u/KindlyBalance5302

I'm not against the Latin Mass. But I do find the Cardinal's proposal of letting the Magisterium's restrictions on it whither away unenforced to be a fascinating double-standard. "I do not know a more precise definition of cafeteria Catholicism than this: selective, undeclared non-observance of a magisterial act one finds unwelcome, defended by a churchman who elsewhere insists that doctrine and discipline alike must never simply be allowed to drift by popular sentiment. If a bishops’ conference proposed managing an unwelcome moral teaching by simply declining to preach it until it faded from memory, Cardinal Sarah would rightly call it what it is. He does not extend to himself the same scrutiny."

I think "Cartesian Ghosts" would be a great name for a band.

But anyway, I just came across this reflection by Msgr. Arthur Holquin (don't know much about him, but he seems to have some pogniant thoughts!). This passage in particular stuck out to me, regarding the language of "disorder", or what we might call the classic "love the sinner, hate the sin", rhetoric.

"The Dicastery's defenders will press the distinctions these texts so carefully drew. The acts are disordered, not the person; the inclination is objectively disordered, yet the person remains worthy of respect, compassion, and sensitivity...

But is that not, in the end, a philosophical splitting of hairs? It is a distinction that holds tidily in the seminar room and dissolves the instant it meets a living person in the confessional or in a spiritual direction session. A term whose technical sense is inaudible to ninety-nine hearers in a hundred has, whatever the manualists intended, already failed as language. For we are not Cartesian ghosts piloting a bundle of urges. We are whole persons — hopes and dreams, fears and tenderness, the entire architecture of how we are made to love and to be loved. To tell a man or a woman that the deepest orientation of their capacity for love is "objectively disordered" is not heard as a delicate qualification about acts; it lands as a verdict upon the self. The homily's own anthropology insists as much: each of us is a singularity, a wholeness constituted in relation to others — and one cannot wound the part without wounding the person."

"Doctrine develops; Newman taught us so. And if a curial formulation of the 1970s and '80s can be received into the Catechism, it can also, in due course, be purified..."

Posting looking to recruit people for academic studies can be placed in this thread.

Hey all, it seems there's been an uptick in research posts looking to recruit LGBTQ people to studies in this sub. In general, I figured research is something we ought to support (and to their credit, a lot of times the researchers used to message the mods and request permission in advance); but it looks like the frequency of these posts is ramping up quite a bit, so as we generally do when a certain type of post becomes a little too frequent in the sub that it starts to feel like spam, I think it's reasonable to issues a moratorium for the time being.

Please share your feedback in the comments!

So often we think of homophobia as the caricature of overtly hateful and derogatory messaging, but far more common and more insidious are phrases like this. This sort of framing can lead even well-meaning people to think they're being compassionate when perpetuating this rhetoric.

I have read Dobson.
I have heard Gothard.
I have listened to Driscoll.
I know the arguments.
I know the verses.
I know the script.

You think I walked away because I never understood.
You think one more debate will finally open my eyes.
But I did understand.
That is exactly why I left.

I will not treat people that way.
Not in the name of truth.
Not in the name of love.
Not for any promised reward.

I have seen your women shrink into themselves.
Always fearing they were never enough.
Always apologizing for existing.
Then searching for relief in another prescription, another pill, another fragile smile.

I have seen your signs.
I have heard your chants.
I have watched your slogans march across every screen.
I have also heard your children whisper.
I cannot wait to leave.
I hate what this has become.

I will not treat people that way.
Not in the name of truth.
Not in the name of love.
Not for any promised reward.

I have seen your leaders.
Your holiest men.
Your defenders of righteousness.
Some carried away in handcuffs for sins too terrible to speak.
Others protected because the institution mattered more than the wounded.

I have watched you trade compassion for certainty.
I have watched mercy bow before doctrine.
I have watched people become projects instead of neighbors.

I have heard ancient curses spoken over modern people.
Warnings meant for another land, another nation, another age.
Forced into battles they were never written to fight.

I will not treat people that way.
Not in the name of truth.
Not in the name of love.
Not for any promised reward.

I have watched you call cruelty faithfulness.
I have watched you call exclusion holiness.
I have watched you call suspicion discernment.
I have watched you call simple kindness compromise.

I have watched you clutch your wealth while speaking of sacrifice.
I have watched you defend power while preaching humility.
You remind me less of prophets and more of dragons.
More like Smaug counting gold than holy men of old.

I have watched every scandal become someone else's fault.
The victim lacked forgiveness.
The doubter lacked faith.
The outsider lacked understanding.
The system was never allowed to be questioned.

I will not treat people that way.
Not in the name of truth.
Not in the name of love.
Not for any promised reward.

You can keep your certainty.
You can keep your arguments.
You can keep your endless debates.
I am done trying to win.

When every sermon has been preached.
When every proof text has been quoted.
When every defense has been spoken.
One sentence remains.

I will not treat people that way.

I know not every diocese is able to have them; but did anyone attend any Pride-related events in the Church last month? What was the experience like?

(I know LifeSite is very homophobic, so take this as a CW of sorts, but it's my personal practice to read perspectives from many ideological corners of the Church. Not saying everyone must, but in case anyone was wondering why I occasionally glance at this site.) Also, I've noticed that, in their panic; conservative Catholic media often does a great job of highlighting the implications of what they see as changes in Church precedent!

I had this thought as soon as Pope Leo made his comments on the war; and LifeSite captions it perfectly:

>Leo XIV has not challenged the Iran war from the perspective of Catholic just war theory, but by rejecting the legitimacy of all wars, not just in the present but in the past also.
Without nuance or caveat, Leo has stated that Our Lord “rejects war,” that no one can “justify war” with reference to Him, and that “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.”
These positions are all false, and contrary to the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church

The article goes on to explain what I thought of immediately, that the Church has a long history of Just War theory. Sure, you can be against a war and think a given war is unjust; but the Catholic Church has never been offiically, absolutely, dogmatically pacifist as Pope Leo's comments would seem to suggest.

And interestingly, this is the first piece of media, even conservative Catholic media, that I've seen point out Pope Leo's de novo papal pacifism.

If Pope Francis would have said this; the next day there would have 10+ articles and videos in the Catholic blogophere explaining why he's wrong.

Remember when Pope Francs changed the Catechism on the death penalty in 2018 and everyone lost their minds? Well Pope Leo's shift seems even more dramatic than that.

Because Pope Francis didn't claim to change the underlying moral criteria related to the death penalty, arguably, he just declared that, in the modern world, hardly any case meets such criteria.

With Pope Leo, we also have a set of criteria which would make the thing in question just, and Pope Leo didn't say that nothing today could meet that criteria, he just...acted like the criteria doesn't exist and that God Himself holds this absolutist position.

Well gosh, if Pope Leo can do this to Just War criteria; could a future pope just discard Natural Law Theory on sexuality? All the "unitive and procreative" requirements, could a pope just discard overnight and pretend they never existed?

I personally am not a pacifist, I do believe in Just War theory; and I'm not really here to make this thread about the merits of Just War theory; but to talk about the precedent Pope Leo just set.

Both conservatives and even some disheartened liberals in the Church often echo the same assumption that Church teaching "cannot change."

But I think this de novo new paradigm, totally untethered to the Church's previous official stance; though not an "official" change in doctrine; goes to show just how suddenly it actually can. And sometimes, it seems, hardly anyone even notices.

Hey all, to be clear, I am affirming as can be seen in my post history, so this is a genuine question. I do also agree with affirming exegesis of Scripture, that the clobber passages are not referring to same-sex relationships as we know them today.

That scholarship on exegeting the clobber passages has been around for a while; but I feel like lately at a popular level it's been distilled and over-simplified into "the 1946 argument"; about how the word first appeared in English Bibles in that year.

I feel like framing it this way can be a bit disingenuous though; because...were churches all affirming and performing gay weddings up until 1946? Then the word showed up in English Bibles and that's when churches starting become anti-gay? Of course not.

So I don't understand all the hype around the 1946 argument per se. Yes, it was inaccurate to insert that word; but unless we're going to say that it's the only reason homophobia ever permeated Christianity; I don't think that argument has a much power as we think it does. It seems more like a rhetorical point.

It seems to me that we can argue that the clobber passages aren't against loving same-sex couples; without pretending that homophobia just started in 1946.

Am I missing something?

God bless the Paulist Fathers

Obviously in this sub, most of us know Fr. James Martin for his LGBTQ advocacy. But he has a few other endeavors as well. Currently he's promoting his new book, Work in Progress, about what all his prior jobs taught him before he entered the Jesuits. He's also written a few books about Jesus, has appeared on a few podcasts, and I think he has his own podcast now, too, about various spiritual topics.

Has anyone here engaged any of his other work? What are your thoughts?

I've read The Jesuit Guide to Almost Everything. I thought it was pretty good.

During the pandemic lockdown in 2020; I also started watching his then-daily Bible study livestreams; which he started to build community during that isolating time. I'm grateful for those broadcasts because it was really the first time I got to experience his ministry directly; and not just what his critics say about him. It was a very mind-opening experience for me back then.

I just realized today is the 11-year anniversary of the SCOTUS decision on marriage equality. In some ways it makes feel both old, and young. On one hand, I'm old enough to remember when marriage equality was going back and forth in the courts, Prop 8, etc. And on the other hand; it's crazy to me to think that it was only 11 years ago that marriage equality was not yet guaranteed. There's a whole generation growing up now that doesn't personally remember that time.

Maybe many of us have come a long way personally since that time. There's people who were not affirming on that day that are passionately so now.

It still gives me goosebumps to read President Obama's statement from that day, and I think it can inspire those of us who still press on for equality in the Church:

"Progress on this journey often comes in small increments, sometimes two steps forward, one step back, propelled by the persistent effort of dedicated citizens.  And then sometimes, there are days like this when that slow, steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt...But today, we can say in no uncertain terms that we’ve made our union a little more perfect.  

That’s the consequence of a decision from the Supreme Court, but, more importantly, it is a consequence of the countless small acts of courage of millions of people across decades who stood up, who came out, who talked to parents -- parents who loved their children no matter what.  Folks who were willing to endure bullying and taunts, and stayed strong, and came to believe in themselves and who they were, and slowly made an entire country realize that love is love."