383
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

This week, hundreds of delegates from around the world began a monthlong meeting as part of Pope Francis’ “Synod on Synodality”—a gathering to discuss the future of the Catholic Church. It could radically change the religion. The group is considering groundbreaking alterations to orthodoxy on same-sex unions and whether or not women can be ordained as priests. The process has changed, too. For the first time, delegates include women.

A synod is a conference for church leaders and lay people to engage in conversation about how to bolster the good of the church. Since the 1960s, delegates from the global church have come together to discuss evolving issues. The current synod is part one of a multi-year process that will culminate in 2024 with Francis’ decisions and includes particularly controversial topics, like celibacy and divorce.

The lead up has been punctuated by conservative concerns about just how liberal this meeting may get. The synod kicks off days after a letter became public in which the pope considered blessing the existence of queer couples and the allowance of female priests.

Pope Francis wrote that while marriage is an “exclusive, stable and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to conceiving children,” pastoral charity is also needed, and may be discretionary. Pastoral prudence, he wrote, “must adequately discern if there are forms of blessing, solicited by one or various persons, that don’t transmit a mistaken concept of marriage.” On female priesthood, the pope asserted that, whereas nobody can publicly contradict the church’s current rules prohibiting women’s ordination, they should study it.

For some, this rhetoric may seem like the bare minimum. But for others, like Americans on the right, it’s scary as hell.

Conservative Catholics across the U.S. have been some of the most vocal globally in pushing against reforms, and fear that the church is changing in a way that doesn’t match scripture or their ideology. One New York City priest, Reverend Gerald Murray, worried publicly that the pope “will authorize things that are not contained in Catholic doctrine or that will contradict it,” like women deacons or blessing gay unions. “We’re not Protestants,” he said.

Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, Archbishop Emeritus of St. Louis, a vocal opponent to Pope Francis, was in the group that sent the pope a letter inquiring how he would be responding to these issues at the summit. “It’s unfortunately very clear,” Burke said on Tuesday, “that the invocation of the Holy Spirit on the part of some has as its aim to push forward an agenda that is more political and human than ecclesiastical and divine.” (Burke was not invited to the meeting at the Vatican.)

Pope Francis’ track record on queer and women’s rights is complicated. He formally allowed women to read from the Bible during Mass, but also came out against women becoming ordained. Speaking about queer people in 2013, the pope famously asked, “If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them?” He has argued that homosexuality should not be treated as a crime in different countries but clarifies that he still thinks it’s a sin. Francis has framed many of these decisions as instances where localities should turn toward scripture and an evolving discernment as it befits their needs as part of his hope of growing the Catholic Church.

Because of this potential divide between local and global doctrine and application, it is possible that American Catholics may not even see these changes, should they be formally supported by the pope but not adopted by local priests.

As Mother Jones previously reported, American catholicism has splintered as some of the devout entrench themselves in wider conservative politics. Right-wing provocateurs like Milo Yiannopoulos and Steve Bannon notably have moved in Catholic circles saying Pope Francis should be curtailed. Yiannopoulos, who touts a traditionalist form of Catholicism, has been telling anyone who will listen to him, to “make the Vatican straight again” and “make America homophobic again.”

The pope himself seems unfazed by the ire of American Catholics. “They got mad,” he told reporters in late August after a squabble. “But move on, move on.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ubermeisters@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

if we are going to control the population ever again, we are gonna have to make some comprimises, or continue shedding members to more rational trains of thought and self respect.

There I had the entire month of meetings for you.

I'll take 10% of the churchs' revenue now, please and thanks.. Jesus said I need it more than you.

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 year ago

Easy there, 10% tithing is the Mormons. Catholics are more nuanced, using “what you can afford,” “what the church needs,” and guilt together.

[-] ubermeisters@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My experience is mainly with Baptist and non-denominational. my family was poor as fuck, so the church urged us 10% instead of the commonly held 15%. I figured I'd return thier generosity..

[-] Art3sian@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I still don’t get how Christianity survived evolution.

Evolution = no Adam and Eve. No Adam and Eve = no Original Sin. No Original Sin = the entire Bible falls apart.

They must have used some serious white-out tape to work around that one.

[-] ubermeisters@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Christianity's never been about Original Sin. It's been about fear of death and mitigation of that fear. Didn't take long for people to see the inherent power this type of belief system provides for the purported "chosen speakers".

[-] Art3sian@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The story starts with Original Sin. It’s where the Devil, sin, heaven and hell, and retribution and forgiveness all starts.

If you can’t have Eve biting the apple, you can’t have a Bible, period.

[-] ubermeisters@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I refuse to argue this with you because it's not a fair debate in the slightest...

Proceeds to anyway though apparently:

I've over a decade and a half of formal biblical education, read cover to cover umpteen times in a cornucopia of translations and revisions, and none of it matters for shit. The Bible is the Bible becuase it gives mankind a way out of death. NOBODY gives a fuck about the rest of it; that is all positioning, pomp, and self persuasion.

And let's not pretend like the Bible makes any fucking sense to begin with so you crying about the Baseline rationale possibly being wrong makes zero sense.

[-] Art3sian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Hey man, I’m on your side.

Sunday School, church, prayer, grace, Youth Group. I did it all, and I call it all horseshit now.

I’m just saying, once you get past all the introductions, the Bible opener is Original Sin. And once evolution became fact, that scene #1 of the Bible falls on its ass, so everything that follows it has to as well.

[-] JesusLikesYourButt@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You realize that Jews, the people who wrote the Hebrew Bible that makes up what Christians call the old Testament, didn't and do not believe in original sin? That's a later christian invention, doesn't even go back to Jesus.

[-] ubermeisters@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Critical thinking isn't Christianity's strong suite.

[-] ubermeisters@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

TBH, you could remove the entire Old Testament and most Christians would be probably be happier. The divide between Judaism and Christianity would sure get worse though. Not that most Christians know they are reading the Torah for the first half of their precious book lmao.

[-] flicker@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Not Christian anymore but I grew up extremely Roman Catholic and I can answer this.

My priest preached evolution. The idea here being that the concept of Adam and Eve could very well have been some distant ancestor. After all, there had to be, even in evolution, a "first" man and woman, reaching some unknown criticality in the evolutionary process.

Just like the "earth was created in 7 days" bit, when Christians say, but what is a "day" to God?

I don't follow it anymore but I thought I could shed some light.

[-] Art3sian@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I’m not arguing with you (more, your former priest), but if God made man in his own image, it can’t really be said that Adam and Eve is now allowed to be represented by a few multi-celled crawlers in the primordial soup.

Also, he apparently created ALL the land animals AND the people on the sixth day. Pretty weird if we’re now admitting that people were land animals.

[-] Marin_Rider@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

only idiot evangelicals believe the literal 6 day creation stuff

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

God made man in his own image

From a DNA point of view, obviously.

[-] zloubida@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

That's not how it works. Genesis is a myth, a story who puts chronologically an existential truth.

The original sin is original in that it predates us.

[-] JesusLikesYourButt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Christians are the only ones that believe in original sin, right? I could never take that idea seriously after actually reading genesis.

[-] zloubida@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

If you read Genesis as a historical account of real events, you're right not to take it seriously. But if you read it as a metaphor, it can change your life.

[-] ubermeisters@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

changed my life for sure. Made it crystal clear that believers are all out of their minds, which has absolutely allowed me to show them more grace in turn, as they are intellectually kneecapped by their own tragic beliefs.

[-] zloubida@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Thank you for your comprehension.

[-] JesusLikesYourButt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I prefer to read the Abrahamic religious books as a legendary/mythological account of history, not outright historical. The people who wrote these books had an agenda to push and by studying it we can get an idea of what their intentions were in wrtiting them down. You can't fully understand some of the stories in the Bible if you don't have some understanding of the culture and history and beliefs of the people that wrote them. Context is vital.

I'd love to hear how you think it would change my life? It's fun to get different perspectives.

I've always hated the idea of original/inherited sin. It's such a cruel idea to me.

[-] zloubida@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'll try to explain what I think (it's of course my vision and not the Truth), but in advance sorry for my broken English.

I’ve always hated the idea of original/inherited sin. It’s such a cruel idea to me.

It depends on what you put behind these words. American Christianity (but it's of course not the case only there) is obsessed by the question of hell, thus the idea that everybody inherits the condamnation is indeed cruel. But as you said, one should understand the culture and history of the people who wrote Genesis 1 and 2 (two different texts that are in opposition if one takes them literally, by the way, a proof that it's not how the authors thought them), and to them, the question of the afterlife was if not irrelevant, at least not central. The oldest parts of the Old Testament even do not presuppose an afterlife at all. It comes later, first as the sheol, a place that welcomes everybody, and finally as a bodily resurrection of the just people only. Thus the original sin is not what condemns you to hell.

Sin is not about hell and heaven. Sin is an existential reality here and now. Etymologically, it's an archery terms which signifies "to miss the mark". Sin is the fact that we can't be what we should be. Our "mark", a life in communion with God, thus a life free of evil, can't be not missed. We are not able to attain it, and that's because of sin. But sin is not our fault, sin is original, it predates us, thus we can't be accused of sinning. Sin is not a moral question.

Why does sin exist? @ubermeisters@lemmy.world is right when they ask if God is responsible of the sin. Genesis does say that God created everything, thus he created, if not the original sin itself, at least the possibility of sin. Why would a good God do that? It's a mystery, but Genesis offers a part of the answer: because of freedom. God wants us free. God wants us able to refuse him. He loves us, and he wants us to love him too, but because he loves us he wants us to be autonomous. Without the ability to sin, we wouldn't be autonomous.

Thus, the doctrine of the original sin is not an accusation of everybody. It's a freeing doctrine: you're not responsible for the evil that inhabits you. It's not your fault. It's original, inherited. It's the price of your freedom. You can now walk freed of culpability (if a Church makes you feel more guilty than before, this Church is not teaching the Gospel). And God doesn't let us alone in that. It's not in Genesis 1-2 anymore, but the rest of the Bible is pretty clear about the fact that God accompanies us in our road, he suffers when we suffer, he walks with us, and he offers his presence in our lives. He helps us endure, if we make the decision to ask him. He asks the believers to fight against the consequences of evil, making the world a better place. It's not always the case, of course, but it's what he calls us to do.

The doctrine of the original sin changed my life, I do not fell guilty and I'm stronger to change the world.

Edit : it's very mature Lemmy to downvote a message you disagree with.

[-] ubermeisters@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I did not ASK if god is responsible for sin. I stated that GOD DEFINITIVELY CREATED SIN. According to his words. not mine. Don't put words in my mouth or twist my intent, thanks. I'm not your pawn, nor do I appreciate you intentionally skewing my words for your Grade 1 sunday school lesson in bullshitology 👍🏼

[-] zloubida@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

You asked and answered. I agree with the question and not the answer.

[-] ubermeisters@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago
[-] SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So your version of the christians god is not omnipotent and omnicient?

[-] zloubida@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

He is. But he also loves us thus he will not use his omnipotence to make us do something we do not want. And omnipotence can't go against logic.

[-] SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If he is, then he is not benevolent.

After all, he could have created us with free will and no suffering, but chose not to.

So he either is not omnipotent, or is not benevolent.

[-] zloubida@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

After all, he could have created us with free will and no suffering, but chose not to.

Could he? Like I said, omnipotence can't go against logic. Which free will would we have if we couldn't make bad and suffering-inducing decisions?

[-] SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Well, if he were truly omnipotent (and real), he could have created free will that doesn't go against logic and without suffering.

[-] ubermeisters@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

yep. bible unequivocally states that "God created all things". There is zero wiggle room there, unless the original translation of "all" means something less encapsulating than our modern day notion of the term.

OG sin is that of the creator, YHWH aka God, not ours, according to those dusty ass scrolls so many people continue to die over.


EL SHADDAI? MORE LIKE Y'ALL GON'DIE

  • jehova

I wonder what next iteration of the Horus myth will overtake Christianity eventually.

this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
383 points (96.4% liked)

News

23424 readers
1525 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS