The "papal Honeymoon" Is Over

[blazeingstar]

Not only do they not water things down, they take things further than Church teaching does. God does not hate people with gay inclinations, as they so ardently profess. And again, though I feel having to say this on four separate posts is overkill, it is apparently needed to once again say what I have since the beginning: Telling only one side of the truth is harmful, be it the positive side or the negative side. The Westboro Baptist Church takes only the negative side, and it one-ups it by making it even more negative than it actually is.

 

I'll look past the fact that you suggested I like the Westboro Baptist Church, which is an ad hominem you should know better than to make.

 

The problem as our teachings are currently written, for a 16th century audience (or maybe 1960 if we're lucky) are based on the understanding and typically abhorrent translations of the Bible available then.  We actually do know a lot more about Latin, Aramaic and other languages and it allows us to be more precise and to allow language into current teachings.

 

I don't think its ad hominem at all.  You're saying opposing things, suggesting that changing any statements of the church would be to water things down, but then on the other hand that the church should be more understanding.  Which is it?  It's getting difficult to follow you.

 

Yes, we get it, both sides need to come to an understanding.  The side holding on to all teachings as they are written is going to have to let go and the side that is hoping that changing those teachings writings will change the message will also have to let go.

[CrossCuT]

I hope this doesnt make you heave Blazey, but I kind of like you right now.  :paperbag:

[Credo in Deum]

I am not going to speak for homosexuals, but I'm going to say it because FH has mentioned it.

I think that "we all struggle" is really, really dismissive of what they are going through. Its just like how biological sexual purity is often harder for males. They think about sex all the time because of their hormones. To tell a man who's dealing with sexual thoughts he dosn't want, "well, we all struggle" is hugely dismissive. I'm not going to tell my husband, "well we all have our issues" because he through no fault of his own aroused in a public and he was embarrassed at that. Even if I just tripped over my own feet and caused a scene. I would tell him to take a deep breath, and try to relax and think of something that will help him regain downstairs normality. I'm not going to make his struggle something I cannot possibly relate to.

They can no more change being homosexual, as one can change being Pakistani or German. To say "well we all sin, we all struggle" Most of us don't struggle on a daily basis with something that flies in the face of ordered behavior. We struggle with sins that are more or less typical. Most of our sins couldn't get us killed or ostracized 100 years ago.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not advocating that we be dismissive or deminish other people's struggles. I'm also not advocating that we put all the struggles on equal footing. What I am saying is no one struggles and continues to struggle for no reason. Something motivates us to tackle the hardships we face. Something gives us the hope to contiue on and to make it through the darkness! We need to share what motivates us! We need to share what it is about Christ which makes us want to keep pushing! Our crosses are not the same this is true. But our crosses, if carried and embraced with love, will all lead us to a deeper knowledge of Him who carried His cross with love for us.

[Amppax]

The problem as our teachings are currently written, for a 16th century audience (or maybe 1960 if we're lucky) are based on the understanding and typically abhorrent translations of the Bible available then.  We actually do know a lot more about Latin, Aramaic and other languages and it allows us to be more precise and to allow language into current teachings.

 

I don't think its ad hominem at all.  You're saying opposing things, suggesting that changing any statements of the church would be to water things down, but then on the other hand that the church should be more understanding.  Which is it?  It's getting difficult to follow you.

 

Yes, we get it, both sides need to come to an understanding.  The side holding on to all teachings as they are written is going to have to let go and the side that is hoping that changing those teachings writings will change the message will also have to let go.

 

That first paragraph is in English, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. 

[blazeingstar]

That first paragraph is in English, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. 

 

That past translations of the Bible, and thus our understanding, ranges from "just about accurate" to "totally off base".  The Bible is the foundation of our faith and where we source our teaching from.  We also draw from writing of the saints.  It's only been within the past 30 or so years that it's been acceptable to question and edit language through historical perspective.  We've also created software that can better analyze text and give us insight to the author's point rather than just what is laid out.

 

Like I mentioned before.  Take the Our Father.  It actually dosn't translate well into English at all becuase that language differs from ours.  Here's a good article on it.  http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-isnt-the-our-father-translated-exactly-as-jesus-prayed-it

 

Basically, if we cannot translate something as simple as the Our Father into modern English without some lee-way, we cannot do so with complicated thoughts, ideas and emotions that come from what Jesus taught.

 

Those concepts will remain the same.  But how we relate them may be different and may actually help to bring those who are isolated by the original language (with it's intentional or unintentional cultural bias) back to the fold.

 

It's like the whole Holy Ghost business.  It never was "the Holy Ghost"  that was a absolutely childish translation of Spiritus Sanctus.  Holy Spirit is much, much closer.

[Amppax]

That past translations of the Bible, and thus our understanding, ranges from "just about accurate" to "totally off base".  The Bible is the foundation of our faith and where we source our teaching from.  We also draw from writing of the saints.  It's only been within the past 30 or so years that it's been acceptable to question and edit language through historical perspective.  We've also created software that can better analyze text and give us insight to the author's point rather than just what is laid out.

 

Like I mentioned before.  Take the Our Father.  It actually dosn't translate well into English at all becuase that language differs from ours.  Here's a good article on it.  http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-isnt-the-our-father-translated-exactly-as-jesus-prayed-it

 

Basically, if we cannot translate something as simple as the Our Father into modern English without some lee-way, we cannot do so with complicated thoughts, ideas and emotions that come from what Jesus taught.

 

Those concepts will remain the same.  But how we relate them may be different and may actually help to bring those who are isolated by the original language (with it's intentional or unintentional cultural bias) back to the fold.

 

It's like the whole Holy Ghost business.  It never was "the Holy Ghost"  that was a absolutely childish translation of Spiritus Sanctus.  Holy Spirit is much, much closer.

 

Yeah, that's not really true. You're greatly exaggerating the differences, and it's more along the lines of 100 years in terms of the modern biblical movement within Catholicism. 

Edited October 29, 2014 by Amppax

[blazeingstar]

Yeah, that's not really true. You're greatly exaggerating the differences, and it's more along the lines of 100 years in terms of the modern biblical movement within Catholicism. 

 

Actually, the biggest leaps in understanding have been because of technology.  Scott Hahn sites in one of his books that we have greater access to better translations than anyone studying scripture before the early 80's.

 

And if you actually read the article, you can see that translation is a tough thing, and is at the root of alot of this "wording" strife. 

 

Give that the GIRM was just re-translated and found many people grumbling (becuase it is at once both too harsh and too open) and thats, you know the GIRM, I think that alot of our philosophies on parish life, how we react to sin, etc, were filtered through lenses of very wise, but very sheltered people.  Techology has given us the ability to re-examine the text and see what God was getting at.

 

It dosn't mean that the original translators were bad, or even wrong.  They used the best of their knowlege.  It does mean that God may find a way for His Message to break through the frailties of language.  I've know Priests and lay person who know French, Russian, Polish, and Taglong.  There are many things that are written and taught in those Catholic cultures that are Biblical that are lost on English persons.  Some even deal with how to administer to those with different sexual needs.  So its not like it hasn't been done...its just fractured and broken with different cultures getting different bits of the whole truth.

 

English, and "western" thought has been deeply influenced by puritanistic motifs.  This affects many of our teachings, our postures during Mass, and even our Church buildings to this day.

[Maggyie]

The lols on this thread are unbelievable. So many lols.

 

 

There are limits.  Jesus set limits on things. 

 

Its just like pre-marital behavior.   Some couples find that not kissing before marriage works for them but then there are perfectly happy Catholic nudists who go to the beach together before marriage and kiss.  The church lets us decide what is best for us. 

 

My favorite part of Sermon on the Mount is where Jesus goes, "there are limits, people!"

 

 

Yeah, lots of people were martyred, and that was heroic witness to the truth. But that same Church also decided that the ones who chose not to be martyred because they denied the faith were to be allowed back into the fold, many without any sort of major act of reparation (i.e. years of literal sackcloth and ashes). And how did some people respond to that show of mercy? By leaving the Church and doing their own thing. 

 

What would you say is the main difference between the apostates of that time and the active homosexuals and divorced and remarried of today?

 

The apostates were expected to repent and sin no more.

 

Do you think the 2 modern day groups of Speshul Sinners should be required to repent and sin no more like ordinary thieves, liars, racists, murderers, wife beaters are? Why or why not?

 

I am not going to speak for homosexuals, but I'm going to say it because FH has mentioned it.

 

I think that "we all struggle" is really, really dismissive of what they are going through.  Its just like how biological sexual purity is often harder for males.  They think about sex all the time because of their hormones.  TWe struggle with sins that are more or less typical.  Most of our sins couldn't get us killed or ostracized 100 years ago.

 

Oh no you didn't. Men don't "think about sex all the time because of their hormones." Maybe you need more experience with men but I think you'll find it's a minority of them in a certain age group that "think about sex all the time because of their hormones." The others have a range of sex drives.

 

I have news for you, ALL sins are "more or less typical" most people's sins could get them killed or ostracized 100 years ago and even today. where do you get this Speshul Sinner stuff???

 

Partial list of sins that could get you killed and/or ostracized at various times in history:

 

- adultery

- drug use or alcohol abuse

- premartial sex (usually revealed by unwed pregnancy)

- property theft

- child neglect or spousal abuse

- use of pornography or other obscene materials

- participating in the occult

- gluttony

- use of contraception

- failing to attend Mass

 

The list goes on...

 

the reality is that all sins come from the same place of temptation, sef-absorption and desire.Gay people and their sex drives are not a magical Sin Unicorn.

 

Please forgive me, I don't mean to be mean, I'm criticizing your words not you. But I have to say I enjoy these bits of faux intellectual windbaggery:

 

"There are many things that are written and taught in those Catholic cultures that are Biblical that are lost on English persons"

"English, and "western" thought has been deeply influenced by puritanistic motifs"

 

Don't worry y'all we just need to re-translate the bible and magically all our pelvic issues will be solved. First century Jewish sage was actually so modern in his attitudes about sex. By looking at the text thru our magic Jetsons glasses we can finally see the truth.

[PhuturePriest]

The lols on this thread are unbelievable. So many lols.

 

 

My favorite part of Sermon on the Mount is where Jesus goes, "there are limits, people!"

 

 

 

What would you say is the main difference between the apostates of that time and the active homosexuals and divorced and remarried of today?

 

The apostates were expected to repent and sin no more.

 

Do you think the 2 modern day groups of Speshul Sinners should be required to repent and sin no more like ordinary thieves, liars, racists, murderers, wife beaters are? Why or why not?

 

 

Oh no you didn't. Men don't "think about sex all the time because of their hormones." Maybe you need more experience with men but I think you'll find it's a minority of them in a certain age group that "think about sex all the time because of their hormones." The others have a range of sex drives.

 

I have news for you, ALL sins are "more or less typical" most people's sins could get them killed or ostracized 100 years ago and even today. where do you get this Speshul Sinner stuff???

 

Partial list of sins that could get you killed and/or ostracized at various times in history:

 

- adultery

- drug use or alcohol abuse

- premartial sex (usually revealed by unwed pregnancy)

- property theft

- child neglect or spousal abuse

- use of pornography or other obscene materials

- participating in the occult

- gluttony

- use of contraception

- failing to attend Mass

 

The list goes on...

 

the reality is that all sins come from the same place of temptation, sef-absorption and desire.Gay people and their sex drives are not a magical Sin Unicorn.

 

Please forgive me, I don't mean to be mean, I'm criticizing your words not you. But I have to say I enjoy these bits of faux intellectual windbaggery:

 

"There are many things that are written and taught in those Catholic cultures that are Biblical that are lost on English persons"

"English, and "western" thought has been deeply influenced by puritanistic motifs"

 

Don't worry y'all we just need to re-translate the bible and magically all our pelvic issues will be solved. First century Jewish sage was actually so modern in his attitudes about sex. By looking at the text thru our magic Jetsons glasses we can finally see the truth.

This is possibly in my top ten favorite Phatmass posts of all time.

 

And I can vouch that men don't think about sex all the time. I'm 18 and my hormones are the highest they'll ever be, I barely have anything to do every day, and yet I pretty much never think about sex except for when I'm reading a book by Jason Evert or something.

[CrossCuT]

Minus your huge post on pornography of course...

[PhuturePriest]

Minus your huge post on pornography of course...

 

Huge? Hardly. It's twelve paragraphs at the most.

[blazeingstar]

This is possibly in my top ten favorite Phatmass posts of all time.

 

And I can vouch that men don't think about sex all the time. I'm 18 and my hormones are the highest they'll ever be, I barely have anything to do every day, and yet I pretty much never think about sex except for when I'm reading a book by Jason Evert or something.

 

 

Actually you're wrong because Science.

 

Studies show men's testosterone actually peaks around 30.

 

And Crosscut, I hope this dosn't make you gag, but that was funny.

[CrossCuT]

Huge? Hardly. It's twelve paragraphs at the most.

 

[PhuturePriest]

Peeps in this thread should have a glass of wine and maybe take a bubble bath and then resume the discussion. (FP can have grape juice or some such thing)

 

Welch's sparkling grape juice will suffice. It is better than most wine, in my opinion. I was at a priest's ordination a few months ago with a table of Benedictine priests, and when they were offered wine, most of them declined and asked for Welch's instead, saying it tasted better.

[penguin31]

Well, this is awkward.