been marginalized by the church, and for new accountability measures to check how bishops exercise their authority to prevent abuses.
The cardinals are among those who have issued such warnings, and their questions to Francis asked him to affirm Catholic doctrine lest the synod undue the church’s traditional teaching.
In particular, they asked Francis to affirm that the church cannot bless same-sex couples, and that any sexual act outside marriage between man and woman is a grave sin.
The signatories were some of Francis’ most vocal critics, all of them retired and of the more doctrinaire generation of cardinals appointed by St. John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI.
Brandmueller and Burke were among four signatories of a previous round of “dubia” to Francis in 2016 following his controversial opening to letting divorced and civilly remarried couples receive Communion.
The cardinals didn’t publish his reply, but they apparently found it so unsatisfactory that they reformulated their five questions, submitted them to him again and asked him to simply respond with a yes or no.
The original article contains 626 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
This is a bad summary. It is the meeting agenda that is calling for the radical inclusion of LGBTQ+ members, and a group of five conservative cardinals who are fighting against this inclusion.
You can just about extract this meaning from the text. Admittedly the grammar and structure of the article could use some work.
Isn't the Pope's word unchallengeable according to Catholic doctrine? I might be naive about this, but it seems like these cardinals could face ex-comunication for insubordination? If that doesn't happen wouldn't this public challenge weaken his power?
I guess maybe that is the point for these cardinals, but maybe they're cutting off their nose to spite their faces.
The Pope is only infallible under certain conditions. That anything he declares is infallible is a misunderstanding. Not a surprising one since Catholicism is stupid and complicated and full of magical mumbo-jumbo bullshit.
The Catholic church exists to control, undermine, bully, abuse and extract money from their members.
If the pope threatens those endeavors he is very likely to find himself no longer the pope. The rules will bend to the values because the values dictate the culture. The Jesus and love parts are just for decoration.
pope infallibility is like the supreme court. The is right until another pope is says otherwise. And yes the catholic church can excommunicate them, and they have for similar issues.
Will be interesting to watch the discussion to this in the comments. Especially as an atheist.
Do gay people really care about being blessed by the Pope? Pedos I can imagine might have some affinity towards the Catholic church, but gays, Nah.
This just in: Easter bunny says same sex unions can also receive blessings
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/