Pope Francis formally authorizes blessings for same-sex couples (*certain restrictions apply)

[Desk trauma]

It is not kind to bless or otherwise condone activity described by St. Paul as spiritually harmful. We are to love the sinner, not the sin. The goal of the Church must be to call adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals as well as thieves, the proud and the unjust and the gluttonous and the avaricious and the unbelieving to repentance, without violence, but through our own suffering and our compassion for the sick. This is how Christianity converted the Roman empire, which was a society, like our own, that was, to put it mildly, extremely tolerant of homosexuality, as well as other forms of sexual deviance, although at least it lacked the institutionalized paedophilia of the ancient Greeks (in antiquity, the average Greek man was a bisexual paedophile, taking a wife at an average 15 years of age and a boy at the age of 13; Plato to his credit tried to discourage the latter form of pederasty). Islam made things worse as far as girls were concerned; there are Islamic lands where child marriage still happens, since Muhammed consummated his marriage to Aisha at age 9, which was a repugnant act. Christ, on the other hand, remained celibate, as did many early Christians in imitation of him.

Also an increase in voluntary celibacy and monasticism is the best way to deal with overpopulation,

It's a not great way to deal with our aging population.

considering the benefits monasteries can bring to society in terms of providing health care, hospitality and the manufacture of food stuffs and other industries.

Is something preventing them from doing so now?

 

[Hans Blaster]

It is not kind to bless or otherwise condone activity described by St. Paul as spiritually harmful.

I read a few things about this policy change, and frankly, the whole declaration is more focused on keeping informal blessings from becoming formalized and scramental. As part of this prohibitions on granting blessings to certain categories of parisnoners was lifted.

We are to love the sinner, not the sin. The goal of the Church must be to call adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals as well as thieves, the proud and the unjust and the gluttonous and the avaricious and the unbelieving to repentance, without violence, but through our own suffering and our compassion for the sick.

This policy does not endorse any "behaviors" as they made clear. (And putting "compassion" after all that condemnation seems rather hollow.

This is how Christianity converted the Roman empire, which was a society, like our own, that was, to put it mildly, extremely tolerant of homosexuality, as well as other forms of sexual deviance, although at least it lacked the institutionalized paedophilia of the ancient Greeks (in antiquity, the average Greek man was a bisexual paedophile, taking a wife at an average 15 years of age and a boy at the age of 13; Plato to his credit tried to discourage the latter form of pederasty). Islam made things worse as far as girls were concerned; there are Islamic lands where child marriage still happens, since Muhammed consummated his marriage to Aisha at age 9, which was a repugnant act. Christ, on the other hand, remained celibate, as did many early Christians in imitation of him.

And this is so not what happened.

Also an increase in voluntary celibacy and monasticism is the best way to deal with overpopulation, considering the benefits monasteries can bring to society in terms of providing health care, hospitality and the manufacture of food stuffs and other industries. Indeed Oxford and Cambridge were at one time centers of monasticism, similar to Mount Athos.

Birth rates are less than replacement levels in wealthy countries and trending that way in the rest of the world rapidly. Birth control and education for girls is working just fine.

 

[The Liturgist]

And this is so not what happened.

It is a matter of historical fact that successful Greek men, in Athens and the region of Boetia and other locales, who were not homosexual but rather pansexual paedophiles who engaged in institutionalized pederasty and institutionalized marriage of teenage girls at an age that was common at the time but unacceptable at present, did marry girls who were typically fifteen years of age on average (this was also the case in Rome, unfortunately), and also took as lovers boys who were usually thirteen years of age, and would live with the men until they turned seventeen or eighteen, around the time they started to develop mature facial hairs. Later they would repeat this cycle of abuse. Fortunately this is not a problem we contend with today.

There is also the well documented Theban elite military unite known as the “Sacred Band” which consisted of men and their teenage lovers, which was noted for its prowess in military combat.

In ancient Rome, this kind of institutionalized pederasty did not exist, at least among free men, but it was regarded as entirely acceptable to engage in relations with slaves. What was unacceptable in Rome was for a man in a position of power to be the passive partner in such perverse relationships, and this is why they tended not to occur as frequently between freemen and natural-born citizens, but rather occurred where there was a power imbalance to begin with, between adults and slaves. It is also the case that most Roman baths also operated brothels that catered to what one might politely call a variety of tastes, and some Roman baths allowed men and women to bathe together at the same time (but not to engage in public relations; in ancient Greece however Diogenes engaged in self-abuse in public, among other behaviors he engaged in for shock value).

It is also, according to Muslim sources, the case that Muhammed married Aisha when she was six, and consummated this marriage at the age of nine, which is well below the minimum age for marriage in the ancient Hebrew religion. Now it is true that Aisha, according to those same sources, did become in love with Muhammed, and was the most upset when he died (allegedly, according to some Hadiths, due to being poisoned by a Jewish woman; this may be anti-Semitic propaganda, that is to say, actual blood libel), but if this is true it would not excuse Muhammed for marrying a nine year old.

Christianity has historically rejected most of this; the increase in the age of consent for marriage however is more recent, but the youngest age at which any Christians were allowed to wed was historically twelve for females and fifteen for males. This is still too young, but it is not as perverted as Islam, and we can regard this to some extent as an artifact of society at that time, with shorter life expectancy among other issues. Christianity (with the exception of some heretical sects such as some Gnostics, who are not regarded as Christians according to the CF.com statement of faith) however was always opposed to non-procreative sex, adultery, polygamy, homosexual marriage, incest, and prostitution. Indeed prostitutes and pimps were required to renounce their former profession, along with gladiators, actors (the Roman theatre scene tended to be highly licentious), and teachers of Pagan philosophy. However, to preserve family units, polygamists received into the early church were not required to divorce any of their wives, but they were permanently disqualified from Holy Orders (being ordained to any ministry).

Everything I have stated is factual to the best of my knowledge and is exceedingly well documented.

 

[The Liturgist]

Birth rates are less than replacement levels in wealthy countries and trending that way in the rest of the world rapidly. Birth control and education for girls is working just fine.

Birth control is fundamentally immoral; what is needed is an increase in the birth rate in certain countries due to the economic malaise this is causing, and increased monasticism elsewhere.

 

[The Liturgist]

I read a few things about this policy change, and frankly, the whole declaration is more focused on keeping informal blessings from becoming formalized and scramental. As part of this prohibitions on granting blessings to certain categories of parisnoners was lifted.

The problem with that is that all blessings are inherently liturgical and sacramental by their very nature, as critics of Fiducia Supplicans have pointed out. You might not be aware of this, as it is an aspect of Christian liturgical theology which I would not expect an atheist to have knowledge of, but it is the fact that the majority of liturgical and sacramental theologians in the traditional, liturgical churches would categorize the blessings being offered here as liturgical in character, and as being a form of sacramental (in Roman Catholic, and to a large extent Orthodox theology, sacramentals are distinct from sacraments, and include the blessing of holy water, the funeral service, the consecration of altars and churches, and so on). Some sacramentals can only be performed by bishops, such as the consecration of churches and altars, whereas others can be performed by priests, and some by deacons and laity. Additionally laity can perform baptisms in an emergency, and baptism is an actual sacrament.

The problem is that none of this is acceptable. It is wrong for the Catholic Church to bless adulterous marriages and it is wrong for the Catholic Church to bless homosexual marriages. It would not be wrong to bless the individuals, with a view towards their repentance, but this is a case of blessing the sin and not the sinner.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Birth control is fundamentally immoral;

The world disagrees with you.

what is needed is an increase in the birth rate in certain countries due to the economic malaise this is causing, and increased monasticism elsewhere.

More births or fewer, make up you mind. And we need productive individuals in our society, not those who isolate themselves selfishly from society.

 

[The Liturgist]

The world disagrees with you.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by world. A great many Christians and members of other religions agree with me. The secular world might disagree, but the secular world is under the dominion of the prince of power of the air, and I don’t care what the secular world thinks of me.

More births or fewer, make up you mind.

The birth rate in developed countries needs to increase, and the birth rate in underdeveloped countries needs to decrease, but the only ethical way for this to happen is through heterosexual marriage and holy celibacy.

And we need productive individuals in our society, not those who isolate themselves selfishly from society.

Monastics do not selfishly isolate themselves from society; they work hard, within their monasteries, both in physical labor (Christian monks are required to sustain themselves by the work of their hands) and in spiritual labor, praying continually for all of this. You may not see the value in that, being an atheist, but I can assure you such value does exist. And historically, monasteries have made enormous and positive contributions to society. It was the monasteries that led Europe out of the dark ages, by providing health care, hospitality, and education, among other services. indeed, Aristotle and other classical writers were reintroduced to Western Europe because Christian monks of the Syriac Orthodox Church (some of whom lived in Egypt at the Syrian Monastery, under the Coptic Orthodox Church, which has always been in full communion with the Syriac Orthodox), the Syriac speaking monks in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalaem, at Mar Sabbas, and the monks of the Assyrian Church of the East, translated these works into Arabic, where they had enormous influence on Islamic society during the Islamic Golden Age, and from there, these Arabic translations made their way to Western Europe, where they stimulated the Renaissance.

Also, anyone who enjoys champagne or fine beer such as Rochefort 10 or Westvleteren 12 has Benedictine and Trappist monasteries to thank. And Chartreuse is produced by the Carthusian hermit-monks at the original Charter House in the French Alps.

 

[Desk trauma]

A great many Christians and members of other religions agree with me.

Per Pew polling:

Although the use of contraception is forbidden by church doctrine, few U.S. Catholics regard it as morally wrong. Just 15% of Catholics say that using contraception is morally wrong; 41% say it is morally acceptable and 36% say it is not a moral issue. Even among Catholics who attend church weekly, just 27% say contraception is morally wrong.

How do you define great many?

 

[The Liturgist]

Per Pew polling:

Although the use of contraception is forbidden by church doctrine, few U.S. Catholics regard it as morally wrong. Just 15% of Catholics say that using contraception is morally wrong; 41% say it is morally acceptable and 36% say it is not a moral issue. Even among Catholics who attend church weekly, just 27% say contraception is morally wrong.

How do you define great many?

Considering how many Roman Catholics there are, and considering that most Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are opposed to contraception, as well as most traditional Protestants, and also a great many Muslims and Orthodox Jews, the numbers quickly add up. As a conservative estimate I would say at least 500 million people oppose contraception, and that number might be much larger.

 

[Desk trauma]

Considering how many Roman Catholics there are, and considering that most Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are opposed to contraception, as well as most traditional Protestants, and also a great many Muslims and Orthodox Jews, the numbers quickly add up. As a conservative estimate I would say at least 500 million people oppose contraception, and that number might be much larger.

Let me know when you have actual data.

 

[The Liturgist]

Let me know when you had actual data.

I am extrapolating based on the numbers you provided concerning Roman Catholics + the total number of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians, which is just under 300 million, and the number of various small, traditionalist Protestant denominations where birth control is disallowed.

It is a guess, of course, but an informed guess based on the relative sizes of the denominations which oppose contraceptions.

However, the fact that most people disagree with us on this issue is irrelevant, because as Christians we expect the secular world to be hostile to us and many Christians to be nominal or lukewarm. Many are called, but few are chosen.

 

[Desk trauma]

The birth rate in developed countries needs to increase, and the birth rate in underdeveloped countries needs to decrease, but the only ethical way for this to happen is through heterosexual marriage and holy celibacy.

Then it's not going to happen per your ethics.

 

[Desk trauma]

I am extrapolating based on the numbers you provided concerning Roman Catholics + the total number of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians, which is just under 300 million, and the number of various small, traditionalist Protestant denominations where birth control is disallowed.

It is a guess, of course, but an informed guess based on the relative sizes of the denominations which oppose contraceptions.

However, the fact that most people disagree with us on this issue is irrelevant, because as Christians we expect the secular world to be hostile to us and many Christians to be nominal or lukewarm. Many are called, but few are chosen.

A great many but not even a simple majority of the flavor of Christian most well know for it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I suppose that depends on what you mean by world. A great many Christians and members of other religions agree with me. The secular world might disagree, but the secular world is under the dominion of the prince of power of the air, and I don’t care what the secular world thinks of me.

Humanity in general. The idea that contraception is fundamentally immoral does not track given the major disagreements about it. Doesn't seem so universal.

(I'm an American, we don't have princes.)

 

[RileyG]

He has influence over millions of people including many in positions of power.

Interesting. Since so many of the world is secular, I wonder how many leaders actually care about what he says. Hmmm…..

 

[Hans Blaster]

Interesting. Since so many of the world is secular, I wonder how many leaders actually care about what he says. Hmmm…..

They could try caring less. A good start would be to abandon the laughable notion that the head of a church is a nation state in need of an ambassador.

 

[Pommer]

If you're an atheist, why do you care what the Pope says? Does it pertain to you?

Usually we non-theists await how the Pope “got it wrong” and for what reasons with our Protestant friends.
It can look like an atheist is “defending the Pope” but no that’s not it.

 

[Pommer]

Birth control is fundamentally immoral; what is needed is an increase in the birth rate in certain countries due to the economic malaise this is causing, and increased monasticism elsewhere.

There’s over 8 billion human beings on earth; we’ve more than fulfilled our end of the bargain.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The world disagrees with you.

More births or fewer, make up you mind. And we need productive individuals in our society, not those who isolate themselves selfishly from society.

Well, as Scripture tells us; we are in the world but we are not of the world.

 

[o_mlly]

Pope Francis formally permitted Roman Catholic priests to bless same-sex couples on Monday, in a significant shift in Vatican doctrine.

Nope. No doctrinal change.

... the Church recalls that God Himself never ceases to bless each of His pilgrim children in this world, because for Him “we are more important to God than all of the sins that we can commit”. But he does not and cannot bless sin: he blesses sinful man, so that he may recognize that he is part of his plan of love and allow himself to be changed by him. He in fact “takes us as we are, but never leaves us as we are”.​

Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex, 15.03.2021