Cross-post from Religion: Pope Francis: Kids Must Have Moms and Dads

[rug]

Pope Francis says children must be raised with 'the complementarity of the masculinity and femininity of a father and a mother.'

BY Michael O'Loughlin
April 11 2014 10:35 AM ET

Pope Francis offered his sharpest critique against so-called nontraditional families on Friday morning, suggesting that the church must advocate for the rights of children to be raised "in the complementarity of the masculinity and femininity of a father and a mother."

The pope condemned child labor and child soldiers, and then said that "it is necessary to emphasize the right of children to grow up within a family, with a father and a mother able to create a suitable environment for their development and emotional maturity. Continuing to mature in the relationship, in the complementarity of the masculinity and femininity of a father and a mother, and thus preparing the way for emotional maturity," according to the Vatican Information Service.

Speaking to a delegation from the International Catholic Child Bureau, Pope Francis continued, "Working for human rights presupposes keeping anthropological formation alive, being well-prepared regarding the reality of the human person, and knowing how to respond to the problems and challenges posed by contemporary cultures and mentalities that are spread by the mass media."

Recalling his time as archbishop of Buenos Aires, the pope said, "At times it is necessary to flee; at times it is necessary to stop to protect oneself; and at times one must fight. But always with tenderness."

http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2014/04/11/pope-francis-kids-must-have-moms-and-dads

[Goacher]

1. Thanks, Rug

I'd really like to hear what DU Catholics think of the Pope's comments

[rug]

6. You're welcome.

But there's no reason to think Catholic DUers have a different view on law and psychology than other DUers.

The Pope has no particular expertise or authority in those areas.

[Goacher]

10. But does it matter?

He's the Pope. It doesn't make any difference what he does or doesn't have expertise in. People listen to him

And, for that matter, it's fine for you to say he "has no particular expertise or authority in those areas." But who, if anyone, is telling him that?

[rug]

12. Of course it does. Religious people in general, and Catholics in particular, are not automatons.

I tend to listen to everybody. If they make sense, fine, I may learn something. If not, I'll know why I think they're wrong.

In this case, while I understand his point about children needing parents, his remarks are exclusive of the other realities of nontraditional families.

Other voices are out there if he cares to hear them.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/pope-francis-and-his-critics

http://www.newwaysministry.org/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/816332.stm

[Goacher]

13. That phrase is troubling, though

"if he cares to hear them."

[rug]

14. That's true of anyone in power, though, isn't it?

At least Francis doesn't have drones.

[Goacher]

17. Certainly

But, and I've seen this point raised here before, the Pope is different from, other leaders in the sense that he really doesn't have to answer to anyone

For instance, you'll remember that Obama in his first term dragged his feet on repealing DADT

In response, the gay community was able to withhold (or at least threaten to withhold) campaign funds, votes, etc. Presto, DADT was repealed

In retrospect, people say Obama "evolved" on the issue... but it's probably closer to the truth to say that he was forced to evolve. Or, to paraphrase Lyndon Johnson, we made him do it

Unless I'm really missing something, there's no way to make the Pope do anything, particularly as long as Catholics remain with the church

Yes? No? Somewhere in the middle?

[rug]

19. The trite answer is the Pope has to answer to God.

The actual answer is the Pope cannot simply do whatever he wants. His words and actions are bound by scripture, tradition and reason. He can not simply go rogue any more than the President can.

What he can do is speak authoritatively on doctrine. (The OP is not one of those occasions; it was an address to an international social service agency of the Catholic Church.) Even the much vaunted notion of papal infallibilty on matters of faith and morals is very rarely invoked and, even then, only under very specific criteria.

Core doctrine doesn't change but understanding of it does. Though there is a fight going on as to whether the Church's teaching on sexuality is one of those areas, my money is on the side that says it is.

[Goacher]

21. So...

...how long does it usually take for God to have a change of mind?

That question isn't facetious. I'm quite serious

Give me an analogy. Can you cite another, similar struggle within the church that resulted in a progressive "win?" How did the change occur? What kind of timespan?

[rug]

22. It is a facetious question. It is also completely unresponsive to what I wrote.

I wrote about the evolution of doctrine, not God having a change of mind.

[Goacher]

24. I disagree completely

But, okay, let me rework the question

Can you give me another example of where doctrine evolved? How long did it take? What forces were brought to bear?

[rug]

26. Humani Generis, 1950.

It's a definitive statement that evolution does not contradict doctrine.

It does not, however, accept polygenism.

[Goacher]

27. Great

Is the following Wikipedia article reasonably accurate in your opinion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

[rug]

28. I'm no scholar but it seems to be.

[Goacher]

29. Interesting article

1859 - On the Origin of Species

1950 - First encyclical to specifically refer to evolution, and took up a neutral position

October 22, 1996 - Pope John Paul II updated the Church's position to accept evolution of the human body

Roughly 140 years

Honestly, how long do you think it will take for a similar "evolution" in regard to homosexuality?

And what role does the laity play in such a process?

[rug]

30. You left out Mendel: 1866 - Experiments on Plant Hybridization

The Church never condemned evolution. It studied it, with reason, and eventually saw no conflict in it. 140 years is not long on an evolutionary scale.

There is nothing inevitable about evolution - there is no destination in it. The Church may or may not have a different view on sexuality, straight or gay. But I am convinced it will change its tune on using governments to enforce religious based morality. And I think that will happen in short order.

In the end, that's what's important to anyone whose interest is not the extermination of religious faith.

The role of the laity is crucial in the life of the Church, including its teaching. As the saying goes, it's straight from the Catechism:

899 The initiative of lay Christians is necessary especially when the matter involves discovering or inventing the means for permeating social, political, and economic realities with the demands of Christian doctrine and life. This initiative is a normal element of the life of the Church: (2442)

Lay believers are in the front line of Church life; for them the Church is the animating principle of human society. Therefore, they in particular ought to have an ever-clearer consciousness not only of belonging to the Church, but of being the Church, that is to say, the community of the faithful on earth under the leadership of the Pope, the common Head, and of the bishops in communion with him. They are the Church.432

[Goacher]

31. Well...

I dunno. I'm not sure if I can agree on that. I mean, specifically, are you saying that folks who critique the RCC really want the extermination of religious faith? All faith?

I'm not trying to be inflammatory here. Just trying to understand. Is that really what you think?

[rug]

32. Not at all. I critique it myyself.

Nevertheless, there are indeed some who want religious faith extinguished as inherently irrational, harmful, superstitious and (insert derogatory adjective of your choice).

By far, most critics are of religion's overreach into politics and at worst are bemusedly tolerant of faith itself.

[Goacher]

33. Granted

We'll have to come back to that...

But focusing on the laity again - they are crucial to the life of the church... but they can't really do anything to change doctrine. Correct... or..?

[rug]

34. It depends on the doctrine and at what level it is held.

For instance, no one, including the Pope, can change the doctrine of the Trinity.

But medieval merchants promoted and effected the change to Church teaching on usury.

[Goacher]

36. In your opinion, is leaving the church a valid tactic?

Surely if enough people left due to policies they find objectionable the church would have to accelerate their evolution on those issues?

[rug]

37. For what?

[Goacher]

38. I'm not sure if I understand

[rug]

40. Leaving the Church as a valid tactic for what? Reform? Change?

That was famously tried 500 years ago.

But no, I don't think it's a good tactic. Valid, probably, but not very effective for a whole host of reasons. It's not the LA Clippers.

Generally, stepping away from a political fight is a guarantee nothing will change. I prefer to stay and fight.

[Goacher]

41. But wait

Someone who leaves the Catholic church isn't necessarily stepping away from a political fight. In fact, they could join the Episcopalians or the Unitarians and be even more deeply involved in the fight for gay rights

[rug]

42. As a political move, I think it does.

It factionalizes and splinters the opposition. Revolutions, when successful, unleash far greater change than secession.

Anyway, I'm going to bow out of this thread. I saw your post downstream and maybe someone else will jump in.

You kept your word. I enjoyed the discussion. Seriously, post here anytime you want or start a thread. It's a DU asset.

[hrmjustin]

2. I hope he changes his mind on this.

[Goacher]

3. Erm, well...

...okay. But with all due respect you're Episcopalian, no?

[hrmjustin]

4. And?

[rug]

11. That brings up an interesting point.

The Anglican Communion is part of the greater Catholic Church, going back to the Apostles, as are the Orthodox churches. While there are differences in ecclesiology, and on some doctrinal points, all are part of the Catholic tradition.

It hasn't come up much but this isn't the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Group.

[rug]

5. This was my comment in that thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12214530

I'll repeat here what Sister Mary Sarah said there: &quot his) deviation into realms of sociology and anthropology was beyond the scope of (his) expertise."

[hrmjustin]

7. A good response.

[Goacher]

8. Roger that

Anyone else?

[hrmjustin]

9. You might get some responses in the morning.

[goldent]

15. The Pope's comments are part of Church doctrine, so are not a surprise.

I think the Church will "evolve" on this, as has happened in the secular world. It took a very very very long time in the secular world. Add a few more "very's" for the Church.

[Goacher]

18. See my response #14

Thoughts?

[goldent]

35. I'm not sure what you are looking for

My church and my religion are much different from a political party, where public policy defines the party. My religion is about me trying to understand myself and God and to be a better person, and the Church helps me to that. Maybe non-religious people don't get this.

The social doctrine of the Church is very extensive and I agree with the vast majority of it (I think most DUers would), but it is secondary. In the case you bring up, I didn't have a strong reaction because it was not news, bit I do think the Church should be more inclusive.

[Goacher]

44. I'm not sure at this point, either

This has been an interesting experiment, though

I mean, I don't know, I think my behavior in this thread and group has been pretty exemplary, although you (or anyone, really) can tell me otherwise

But some of the things I'm thinking will probably come across as pretty disagreeable. I'm not sure if there's another way to put this stuff but I'll try my best

1. In the original thread that gave birth to this thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=122885) Starboard Tack argued that this is a "a problem for Catholics to deal with." I can't really support that because - and there's no way to avoid this - since I am a homosexual the Pope was talking about me and my family. Doing so most definitely makes it my business, and not saying anything isn't an option. I found the Pope's statements objectionable and I can't pretend otherwise

2. On the other hand, I feel like raising an objection doesn't really help. If I say how I really feel, which is that Pope Francis is a bigot - or at the very least expressing a bigoted viewpoint - that quickly gets derailed as insensitive, anti-Catholic and even, as one posted put it, "stupid." So...

3. The only other possibility, maybe, is to encourage (prod? pester?) Catholics to discuss pronouncements like the Pope made amongst themselves. Which led to this
thread... but so far it's mostly been myself and Rug chatting, as opposed to Catholics discussing with other Catholics, which is what I was really hoping for. I suppose the only available explanation was provided by Fortinbras Armstrong when he said that the Advocate piece was a "non-story; which is why it was not brought up in this group."

I guess the upshot is that... and I'm thinking out loud... for most Catholics, gay issues just aren't a big priority, or at least not anything they feel a strong personal investment in. I mean, even Fortinbras says that he has a gay brother... and yet also says that he "doesn't have a dog in this hunt." I would've thought that having a gay brother would be a pretty significant dog in the hunt..?

And, even for those Catholics who do have an emotional investment in gay rights and want their church to be more inclusive... there really isn't a clear avenue for change. As others have pointed out, the Catholic church isn't a democracy. People don't get to vote... So the only option is to wait and see if the hierarchy can be more reflective of the laity. And we know (and you yourself said) that change in the Catholic church requires a very, very, very long time. Even in the case of evolution (which I was discussing with Rug somewhere upstream) it took the church 140 years to come around on that, and, for that matter, the church never even condemned evolution

I suppose for heterosexual Catholics (and maybe even some gay Catholics) that's sufficient, but for the rest of us it feels like we're back to justice delayed is justice denied

So... I dunno. It doesn't seem like there are a lot of possibilities here. I think we're communicating somewhat but the conclusions aren't too optimistic

I guess all we can do is be as pleasant to each other as possible since, we are, after all, allies on some other topics (heck, I was in favor of Pope Benedict's critique of capitalism) but on this we just strongly, vastly disagree on what's really important and at stake

[goldent]

45. Final thoughts

I appreciate your thoughts - I'll try to respond in kind. First, it seems you were expecting or hoping for a lot of discussion from Catholics about this. Frankly, I didn't for a couple of reasons...

- There is not a lot of activity in this group overall. Just look at the history.

- I think people in safe-haven groups tend not to bring up "downer" stories a lot - at least that is what I noticed is several safe-haven groups. For discussing downer stories, you might as well go to the Religion group - there are plenty to choose from and plenty of activity.

- I suspect a low portion of DU Catholics post here. I think in DU there is a feeling that you will be viewed negatively if you admit to being a Catholic - for sure you see this in the Religion group. Plus a lot of DU people who are Catholics just don't have a lot to say about it - they come to DU to discuss politics.

I think you may be reducing the RCC to its policy on gay marriage (one that would be considered mainstream not so many years ago). Maybe Catholics view the RCC as a much larger thing and view the policy on gay marriage as a wart -- not a good thing, but small part of the body. I suspect if you saw an outline of RCC's social doctrine, you would agree with >75% of it. Of course, you could say, I don't care if I agree with 99% of it - the gay marriage policy is a deal breaker. Everyone has to decide what is right for themselves.

In the end, I hope you understand that when I voted for Pres Obama in 2008, I didn't do it because I thought his position against gay marriage was right - I did it for many other reasons. And similarly, I am not a member of the RCC because I think its position against gay marriage is right, I am a member for many other reasons.

[Goacher]

46. Excellent summary

I guess part of my thinking was... there are, what? 1.1 billion Catholics in the world... Surely there must be a ton on DU, maybe even some gay ones who would want to address this, but I suppose you're right about the downer stories and lack of activity in general...

At any rate, I really do appreciate your response. Peace.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

16. I don't know why anyone is surprised that a social conservative

Has come out in favor of traditional families.

[Goacher]

20. It's not a question of being surprised

I doubt many in the gay community were surprised by those remarks... Certainly not me

The thing is, though, how do you, as a Catholic (correct?) feel about what he said? Do you agree? Disagree? Are you angry? Disappointed? Indifferent?

For instance, if those same remarks had been made by a Democratic presidential candidate, I suspect you would have serious reservations about voting for them

So... why does the Pope get a free pass? Why did it require my badgering to even get the topic posted in the Catholic forum?

Bear in mind that, per my agreement with Rug, I'm trying my best to pose these questions in the most civil manner possible. My purpose here really isn't to provoke or troll. I'm honestly just looking for answers, even if they're imperfect. Say anything that comes to mind. Maybe the spontaneous response is the most accurate

[rug]

23. What do you mean, "badgering"?

You were told there you were free to post it here yourself. You declined.

[Goacher]

25. Yes, I declined

But, again, I'm not Catholic

I don't think it's really necessary for me to count... but I asked you repeatedly if you were going to post the topic to this group... eventually it happened, but the question is - why didn't any of you think to post it here?

And, again, what do you think about what he said?

Not you, Rug. You've already answered

[Goacher]

39. No Only But Also...

Folks - isn't there anyone else who wants to weigh in on this post?

Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying the conversation with Rug... but surely there are other Catholics on DU who might want to share an opinion?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

43. OK, you want an opinion

I am mildly disappointed but not in the least surprised by his statement.

I should say that as a straight male, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I do have a gay brother, but he is wholly uninterested in being a father, basically because our own father (who almost certainly had Asperger's syndrome, as do I and our other brother) was no model for fatherhood.

Some people seem to expect Pope Francis to make all sorts of radical changes in Catholic teachings. This is completely unrealistic. Francis is not going to come out in favor of gay marriage, he is not going to say that abortion is morally acceptable, he almost certainly is not going to allow women to be ordained, and so on. Thinking that he is a wild-eyed radical, bent on overturning Catholic moral doctrine, is simply unrealistic.

"Pope comes out in favor of traditional families" is a non-story; which is why it was not brought up in this group.

[TeeSell]

47. God doesn't change His mind. Neither can His Bible be reinterpreted

Men change and men change His Bible to their liking. With consequences.
Never for good. Never for good.

[Goacher]

48. I'm confused

When men change the Bible, is it for good?

Are there consequences?

Be pacific

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

49. I am reminded of a bit from the TV show "The West Wing"

President Josiah Bartlet: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

President Josiah Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.

President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21 . She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11 . If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?