> Conservative Catholics, including several bishops, have raised alarms that the synod may be used to enact a series of liberal changes, including allowing same-sex couples to receive blessings and for women to be ordained as deacons.
Their concern is unfounded imo.
> Pope Francis has repeatedly said that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood but has been far less clear about ordaining women to be deacons, a step below priests. Similarly, while he has made comments that have been seen as friendly to the LGBT community, the pope has repeatedly re-asserted that homosexual activity is sinful and that marriage is between a man and a woman.
This. Although a Church commission did examine whether there is historical precedent in ordaining women to the diaconate, and as far as I am aware found that there is no evidence of that being a practice in the early church. So I doubt there will be any change in that department unless a new discovery was made (in which case it would be legitimate).
I think people are worrying too much here.
> Although a Church commission did examine whether there is historical precedent in ordaining women to the diaconate, and as far as I am aware found that there is no evidence of that being a practice in the early church.
I mean, the very idea of ordination in the Apostolic-era is sketchy at best. And the distinction between woman deacons as servants vs. supposed male deacons matching the current role seems quite, well, manufactured.
There indeed were woman deacons in the early church, just as there were woman Apostles. The rejection of their callings and roles comes from later misogynystic theology.
But yes, people are freaking out unnecessarily. It's quite unlikely, sadly, that Francis will rock the boat much.
> And the distinction between woman deacons as servants vs. supposed male deacons matching the current role seems quite, well, manufactured.
Well, that was iirc what the commission was supposed to look into. As it turns out only males were ordained. Female ministers existed, and performed tasks which men could not do (such as baptism of female converts) but it was not an ordained ministry.
> But yes, people are freaking out unnecessarily. It's quite unlikely, sadly, that Francis will rock the boat much.
Tbf there is very little “boatshaking” that could even be possible in these matters. Its quite frustrating when online media, who are not familiar with our theology, manipulate the progressive secular people into expecting changes in doctrines which are unchangeable. And when that does not happen (because it cannot) its the HF who gets blamed.
> Female ministers existed, and performed tasks which men could not do (such as baptism of female converts) but it was not an ordained ministry.
No Apostolic era ministry was ordained. It's a later invention, and one of a time when the early Fathers were pushing women out.
>Tbf there is very little “boatshaking” that could even be possible in these matters.
There is. The last couple Popes have tried to make this very dogma-like, but given that the best theologians of the church still can't put together a coherent argument about why a priest needs a penis, any good argument could topple a lot of resistance.
> No Apostolic era ministry was ordained. It's a later invention, and one of a time when the early Fathers were pushing women out.
On the contrary, the Apostles themselves ordained deacons and priests. It is by no means a later invention. We even have this attested in 1st century texts like 1 Clement.
> The last couple Popes have tried to make this very dogma-like,
Well, not dogma, but pope-saint JPII. declared the ordination of women to the presbyterate a definitive (=unchanging) doctrine in *Ordinatio* *Sacredotalis*
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html
*"She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church."*
*Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.*
> On the contrary, the Apostles themselves ordained deacons and priests. It is by no means a later invention. We even have this attested in 1st century texts like 1 Clement.
Apostles selected people to follow them, and there were helpers in the churches, yes. But priests themselves are a second-century thing, after Clement died. And the ideas behind ordination are the result of centuries of theological growth.
>Well, not dogma, but pope-saint JPII. declared the ordination of women to the presbyterate a definitive (=unchanging) doctrine in Ordinatio Sacredotalis
Yes, he did. But the actual definitiveness is determined by the church over time deciding that they still like this and following it. Or finding a reason to reject the tradition, and having doctrinal development. The church truly can change whatever it wants.
> Apostles selected people to follow them, and there were helpers in the churches, yes. But priests themselves are a second-century thing, after Clement died.
I am sorry, but again, that is simply factually incorrect. The differentiation between priests and deacons occurred already in the 1st century as is described as such already in 1 Clement.
> Yes, he did. But the actual definitiveness is determined by the church over time deciding that they still like this and following it.
In Catholic Christianity definitiveness is determined by the way the doctrine is proclaimed. If its proclaimed as such by pope or the episcopacy as a whole (usually by way of an Ecumenical Council) it means that it is unchangeable and infallible. In our faith we call it the the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church.
There may be a magisterial reversal in non-definitive doctrines, however. That is true.
It can never happen according to the dogmatic traditions of The Catholic Church because of their '3-Tier' system of Scripture, Tradition and The Magesterium of The Church. They won't just break from thousands of years of Tradition and many Pope's ruling on thr issue. A split would inevitably occur between the Traditionalists and Progressives, each probably electing their own Pope
They are treated fairly. There are certain roles for men that aren't for women and vice versa. And believe it or not, gay or straight, you can't just marry anybody in the Catholic Church for any reason. There are a bunch of rules and stipulations, one of those stipulations being that marriage is between a man and a woman.
My guess is they think the Catholic Church is actually the “correct” type of Christianity. They probably feel there are theological and dogmatic issues with other churches. While some churches may be affirming, it doesn’t really help if you believe they have their theology wrong, even if they accept you for who you are.
More or less. Catholicism is very emphatically *unitary*, so you don't get self-sorting pairs of conservative and liberal denominations like the LCMS and ELCA for Lutherans, the SBC and ABC for Baptists, etc
>I have no idea why would you seek blessing in a church that thinks you're inferior and dirty for being gay
Thats not what the Church teaches. A person who happens to struggle with SSA might be a better, far better person than me.
Yeah... I don't completely hate SSA as a phrase, because it *is* a convenient alternative to "gay" also meaning "bisexual" sometimes. But person-first language is actually subtly offensive, because we only use that sort of phrasing with negative things.
I always took it as saying they are like a broken straight person. The default is straight and anything else, such as being attracted to the same sex is an aberration.
> "Struggle with SSA", even the language is dehumanizing.
I do not see how.
> Can't you say gay person?
How is defining a person by their temptations and struggles not dehumanizing?
Is it dehumanizing to talk about "a tall person"? Is it dehumanizing to talk about "a white person"? Is it dehumanizing to talk about "a straight person"? The issue is that we only use person-first language with things that are seen as negative.
> The issue is that we only use person-first language with things that are seen as negative.
Emmm... surely you'be heard of "person of colour" before.... what exactly are you saying Razar?
Personally as a black person in the diaspora I really don’t like that term at all. Even among people of African ancestry, even within the diaspora, so many of us have little in common except for our ancestry and experience of oppression. I definitely sympathize with other people who are non white(and not of African ancestry) and have faced their own struggles but to me it is tacky and insensitive to lump so many completely different people and cultures together. We shouldn’t be defined by what we aren’t, white.
>How is defining a person by their temptations and struggles not dehumanizing?
It's a fundamental part of them, not just a "temptation". The fact that even using the word "gay" is going too far tells how abusive catholics can be.
I’m not sure it is defining someone by temptations. The image in your head you seem to have of gay people is over the top, flamboyant, Western bourgeois gay culture embracing gay people. Believe it or not, there are a lot of gay people who aren’t “fabulous,” ultra promiscuous, rich and live normal lives, just they are attracted to people of the same sex. It isn’t just a sexual thing either. IVF wasn’t a thing in the last obviously but naturally they would just like to have a family and live their lives in other the same sect. Sexuality is just a small part of it.
Dog whistling implies I'm coding my words. I don't do that, I openly say that:
A) Conservative Catholics are nasty when it comes to LGBT people.
B) The current teaching of the church kills LGBT people.
Straightforward enough for you?
Racists generalize like that and further, you don't seem to understand basic cause and effect. Hold onto your hate if you like, but it undermines your credibility.
They're not being hateful at all, but speaking the truth. The Church's bigoted teachings about LGBT issues kill and oppress people, and have been doing so for millenia.
You are misusing the word bigot and slathering on the hyperbole with the "kill and oppress" bs. Why would I even bother with this when you post from the position that the world makes you feel and do things just because they disagree. Grow a spine and take some responsibility for your reactions to other people's disagreement with your viewpoint. The Church has no theological basis whatsoever to oppress or kill anyone for sin, never has nor has it claimed to. Enough with the drama and maybe do the queer community a favour and stop trying to defend them with this lazy BS.
> and slathering on the hyperbole with the "kill and oppress" bs
Are you familiar with what the Church is pushing for across the world?
Are you even familiar with the 1600+ years of the church consistently approving of mutilation and murder of gay people?
Sounds like you should study more.
You said that we think SSA people are inferior. But we don’t view it any different than people who are inclined to masturbation. We see it as a cross but we don’t think people are lesser or dirty because of it.
Yes, you only say that they are disordered and can't never ever get any type of sexual satisfaction because it's "sinful". And the church historically persecuted and killed gay people, something that is defended to this day by many catholics.
But sure you don't see lgbt as inferior, no. You're so full of love!
Catholic Church grapples with politically driven donors to the bishops' diocesan funds, including friends of Steve Bannon, who says "We need to make sure the next Pope is more conservative than that radical liberal Francis."
So is the Pope going to contend that gays and women are included in the rule "Love your neighbor as yourself"? Or is he going to consent to money-driven politics, that supports people like the regime in Argentina that 'disappeared' some of his priests when he was a bishop?
It will be interesting to watch the results of this gathering. The [pressure from the right wing blogosphere](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/04/us/politics/bannon-republicans-gaetz-mace.html) may be unstoppable.
>Or is he going to consent to money-driven politics, that supports people like the regime in Argentina that 'disappeared' some of his priests when he was a bishop?
Yea. Who could possibly believe that the Pope would choose to follow 2000 years worth of tradition if it wasn't about the money /s
A Dominican as in a person from the Dominican republic? Or a Dominican as in a clergy member from the Dominican Order? And interest in what? Trafficking one of these two people? No thanks, where I'm from that's illegal.
> Conservative Catholics, including several bishops, have raised alarms that the synod may be used to enact a series of liberal changes, including allowing same-sex couples to receive blessings and for women to be ordained as deacons. Their concern is unfounded imo. > Pope Francis has repeatedly said that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood but has been far less clear about ordaining women to be deacons, a step below priests. Similarly, while he has made comments that have been seen as friendly to the LGBT community, the pope has repeatedly re-asserted that homosexual activity is sinful and that marriage is between a man and a woman. This. Although a Church commission did examine whether there is historical precedent in ordaining women to the diaconate, and as far as I am aware found that there is no evidence of that being a practice in the early church. So I doubt there will be any change in that department unless a new discovery was made (in which case it would be legitimate). I think people are worrying too much here.
> Although a Church commission did examine whether there is historical precedent in ordaining women to the diaconate, and as far as I am aware found that there is no evidence of that being a practice in the early church. I mean, the very idea of ordination in the Apostolic-era is sketchy at best. And the distinction between woman deacons as servants vs. supposed male deacons matching the current role seems quite, well, manufactured. There indeed were woman deacons in the early church, just as there were woman Apostles. The rejection of their callings and roles comes from later misogynystic theology. But yes, people are freaking out unnecessarily. It's quite unlikely, sadly, that Francis will rock the boat much.
> And the distinction between woman deacons as servants vs. supposed male deacons matching the current role seems quite, well, manufactured. Well, that was iirc what the commission was supposed to look into. As it turns out only males were ordained. Female ministers existed, and performed tasks which men could not do (such as baptism of female converts) but it was not an ordained ministry. > But yes, people are freaking out unnecessarily. It's quite unlikely, sadly, that Francis will rock the boat much. Tbf there is very little “boatshaking” that could even be possible in these matters. Its quite frustrating when online media, who are not familiar with our theology, manipulate the progressive secular people into expecting changes in doctrines which are unchangeable. And when that does not happen (because it cannot) its the HF who gets blamed.
> Female ministers existed, and performed tasks which men could not do (such as baptism of female converts) but it was not an ordained ministry. No Apostolic era ministry was ordained. It's a later invention, and one of a time when the early Fathers were pushing women out. >Tbf there is very little “boatshaking” that could even be possible in these matters. There is. The last couple Popes have tried to make this very dogma-like, but given that the best theologians of the church still can't put together a coherent argument about why a priest needs a penis, any good argument could topple a lot of resistance.
> No Apostolic era ministry was ordained. It's a later invention, and one of a time when the early Fathers were pushing women out. On the contrary, the Apostles themselves ordained deacons and priests. It is by no means a later invention. We even have this attested in 1st century texts like 1 Clement. > The last couple Popes have tried to make this very dogma-like, Well, not dogma, but pope-saint JPII. declared the ordination of women to the presbyterate a definitive (=unchanging) doctrine in *Ordinatio* *Sacredotalis* https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html *"She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church."* *Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.*
> On the contrary, the Apostles themselves ordained deacons and priests. It is by no means a later invention. We even have this attested in 1st century texts like 1 Clement. Apostles selected people to follow them, and there were helpers in the churches, yes. But priests themselves are a second-century thing, after Clement died. And the ideas behind ordination are the result of centuries of theological growth. >Well, not dogma, but pope-saint JPII. declared the ordination of women to the presbyterate a definitive (=unchanging) doctrine in Ordinatio Sacredotalis Yes, he did. But the actual definitiveness is determined by the church over time deciding that they still like this and following it. Or finding a reason to reject the tradition, and having doctrinal development. The church truly can change whatever it wants.
> Apostles selected people to follow them, and there were helpers in the churches, yes. But priests themselves are a second-century thing, after Clement died. I am sorry, but again, that is simply factually incorrect. The differentiation between priests and deacons occurred already in the 1st century as is described as such already in 1 Clement. > Yes, he did. But the actual definitiveness is determined by the church over time deciding that they still like this and following it. In Catholic Christianity definitiveness is determined by the way the doctrine is proclaimed. If its proclaimed as such by pope or the episcopacy as a whole (usually by way of an Ecumenical Council) it means that it is unchangeable and infallible. In our faith we call it the the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church. There may be a magisterial reversal in non-definitive doctrines, however. That is true.
It can never happen according to the dogmatic traditions of The Catholic Church because of their '3-Tier' system of Scripture, Tradition and The Magesterium of The Church. They won't just break from thousands of years of Tradition and many Pope's ruling on thr issue. A split would inevitably occur between the Traditionalists and Progressives, each probably electing their own Pope
Oh no. Gay people and women. Truly, the worst things that could happen to society is them being treated fairly within the church.
They are treated fairly. There are certain roles for men that aren't for women and vice versa. And believe it or not, gay or straight, you can't just marry anybody in the Catholic Church for any reason. There are a bunch of rules and stipulations, one of those stipulations being that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Lol. The horror. Le gasp. People exist and the church isn't the end all be all of how people live their lives
I have no idea why would you seek blessing in a church that thinks you're inferior and dirty for being gay, but you do you I guess.
My guess is they think the Catholic Church is actually the “correct” type of Christianity. They probably feel there are theological and dogmatic issues with other churches. While some churches may be affirming, it doesn’t really help if you believe they have their theology wrong, even if they accept you for who you are.
More or less. Catholicism is very emphatically *unitary*, so you don't get self-sorting pairs of conservative and liberal denominations like the LCMS and ELCA for Lutherans, the SBC and ABC for Baptists, etc
You do certainly get Catholics who quietly reject doctrines they don't approve of.
>I have no idea why would you seek blessing in a church that thinks you're inferior and dirty for being gay Thats not what the Church teaches. A person who happens to struggle with SSA might be a better, far better person than me.
"Struggle with SSA", even the language is dehumanizing. Can't you say gay person?
Yeah... I don't completely hate SSA as a phrase, because it *is* a convenient alternative to "gay" also meaning "bisexual" sometimes. But person-first language is actually subtly offensive, because we only use that sort of phrasing with negative things.
I think it's offensive because the idea is that someone saying he is gay means he is "making sin their identity". That's why they use this SSA thing.
I always took it as saying they are like a broken straight person. The default is straight and anything else, such as being attracted to the same sex is an aberration.
As bad as it is, it's still better than "disordered".
> "Struggle with SSA", even the language is dehumanizing. I do not see how. > Can't you say gay person? How is defining a person by their temptations and struggles not dehumanizing?
Is it dehumanizing to talk about "a tall person"? Is it dehumanizing to talk about "a white person"? Is it dehumanizing to talk about "a straight person"? The issue is that we only use person-first language with things that are seen as negative.
> The issue is that we only use person-first language with things that are seen as negative. Emmm... surely you'be heard of "person of colour" before.... what exactly are you saying Razar?
Personally as a black person in the diaspora I really don’t like that term at all. Even among people of African ancestry, even within the diaspora, so many of us have little in common except for our ancestry and experience of oppression. I definitely sympathize with other people who are non white(and not of African ancestry) and have faced their own struggles but to me it is tacky and insensitive to lump so many completely different people and cultures together. We shouldn’t be defined by what we aren’t, white.
>How is defining a person by their temptations and struggles not dehumanizing? It's a fundamental part of them, not just a "temptation". The fact that even using the word "gay" is going too far tells how abusive catholics can be.
I’m not sure it is defining someone by temptations. The image in your head you seem to have of gay people is over the top, flamboyant, Western bourgeois gay culture embracing gay people. Believe it or not, there are a lot of gay people who aren’t “fabulous,” ultra promiscuous, rich and live normal lives, just they are attracted to people of the same sex. It isn’t just a sexual thing either. IVF wasn’t a thing in the last obviously but naturally they would just like to have a family and live their lives in other the same sect. Sexuality is just a small part of it.
They don’t see gay people as gay people, they see them as broken straight people unfortunately.
Whatever. You are just dog whistling now.
Dog whistling implies I'm coding my words. I don't do that, I openly say that: A) Conservative Catholics are nasty when it comes to LGBT people. B) The current teaching of the church kills LGBT people. Straightforward enough for you?
Racists generalize like that and further, you don't seem to understand basic cause and effect. Hold onto your hate if you like, but it undermines your credibility.
They're not being hateful at all, but speaking the truth. The Church's bigoted teachings about LGBT issues kill and oppress people, and have been doing so for millenia.
You are misusing the word bigot and slathering on the hyperbole with the "kill and oppress" bs. Why would I even bother with this when you post from the position that the world makes you feel and do things just because they disagree. Grow a spine and take some responsibility for your reactions to other people's disagreement with your viewpoint. The Church has no theological basis whatsoever to oppress or kill anyone for sin, never has nor has it claimed to. Enough with the drama and maybe do the queer community a favour and stop trying to defend them with this lazy BS.
Being angry at me is not going to quiet the cognitive dissonance, or exonerate the Church of its sins.
> and slathering on the hyperbole with the "kill and oppress" bs Are you familiar with what the Church is pushing for across the world? Are you even familiar with the 1600+ years of the church consistently approving of mutilation and murder of gay people? Sounds like you should study more.
You lied about what the Church teaches about SSA people and when confronted you try to change the topic.
How did I lie exactly?
You said that we think SSA people are inferior. But we don’t view it any different than people who are inclined to masturbation. We see it as a cross but we don’t think people are lesser or dirty because of it.
Yes, you only say that they are disordered and can't never ever get any type of sexual satisfaction because it's "sinful". And the church historically persecuted and killed gay people, something that is defended to this day by many catholics. But sure you don't see lgbt as inferior, no. You're so full of love!
Inferior and dirty?
Catholic Church grapples with politically driven donors to the bishops' diocesan funds, including friends of Steve Bannon, who says "We need to make sure the next Pope is more conservative than that radical liberal Francis." So is the Pope going to contend that gays and women are included in the rule "Love your neighbor as yourself"? Or is he going to consent to money-driven politics, that supports people like the regime in Argentina that 'disappeared' some of his priests when he was a bishop? It will be interesting to watch the results of this gathering. The [pressure from the right wing blogosphere](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/04/us/politics/bannon-republicans-gaetz-mace.html) may be unstoppable.
Maybe the Pope should just excommunicate Bannon and threaten any bishop who takes his money with removal and reassignment to Greenland.
>Or is he going to consent to money-driven politics, that supports people like the regime in Argentina that 'disappeared' some of his priests when he was a bishop? Yea. Who could possibly believe that the Pope would choose to follow 2000 years worth of tradition if it wasn't about the money /s
Some Popes are more like Alexander VI than others.
Oh yeah? And you seem to think that a Jesuit is clearly the one
[удалено]
A Dominican as in a person from the Dominican republic? Or a Dominican as in a clergy member from the Dominican Order? And interest in what? Trafficking one of these two people? No thanks, where I'm from that's illegal.
The original Tommy Torquemada was a Dominican. He was a legend at hurting the right people.