The Catholic Church issues another statement about gay marriage

[Torie]

In reading this, is the Catholic Church stating that while it does not oppose gay marriages, it cannot "bless" them because God considers the intrinsic purpose of sex is procreation? If my interpretation is correct, does that represent a tacking of the Church position, or is it merely a rephrasing of its prior position? Is there any daylight between what cannot be blessed,  because it is sin,  and what is intrinsically wrong and evil, which one must strive to exorcise from the public square? I have this sense that the Pope does not care that much about secular legal gay marriages, even if sinful and not worthy of blessing. Is this merely a iteration of the mortal versus venal sin distinction or something else? If something else, is there a hierarchy within the mortal and venal sin categories? What is the theological basis for the Pope's belief that the Church has better things to do than opposing gay marriage in the secular public square.

Have I made the slightest sense here, as I struggle with my confusion? I admit I am not very facile with these matters. Thank you for your "indulgence."

https://thehill.com/policy/international/543207-vatican-church-cannot-bless-same-sex-unions

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Substantively the dubium response is the same old "intrinsically disordered" rationale, just worded a little more diplomatically than in the past. What's more interesting is the attached explanatory note, in which same-sex relationships are lumped into a broader category of non-marital sexual relationships as opposed to being set apart as their own Super Duper Ultra Sexual Sin. The recognition that there can be strong human qualities in same-sex relationships is also something of a novelty, and is something that liberal bishops like some of the ones in Germany have been pointing out for years; prior Vatican pronouncements on the subject tended to assume a "fruit of the poisonous tree" principle where every aspect of a gay relationship was inevitably toxic and disgusting. But, no, the finding/ruling itself isn't anything new.

[Torie]

Substantively the dubium response is the same old "intrinsically disordered" rationale, just worded a little more diplomatically than in the past. What's more interesting is the attached explanatory note, in which same-sex relationships are lumped into a broader category of non-marital sexual relationships as opposed to being set apart as their own Super Duper Ultra Sexual Sin. The recognition that there can be strong human qualities in same-sex relationships is also something of a novelty, and is something that liberal bishops like some of the ones in Germany have been pointing out for years; prior Vatican pronouncements on the subject tended to assume a "fruit of the poisonous tree" principle where every aspect of a gay relationship was inevitably toxic and disgusting. But, no, the finding/ruling itself isn't anything new.

Thank you. I just rephrased my questions because my partner pointed out the sentence in the link that states that gay sex and gay marriage is still in the sin box. So I needed to change  my query to re-focus on the deconstruction of the Catholic view of the hierarchies of sin, and just why the Pope does not seem that interested in the gay marriage issue. And I wonder why the Church felt the need to just rehash the old, even though the article refers to there being some priests out there issuing blessings. Were those priests just obviously rogue, or was there some confusion? If obviously rogue, one would have thought that the Church would have issued the appropriate "spankings" in a more private way, rather than going to all of this trouble to produce a statement as to which I lack the perspicacity to understand the underlying nuances.

[afleitch]

Well there's the expected walk back. Though it took longer than expected.

Substantively the dubium response is the same old "intrinsically disordered" rationale, just worded a little more diplomatically than in the past. What's more interesting is the attached explanatory note, in which same-sex relationships are lumped into a broader category of non-marital sexual relationships as opposed to being set apart as their own Super Duper Ultra Sexual Sin. The recognition that there can be strong human qualities in same-sex relationships is also something of a novelty, and is something that liberal bishops like some of the ones in Germany have been pointing out for years; prior Vatican pronouncements on the subject tended to assume a "fruit of the poisonous tree" principle where every aspect of a gay relationship was inevitably toxic and disgusting. But, no, the finding/ruling itself isn't anything new.

That makes it worse than simply saying nothing at all. To acknowledge you've engaged with the reality of human experience for a moment but then dismiss it.

I know you'll disagree but for me it's another facet of the 'cruelty is the point' school of Vatican grandstanding.

[Torie]

Another thought popped into my head here, which would apply to any religion that both believes that (1) gay sex and gay marriage is "sinful,"  and (2)  one should evangelize to spread the word. Suppose that if I converted pursuant to being evangelized,  mental health professionals having "examined" me, opined that the odds would then dramatically increase that  I would become desperately unhappy and a neurotic mess (say even materially more likely to commit suicide). Would it be a sin under Catholic theology, or whatever theology of another such religion, to evangelize me under such circumstances? Is there any concept at all, that a given theology is not for everyone given their situation?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Well there's the expected walk back. Though it took longer than expected.

Substantively the dubium response is the same old "intrinsically disordered" rationale, just worded a little more diplomatically than in the past. What's more interesting is the attached explanatory note, in which same-sex relationships are lumped into a broader category of non-marital sexual relationships as opposed to being set apart as their own Super Duper Ultra Sexual Sin. The recognition that there can be strong human qualities in same-sex relationships is also something of a novelty, and is something that liberal bishops like some of the ones in Germany have been pointing out for years; prior Vatican pronouncements on the subject tended to assume a "fruit of the poisonous tree" principle where every aspect of a gay relationship was inevitably toxic and disgusting. But, no, the finding/ruling itself isn't anything new.

That makes it worse than simply saying nothing at all. To acknowledge you've engaged with the reality of human experience for a moment but then dismiss it.

I know you'll disagree but for me it's another facet of the 'cruelty is the point' school of Vatican grandstanding.

The reason I disagree, in this case, is that it's substantially the same point that was advanced about divorced and remarried couples in Amoris Laetitia, which did (whatever one thinks of this) end up constituting a noticeable liberalization in the Church's policies around things like admission to communion. If this were coming without that context from earlier in Francis's pontificate then my attitude towards it would be closer to yours.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Another thought popped into my head here, which would apply to any religion that both believes that (1) gay sex and gay marriage is "sinful,"  and (2)  one should evangelize to spread the word. Suppose that if I converted pursuant to being evangelized,  mental health professionals having "examined" me, opined that the odds would then dramatically increase that  I would become desperately unhappy and a neurotic mess (say even materially more likely to commit suicide). Would it be a sin under Catholic theology, or whatever theology of another such religion, to evangelize me under such circumstances? Is there any concept at all, that a given theology is not for everyone given their situation?

     As someone who belongs to a different church that meets the criteria you outlined, our point of view is that everyone should be evangelized. We all bring different struggles to the table, and we may be happier in the short-term for satiating them, but our souls will benefit in the long-term if we abide in the spiritual life of the Church and fight temptation. There are many sinful tendencies in my own heart which I have had to deny. It's been hard, but as I have worked through it I've become a happier and more centered person as a result.

[TJ in Oregon]

In reading this, is the Catholic Church stating that while it does not oppose gay marriages, it cannot "bless" them because God considers the intrinsic purpose of sex is procreation? If my interpretation is correct, does that represent a tacking of the Church position, or is it merely a rephrasing of its prior position? Is there any daylight between what cannot be blessed,  because it is sin,  and what is intrinsically wrong and evil, which one must strive to exorcise from the public square? I have this sense that the Pope does not care that much about secular legal gay marriages, even if sinful and not worthy of blessing. Is this merely a iteration of the mortal versus venal sin distinction or something else? If something else, is there a hierarchy within the mortal and venal sin categories? What is the theological basis for the Pope's belief that the Church has better things to do than opposing gay marriage in the secular public square.

Have I made the slightest sense here, as I struggle with my confusion? I admit I am not very facile with these matters. Thank you for your "indulgence."

https://thehill.com/policy/international/543207-vatican-church-cannot-bless-same-sex-unions

The Catholic Church is stating that it cannot bless same sex unions because they are sinful. As such, the Church opposes such marriages in principle. From that basis, it's a slightly different question to ask what the Church thinks secular governments should do. Not every sin can be made illegal by even a Catholic government and there is a long history of the Church arguing over what should or should not be civilly legal. This becomes a question of prudential decision-making. Pope Francis's statement about Civil Unions in Argentina seems to suggest that he thinks the government should not recognize same sex unions as marriage but afford them some protections. That is his personal opinion and has never been spelled out as a Church teaching in an official capacity.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Is the pope Catholic?

[7,052,770]

Embarrassing. Why make a strong statement that we all know will eventually be reversed? They're just setting up a future pope with the headache of admitting they got something else wrong in 2021.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Embarrassing. Why make a strong statement that we all know will eventually be reversed? They're just setting up a future pope with the headache of admitting they got something else wrong in 2021.

This is about as informed and objective a take on where the Catholic Church is heading as are the radtrad fantasies about all younger Catholics being based and tradpilled Capitol-stormers who will turn it into an aesthetically-Baroque variant of Asatru by 2050.

[7,052,770]

Embarrassing. Why make a strong statement that we all know will eventually be reversed? They're just setting up a future pope with the headache of admitting they got something else wrong in 2021.

This is about as informed and objective a take on where the Catholic Church is heading as are the radtrad fantasies about all younger Catholics being based and tradpilled Capitol-stormers who will turn it into an aesthetically-Baroque variant of Asatru by 2050.

We both know where the world is heading on this issue, or in many cases already is. Maybe the Catholic Church will stand by this declaration in 2041 (though I predict they'll have partially walked it back by then), but it's delusional to think they'll still be digging in in 2121.

People are growing up in an LGBTQ-equal world and just aren't going to see a reason to keep such a hardline rule. This includes future priests growing up today.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Embarrassing. Why make a strong statement that we all know will eventually be reversed? They're just setting up a future pope with the headache of admitting they got something else wrong in 2021.

This is about as informed and objective a take on where the Catholic Church is heading as are the radtrad fantasies about all younger Catholics being based and tradpilled Capitol-stormers who will turn it into an aesthetically-Baroque variant of Asatru by 2050.

We both know where the world is heading on this issue, or in many cases already is. Maybe the Catholic Church will stand by this declaration in 2041 (though I predict they'll have partially walked it back by then), but it's delusional to think they'll still be digging in in 2121.

People are growing up in an LGBTQ-equal world and just aren't going to see a reason to keep such a hardline rule. This includes future priests growing up today.

This statement is itself an incremental relaxation of rhetoric and potentially of pastoral practice; see my exchange with Andrew above. There's no reason not to expect this issue to eventually take the Amoris Laetitia path, which is a form of liberalization and coming to terms with the times but not the sort of direct reversal of past teaching that the Magisterial Protestant churches have opted for.

[If my soul was made of stone]

The reasoning that they offer makes me mentally revisit my prior arguments from here about whether the same logic applies to heterosexual couples where one or both involved are infertile, as it's not like that can produce life either despite adhering to the rites thereof. At this level of discourse I'd honestly prefer merely shrouding all of one's selfish taboos in inscrutable mysticism and myth as opposed to these sorts of justifications that just leave more holes and questions than satisfying answers and only serve to prolong the sort of discourse that makes one's brains pour in viscous liquid out of their ears. I know that the sentiment here is hardly anything new, but hearing it affirmed once more still leaves me a bit livid. If I had no tact I'd make some very theatrical and edgy Crowley-esque statements about my own convictions regarding the intersection of spirituality and sexuality, but I don't think that pontification is what's needed in a time such as this.

[afleitch]

It's not worth your time.

At the end of it all, and I really don't care if this comes across as flippant or eDgY, the Church is a clutch of unmarried celibate men speaking from a baseless authority on matters they never experience and know nothing about. The only authority they have is what they give themselves and what people hand to them.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Embarrassing. Why make a strong statement that we all know will eventually be reversed? They're just setting up a future pope with the headache of admitting they got something else wrong in 2021.

This is about as informed and objective a take on where the Catholic Church is heading as are the radtrad fantasies about all younger Catholics being based and tradpilled Capitol-stormers who will turn it into an aesthetically-Baroque variant of Asatru by 2050.

We both know where the world is heading on this issue, or in many cases already is. Maybe the Catholic Church will stand by this declaration in 2041 (though I predict they'll have partially walked it back by then), but it's delusional to think they'll still be digging in in 2121.

People are growing up in an LGBTQ-equal world and just aren't going to see a reason to keep such a hardline rule. This includes future priests growing up today.

[afleitch]

https://mobile.twitter.com/MikeOLoughlin/status/1371459425576304642

[7,052,770]

Embarrassing. Why make a strong statement that we all know will eventually be reversed? They're just setting up a future pope with the headache of admitting they got something else wrong in 2021.

This is about as informed and objective a take on where the Catholic Church is heading as are the radtrad fantasies about all younger Catholics being based and tradpilled Capitol-stormers who will turn it into an aesthetically-Baroque variant of Asatru by 2050.

We both know where the world is heading on this issue, or in many cases already is. Maybe the Catholic Church will stand by this declaration in 2041 (though I predict they'll have partially walked it back by then), but it's delusional to think they'll still be digging in in 2121.

People are growing up in an LGBTQ-equal world and just aren't going to see a reason to keep such a hardline rule. This includes future priests growing up today.

Africa

Africa is home to only 10% of the world's Catholics, and even so, will likely see a lot of progress on this issue, at least in the non-Muslim countries, over the next few decades. By the time millennials and zoomers are calling the shots in the Catholic Church, there won't be a single Catholic country without full LGBT equality both legally and culturally.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20210222_responsum-dubium-unioni_en.html

The news media is generally presenting this is anti-gay, whereas other times the Pope's words are presented as pro-gay.  But it's the same nuanced teaching either way.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Embarrassing. Why make a strong statement that we all know will eventually be reversed? They're just setting up a future pope with the headache of admitting they got something else wrong in 2021.

This is about as informed and objective a take on where the Catholic Church is heading as are the radtrad fantasies about all younger Catholics being based and tradpilled Capitol-stormers who will turn it into an aesthetically-Baroque variant of Asatru by 2050.

We both know where the world is heading on this issue, or in many cases already is. Maybe the Catholic Church will stand by this declaration in 2041 (though I predict they'll have partially walked it back by then), but it's delusional to think they'll still be digging in in 2121.

People are growing up in an LGBTQ-equal world and just aren't going to see a reason to keep such a hardline rule. This includes future priests growing up today.

Ah, hubris.  Society has never changed uniformly in a single direction, and I doubt it ever will. In 1921 the prevailing view was that by now we'd have experienced a century of peace thanks to the leadership of the League of Nations. Frankly, the utopia you imagine 2121 will be for LGBTQ-equality is just as plausible as a world in which most countries have recriminalized being LGBTQ.

[7,052,770]

Embarrassing. Why make a strong statement that we all know will eventually be reversed? They're just setting up a future pope with the headache of admitting they got something else wrong in 2021.

This is about as informed and objective a take on where the Catholic Church is heading as are the radtrad fantasies about all younger Catholics being based and tradpilled Capitol-stormers who will turn it into an aesthetically-Baroque variant of Asatru by 2050.

We both know where the world is heading on this issue, or in many cases already is. Maybe the Catholic Church will stand by this declaration in 2041 (though I predict they'll have partially walked it back by then), but it's delusional to think they'll still be digging in in 2121.

People are growing up in an LGBTQ-equal world and just aren't going to see a reason to keep such a hardline rule. This includes future priests growing up today.

Ah, hubris.  Society has never changed uniformly in a single direction, and I doubt it ever will. In 1921 the prevailing view was that by now we'd have experienced a century of peace thanks to the leadership of the League of Nations. Frankly, the utopia you imagine 2121 will be for LGBTQ-equality is just as plausible as a world in which most countries have recriminalized being LGBTQ.

The more direct analogy for 1921 would be women's equality, and the optimists were right. But feel free to bump this thread in 2041 (I'm sure we'll both still be posting here) or 2121 (if we're still alive) with the actual results.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Embarrassing. Why make a strong statement that we all know will eventually be reversed? They're just setting up a future pope with the headache of admitting they got something else wrong in 2021.

This is about as informed and objective a take on where the Catholic Church is heading as are the radtrad fantasies about all younger Catholics being based and tradpilled Capitol-stormers who will turn it into an aesthetically-Baroque variant of Asatru by 2050.

We both know where the world is heading on this issue, or in many cases already is. Maybe the Catholic Church will stand by this declaration in 2041 (though I predict they'll have partially walked it back by then), but it's delusional to think they'll still be digging in in 2121.

People are growing up in an LGBTQ-equal world and just aren't going to see a reason to keep such a hardline rule. This includes future priests growing up today.

Ah, hubris.  Society has never changed uniformly in a single direction, and I doubt it ever will. In 1921 the prevailing view was that by now we'd have experienced a century of peace thanks to the leadership of the League of Nations. Frankly, the utopia you imagine 2121 will be for LGBTQ-equality is just as plausible as a world in which most countries have recriminalized being LGBTQ.

The more direct analogy for 1921 would be women's equality, and the optimists were right. But feel free to bump this thread in 2041 (I'm sure we'll both still be posting here) or 2121 (if we're still alive) with the actual results.

Excuse me, but from what alternate universe do you come from in which three of our last six Presidents were female and men and women are equally paid? That said, I'm not predicting a regression, only that regression is as likely as progression.  Also, while it is more likely than not that I'll still be alive in 2041, and in any case, I might decide that I have better things to do in my retirement than post here. (I can at least hope I do.)

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

https://mobile.twitter.com/MikeOLoughlin/status/1371459425576304642

Something about Wisconsin seems to produce a disproportionate number of extreme-right priests (and sometimes bishops). That priest who was briefly a rightist cause célebrè during the election for preaching that it was a mortal sin to be a Democrat was also a Wisconsinite, as--at first--was Cardinal Burke. It's one reason I would never consider working or studying in Milwaukee or Madison whatever their other merits as communities.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Embarrassing. Why make a strong statement that we all know will eventually be reversed? They're just setting up a future pope with the headache of admitting they got something else wrong in 2021.

This is about as informed and objective a take on where the Catholic Church is heading as are the radtrad fantasies about all younger Catholics being based and tradpilled Capitol-stormers who will turn it into an aesthetically-Baroque variant of Asatru by 2050.

We both know where the world is heading on this issue, or in many cases already is. Maybe the Catholic Church will stand by this declaration in 2041 (though I predict they'll have partially walked it back by then), but it's delusional to think they'll still be digging in in 2121.

People are growing up in an LGBTQ-equal world and just aren't going to see a reason to keep such a hardline rule. This includes future priests growing up today.

Africa

Africa is home to only 10% of the world's Catholics, and even so, will likely see a lot of progress on this issue, at least in the non-Muslim countries, over the next few decades. By the time millennials and zoomers are calling the shots in the Catholic Church, there won't be a single Catholic country without full LGBT equality both legally and culturally.

In the future it will be way more than 10%.  There's also lots of Catholics outside of Africa who are conservative on this issue.  Not to mention that the type of Catholic who supports gay marriage is often just culturally Catholic and not very invested in the future of the church.

[Alcibiades]

https://mobile.twitter.com/MikeOLoughlin/status/1371459425576304642

Something about Wisconsin seems to produce a disproportionate number of extreme-right priests (and sometimes bishops). That priest who was briefly a rightist cause célebrè during the election for preaching that it was a mortal sin to be a Democrat was also a Wisconsinite, as--at first--was Cardinal Burke. It's one reason I would never consider working or studying in Milwaukee or Madison whatever their other merits as communities.

Although Robert John Cornell, one of only two Catholic priests to have ever served in Congress, was a Wisconsin Democrat.

Also the bolded statement - BRTDesque much?