|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 31, 2023 18:26:00 GMT
As long as the Church is on a roll, wonder if they've ever considered blessing polygamous relationships? In Africa where it's part of the culture? In the West where the thing now is to put together "throuples"? Put it under the rubric of blessing the individuals and helping them to become holier? I thought the question of poly relationships had been raised by Pope Francis or one of his minions before. I remember a discussion on it and my mind went immediately to polyamorous people in USA because I used to encounter quite a few of those, and I just couldn't see the Church ever accepting that. Then somebody pointed out that in parts of Africa, polygamy was actually an accepted social practice and the Church therefore had to figure out how to respond to it. However, if I remember right, the whole background of FS is that the German bishops, and other bishops in Europe as well as some bishops and Fr Martin/ New Ways Ministry in US, wanted to bless and in some cases were already blessing same-sex relationships. Like the group blessings in the public square that happened in Germany. And the Pope recently, like a few months ago, reiterated that gay unions cannot be blessed, but the Vatican would consider what other blessings might be possible. I thought that meant they'd probably take up this issue again the next phase of the Synod, have these discussions with the African, Asian, Hungarian, Polish bishops there. Instead, the DDF whips up FS without any kind of synodal process, and drops it on the Catholic world right before Christmas...smh And one other thing, the gay phenomenon has morphed into a civil rights issue, whereas, at least in the US, polygamy hasn't. The last time it was an issue, was when polygamy was a stumbling block to Utah becoming a full-fledged state, and the LDS conveniently announced that they had had a "revelation" that polygamy must be done away with. Here's how it rattled out, I'll let them tell the story, rather than attempting it myself: www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=engMake of that what one will. Some schismatic groups retained polygamy --- in the TV series Big Love, they are at pains to stress that the dramatis personae are part of a schismatic sect, not the mainstream COJCOLDS. Any "civil rights issue" concerns freeing the women (and their children) from this extreme patriarchy, not defending the practice and seeking to allow its continuance. It's also worth noting that in such arrangements, one "sister-wife" is the legal wife, and the others are just "wives" in the spiritual sense. What avant-garde people might do about polyamory today, outside the LDS environment, is probably judged to be consensual by all parties. As to seeking the Church's blessing, it will probably depend upon how far polyamory ever ventures into the mainstream. Again, I'd be interested to see if the Church might advance an FS-type ministry to cultures where polyamory is warp and woof of the indigenous culture. This doesn't even begin to touch the informal, non-residential "open marriage" situations, where one or both of the spouses have "side pieces" with the acquiescence of one another. It would take a massive amount of chutzpah for such groupings to approach the Church for a "blessing", not of the arrangements per se, nor of the adultery taking place on an ongoing basis, but, hey, admitting their imperfection and seeking spiritual solace, eh? Everyone always blessed... takes todos, todos, todos to an entirely new level. What's not to like?
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Dec 31, 2023 18:32:24 GMT
I guarantee you most people in US practicing polyamory (or BDSM or any number of other avant-garde practices) don't give a flip what any church thinks about it.
|
|
|
Post by theguvnor on Dec 31, 2023 21:49:15 GMT
I'd say that's a reasonable bet.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jan 1, 2024 4:18:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 1, 2024 7:43:16 GMT
Dogs are not moral agents and cannot sin. Moreover, for a woman to spoil her dog rotten is not intrinsically evil --- maybe she couldn't have children and treated her pet as a surrogate child. That's her prerogative. If she's had that dog since it was a puppy, the dog thinks that the woman is his "mother". Sounds kind of judgmental to me. OTOH, sodomy is intrinsically evil.
|
|
|
Post by iagosan on Jan 1, 2024 7:54:14 GMT
It matters not what the media says. The fact remains that the bishops' conferences of many countries are not down with this document as written. There was no synodal process involved with the development of this document. While I personally don't see it as a doctrinal shift, the likes of Fr Martin and the Reporter keep insisting that it is, and certainly it raises a concern about the camel's nose being in the tent. It's my further understanding that many priests were already quietly blessing gay couples as individuals when such people would request a blessing, or otherwise present themselves for individual blessings without announcing their status - for example, at the end of Mass, during papal or bishop visits, etc. So I have no idea why this document was even needed. Bad strategic move, likely engineered by Fernandez because to be honest the Pope was breathing so badly during the Urbi et Orbi ceremony last weekend that it's amazing he's still upright, definitely he is not at his best. I think a likely result of FS is that it will end up alarming so many bishops, including those who don't have a problem with the proposed type of blessing but are alarmed at how this was handled and the potential divisions between regions and between East and West that may result, that the next conclave will not wish to elect a "Pope Francis II". And it'll be a cold day you know where before we get another Jesuit Pope. It's bizarre to me that the same Pope who frets so much over Church unity when someone wants to say TLM or even face ad orientem, blithely goes and releases a document like FS that is far more damaging to Church unity. The "Synod" (set up by German money) was designed to introduce this. It alarmed many attendees and consequently failed to deliver the goods! This has lead to the formation of a co-ordinated opposition which would be an even greater obstacle later this year, therefore Tucho and Francis took a gamble by introducing FS as a desperate throw of the dice. Thanks be to God (and James Martin`s foolishness in going public, too soon) it failed, and has forced the Non Dynamic Duo to desperately consider some form of "clarification" after having forcefully stated that no further information relating to this document would be forthcoming when they released it.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 1, 2024 8:11:14 GMT
It matters not what the media says. The fact remains that the bishops' conferences of many countries are not down with this document as written. There was no synodal process involved with the development of this document. While I personally don't see it as a doctrinal shift, the likes of Fr Martin and the Reporter keep insisting that it is, and certainly it raises a concern about the camel's nose being in the tent. It's my further understanding that many priests were already quietly blessing gay couples as individuals when such people would request a blessing, or otherwise present themselves for individual blessings without announcing their status - for example, at the end of Mass, during papal or bishop visits, etc. So I have no idea why this document was even needed. Bad strategic move, likely engineered by Fernandez because to be honest the Pope was breathing so badly during the Urbi et Orbi ceremony last weekend that it's amazing he's still upright, definitely he is not at his best. I think a likely result of FS is that it will end up alarming so many bishops, including those who don't have a problem with the proposed type of blessing but are alarmed at how this was handled and the potential divisions between regions and between East and West that may result, that the next conclave will not wish to elect a "Pope Francis II". And it'll be a cold day you know where before we get another Jesuit Pope. It's bizarre to me that the same Pope who frets so much over Church unity when someone wants to say TLM or even face ad orientem, blithely goes and releases a document like FS that is far more damaging to Church unity. The "Synod" (set up by German money) was designed to introduce this. It alarmed many attendees and consequently failed to deliver the goods! This has lead to the formation of a co-ordinated opposition which would be an even greater obstacle later this year, therefore Tucho and Francis took a gamble by introducing FS as a desperate throw of the dice. Thanks be to God (and James Martin`s foolishness in going public, too soon) it failed, and has forced the Non Dynamic Duo to desperately consider some form of "clarification" after having forcefully stated that no further information relating to this document would be forthcoming when they released it. I tend to agree with you. It was a desperation move to try and mollify the German bishops, and it has backfired --- "we just got through saying that 'God cannot bless sin', and they're just going to go ahead and do it anyway, so it's time to punt and hope for the best". Meanwhile, the "Francis no matter what" crowd is defending him any way they can, even though I assume they defended the "God cannot bless sin" argument from 2021 until now. Where is the cognitive dissonance? Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jan 2, 2024 1:28:05 GMT
Dogs are not moral agents and cannot sin. Moreover, for a woman to spoil her dog rotten is not intrinsically evil --- maybe she couldn't have children and treated her pet as a surrogate child. That's her prerogative. If she's had that dog since it was a puppy, the dog thinks that the woman is his "mother". Sounds kind of judgmental to me. OTOH, sodomy is intrinsically evil.
He was not against the dog but against the woman who was treating the dog as a baby human.
Also, the blessings don't support sodomy:
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 2, 2024 2:25:43 GMT
Dogs are not moral agents and cannot sin. Moreover, for a woman to spoil her dog rotten is not intrinsically evil --- maybe she couldn't have children and treated her pet as a surrogate child. That's her prerogative. If she's had that dog since it was a puppy, the dog thinks that the woman is his "mother". Sounds kind of judgmental to me. OTOH, sodomy is intrinsically evil.
He was not against the dog but against the woman who was treating the dog as a baby human.
Still pretty judgmental, for the reasons I cited. She could have any number of reasons for doting on her dog that way.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jan 3, 2024 1:55:07 GMT
He was not against the dog but against the woman who was treating the dog as a baby human.
Still pretty judgmental, for the reasons I cited. She could have any number of reasons for doting on her dog that way.
What would be those other reasons?
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 3, 2024 2:06:51 GMT
Still pretty judgmental, for the reasons I cited. She could have any number of reasons for doting on her dog that way.
What would be those other reasons?
One would have to ask her. I never like to make things here about persons rather than ideas, but let me ask you, would you ever even consider that Pope Francis could be in the wrong about something?
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jan 3, 2024 13:58:05 GMT
What would be those other reasons?
One would have to ask her. I never like to make things here about persons rather than ideas, but let me ask you, would you ever even consider that Pope Francis could be in the wrong about something?
You need to learn to defend your points.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 3, 2024 16:47:28 GMT
One would have to ask her. I never like to make things here about persons rather than ideas, but let me ask you, would you ever even consider that Pope Francis could be in the wrong about something?
You need to learn to defend your points.
You didn't answer my question, but I will duly note that.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 3, 2024 16:48:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 3, 2024 16:50:04 GMT
|
|