Pope on gays : "Who am I to judge?"

[Viking]

You're cherry picking.  Read the whole thing. "Sacred tradition and sacred scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence".

No I'm not. I'm talking about the revelation of the word of god. Which is the bible. Which is what your text said.

You've lost me.  What exactly are you arguing here?

If you'll recall, the dispute was whether or not the Catholic Church believed that the Bible is the "sole source of divine revelation"?  Because you seem to finally be acknowledging that the Catholic Church believes in more than just the Bible.

No, seriously.

The Revealed Word of God = The Bible
The way of interpreting the Word of God = The Sacred Traditions of the Church

I've said this a few time already. The church teaches that the writers were inspired by the word of god but, since they were human, they didn't necessarily write it down in a manner that the divine inspiration would be understood correctly. To make sure you understand it correctly you need the church. You can't do it yourself, like Luther said.

[Barrister]

You're cherry picking.  Read the whole thing. "Sacred tradition and sacred scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence".

No I'm not. I'm talking about the revelation of the word of god. Which is the bible. Which is what your text said.

You've lost me.  What exactly are you arguing here?

If you'll recall, the dispute was whether or not the Catholic Church believed that the Bible is the "sole source of divine revelation"?  Because you seem to finally be acknowledging that the Catholic Church believes in more than just the Bible.

No, seriously.

The Revealed Word of God = The Bible
The way of interpreting the Word of God = The Sacred Traditions of the Church

I've said this a few time already. The church teaches that the writers were inspired by the word of god but, since they were human, they didn't necessarily write it down in a manner that the divine inspiration would be understood correctly. To make sure you understand it correctly you need the church. You can't do it yourself, like Luther said.

WHich is more than just the Bible itself.

We're going in circles here.

[Viking]

You're cherry picking.  Read the whole thing. "Sacred tradition and sacred scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence".

No I'm not. I'm talking about the revelation of the word of god. Which is the bible. Which is what your text said.

You've lost me.  What exactly are you arguing here?

If you'll recall, the dispute was whether or not the Catholic Church believed that the Bible is the "sole source of divine revelation"?  Because you seem to finally be acknowledging that the Catholic Church believes in more than just the Bible.

No, seriously.

The Revealed Word of God = The Bible
The way of interpreting the Word of God = The Sacred Traditions of the Church

I've said this a few time already. The church teaches that the writers were inspired by the word of god but, since they were human, they didn't necessarily write it down in a manner that the divine inspiration would be understood correctly. To make sure you understand it correctly you need the church. You can't do it yourself, like Luther said.

WHich is more than just the Bible itself.

We're going in circles here.

I don't think we are going in circles. I think you are. It is more than just the bible. I said the bible was the sole source of divine revelation. It's nice to see you've come round. You really shouldn't just disagree with me just because you don't like my view on a different topic (viz the existence or not of a god). You need the church to get from revelation to dogma and teachings, that is what the church is for according to the catholics.

[dps]

If God isn't changing then he certainly is a <insert profane insult of choice>. Call it the Viking Dilemma. If he knew that the torture would happen and permitted it anyway he is cruel and evil, if he didn't know the torture would happen he is not onmi-.  The various ideas of god do not stand up to reason and logic and reality.

Please do give me a comprehensible answer on why/how either torture was ok 1000 years ago and/or how/why god isn't being a dick for letting it happen.

Call it the "Viking Dilemma", like you're the first person to ever bring this up?  Is your ego that big, or are you just that uninformed about the history of philosophy and theology?

[crazy canuck]

I said the bible was the sole source of divine revelation.

Yeah, and you are just dead wrong about that.

[Razgovory]

I swear that Viking delbrately misreads everything he is given.

[Viking]

If God isn't changing then he certainly is a <insert profane insult of choice>. Call it the Viking Dilemma. If he knew that the torture would happen and permitted it anyway he is cruel and evil, if he didn't know the torture would happen he is not onmi-.  The various ideas of god do not stand up to reason and logic and reality.

Please do give me a comprehensible answer on why/how either torture was ok 1000 years ago and/or how/why god isn't being a dick for letting it happen.

Call it the "Viking Dilemma", like you're the first person to ever bring this up?  Is your ego that big, or are you just that uninformed about the history of philosophy and theology?

It's actually based on Epicurus' Trilemma

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

which I can never remember properly.... 

so rather than getting it wrong I made up one fitting the situation and pegged my name on it. Critics of Calvin and predestination probably have traditional named criticisms but I don't know the names of those either.

Certainly Theists haven't come up with a decent argument for god since Epicurus and Lucretius destroyed all them all back in the ancient world. Then again, Atheists haven't needed to come up with any good arguments since then either. Very little here is new in this argument.

If you think I'm pretending I came up with most of this stuff you are mistaken.

[Viking]

I said the bible was the sole source of divine revelation.

Yeah, and you are just dead wrong about that.

It's about time you came around then. Now we need to get on with convincing you that none of the other self claimed sources of divine revelation are actually true.

[crazy canuck]

I said the bible was the sole source of divine revelation.

Yeah, and you are just dead wrong about that.

It's about time you came around then. Now we need to get on with convincing you that none of the other self claimed sources of divine revelation are actually true.

It really is going in circles with you.  You need not convince me of anything.  I am an athiest myself.  Its just that you are mischaracterizing the argument of those who are christians so terribly that it would lead an objective bystander to think the athiest argument had no merit.

[HVC]

Plus, damn you to hell for making me defend the Roman Catholic Church.

I left, so there's a spot open for you

[grumbler]

It really is going in circles with you.  You need not convince me of anything.  I am an athiest myself.  Its just that you are mischaracterizing the argument of those who are christians so terribly that it would lead an objective bystander to think the athiest argument had no merit.

Unusual though this is, I find myself agreeing with CC (other than in his persistent mis-spelling of atheist) and would repeat what I said to Tamas (and earlier to Marti):  why does it mean so much to you, Viking, that some people believe in things you don't believe in?  It strikes me that you guys protesteth too much.  I don't care, in general, whether the guy down the street believes in a god or thinks white wines are superior to reds.  That doesn't shorten my lifespan or my gas mileage.

If you are debating this just for the fun of debating, I guess I can't object (given my own predilection for that hobby), but would note that you go pretty deep into the grass in pursuit of "fun."

[Razgovory]

I have no problem with most atheism.  I find "internet atheism", which is essentially bullying, to be annoying and tiresome.  It's sophomoric and childish and typically amounts to going on about Sky Fairies, and noodle monsters.  To me it's the stuff of teenagers trying to show off how smart they are, and how stupid everyone else is.  I used to be guilty of that myself (though before I was on the net), which may be why I hold it in such contempt.

Viking is different though, his is the Atheism of Dawkins and Hitchens.  It is an Atheism that is at war with religion, it is elimination in nature.  Religion stands in the way, and must be ruthlessly purged.  If allowed to exist it threatens the existence of science and freedom.  Ironically, it's an illiberal mindset and human rights can be trampled and ideas banned if necessary to preserve the true freedom of "Free Thought".

[DGuller]

It is an Atheism that is at war with religion, it is elimination in nature.  Religion stands in the way, and must be ruthlessly purged.  If allowed to exist it threatens the existence of science and freedom.

Are you trying to make it sound like a bad thing?

[Sheilbh]

As for Sheilbh's Heirarchy of Truth. It is BS. It is BS for the simple reason that you can only discover after the fact where in this  Heirachy of Truth a dogma or a doctrine or a teaching resides. Basically, they get pushed down as reality proves them wrong.

The hierarchy of truth isn't saying A is more true and more important than B. It says B proceeds from A. So the problem with the Church talking all the time about abortion and the gays is that it's not talking about the core of the faith. Here's the Pope on that:

The Church's pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus.

We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the Church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.

I say this also thinking about the preaching and content of our preaching. A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation. Then you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence. But the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives. Today sometimes it seems that the opposite order is prevailing.

The homily is the touchstone to measure the pastor's proximity and ability to meet his people, because those who preach must recognize the heart of their community and must be able to see where the desire for God is lively and ardent. The message of the Gospel, therefore, is not to be reduced to some aspects that, although relevant, on their own do not show the heart of the message of Jesus Christ.

So he's not changed any teaching here. But it's a bit like how he more or less says 'you know my views on these topics, I'm a son of the Church'. But we need to get back to the core message from which all moral teaching flows. Given his name I always think of St. Francis being told to rebuild the Church and I think the message here is let's stop trying to buttress up the east wing and check that the foundations are solid. You see this approach in a concordance of Francis's public words so far - the most used word is 'joy' and the second is 'mercy'. These are to him what 'be not afraid' was to JPII and faith and reason were to Benedict. I think they're the touchstone of his approach.

And I wonder if this is something of the Jesuit in Francis. The Jesuits are commanded to 'find God in all things' and so he says 'Here we enter into the mystery of the human being.  In life, God accompanied persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their situation.  It is necessary to accompany them with mercy.' He also uses a very striking and very Jesuit analogy when discussing gays and abortion. He compares the Church to a field hospital and the people who enter into it to wounded soldiers. A priest should focus on the wounds of the soldier in front of them, not start asking them about their blood pressure and cholesterol

thats not catholic, thats islamic kalaam.

A bit of context helps. 'Thinking with the Church' is a part of Jesuit spirituality. It's one of Ignatius's exercises to try and align an individual with the Church and its preachings. It's generally full of praise for the Church but the last line - which I think Francis is referring to - is if you perceive something to be white, 'believe it to be black' if the Church determines it so. I think Francis takes that Jesuit practice expands it.

As I say I think it's genuinely new, but it stems from Vatican II which emphasised that while the hierarchy has a huge and important role the Catholic Church isn't just the hierarchy it is the 'people of God'. But it's a very Jesuit idea and approach, I don't think any other Pope could've discussed it like that.

Not surprising, in both cases it stems either from ignorance or deliberative refusal to approach these texts in their proper context, and instead try to read them like they are divine instruction manuals.

True. But it's even down to the dissing of Francis. The ultra-conservatives are always moaning about Francis's sermons and certainly interviews like this (Benedict never did an interview but loved ordered, philosophical question and answer sessions). They compare it negatively to Benedict's very intelligent and rigorous statements.

Religion is, to me, a way to guide the purpose of one's life. It's to offer solace and guidance when things aren't working well. It's to help people find a better way. That this pope is saying, "Look, our goal is to guide, not judge," says a lot about him, imo. He's bringing the Catholic Church back around to what it's supposed to have been doing all along.

From a Catholic view you're right. The purpose of the Catholic Church in someone's life is to more accurately model your own life after Christ. The goal is nothing less than to become a saint. The Church offers a way to do that and provides the specification for the model. But you will fail. So the Church also provides confession, which is an absolute obsession with Francis. I love the story of the single mother who got pregnant again and her lover, who she thought would propose then pushed her to get an abortion. She decided not to but wrote to Francis about this story. He phoned her up and talked to her and at the end of the conversation said 'and look if you can't find someone to perform the christening (many Italian priests are very conservative on this), then I'll do it'. That's what he means by what matters isn't the judging it's getting the message of the Church to the person and treating the person with love.

Interestingly Francis quotes St. Francis of Lerins's line that 'even the dogma of the Christian religion must follow these laws, consolidating over the years, developing over time, deepening with age'. And goes on to discuss how the Church needs to change and adapt its understandings of people now - never losing focus on human beings - so that they can encounter it.

Having read the whole things there's two really striking things for me. The first is that this is quite a mystical Pope. He mentions time and again the need to be open to God. You shouldn't obsess over the rules too much if that closes you off to God. You need to be open for discernment and it is striking that his favourite Jesuit was Ignatius' room-mate (with Francis Xavier) at university, Peter Faber. He's not well known and he's not even been canonised yet. But he's a great mystical writer of the Jesuits and a model of 'contemplative in action'. In addition Francis seems to link mysticism to the prophets and describes the role of the religious orders as to be prophets, which isn't necessarily in conflict with the hierarchy, but which is different. So we have a prophet in the Vatican, which is interesting.

The second thing is I think it really shows that he's the first Pope we've had since the Council whose career hasn't been defined by the Council. I mean this line for example 'yes, there are hermeneutics of continuity and discontinuity, but one thing is clear: the dynamic of reading the Gospel, actualising its message for today – which was typical of Vatican II – is absolutely irreversible.' JPII and Benedict were entirely about emphasising the hermeneutic of continuity. Francis has more or less dismissed that whole argument in a throwaway line. That wasn't his council or his interest. So I think we're seeing the first Pope who isn't primarily interested with defining the meaning of the Council and settling internal arguments. He's post-conciliar. I think his approach, which a lot of Catholics will be happy with, is to say 'the Council happened, we've had our internal squabbles and focused on ourselves, now let's get back on the streets.'

The two tie together because he's always said that his fear was a Church that was internal rather than out on the street. In the World Youth Day in Rio he had that message, he told the young people to return to their parishes and 'make a mess'. In this interview, he had this to say, 'Being prophets may sometimes imply making waves. I do not know how to put it.... Prophecy makes noise, uproar, some say 'a mess.' But in reality, the charism of religious people is like yeast: prophecy announces the spirit of the Gospel.' He's a religious, so he's a prophet and, apparently, a Pope who wants to make a mess.

[The Minsky Moment]

.  Ironically, it's an illiberal mindset and human rights can be trampled and ideas banned if necessary to preserve the true freedom of "Free Thought".

Viking said that?
I think you pushed the point one step too far.