The "papal Honeymoon" Is Over

[CrossCuT]

Well, this is awkward. 

took the words right out of my beak

[PhuturePriest]

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.

 

Studies I've seen say 18 for men and 30 for women.

[veritasluxmea]

Literally this thread

 

 

[Lilllabettt]

my seester is a torpedo to your battleship.

 

 

 

[Ice_nine]

I'm really offended right now at all of the things

[Credo in Deum]

Literally this thread

I laughed out loud.

[Aragon]

I am in full favor of empathy and compassion. I do not think, however, that empathy and compassion are code words for throwing out the truth in the name of making people feel more welcome. The Church says homosexual acts are a sin that cry out to heaven for retribution, and I am inclined to agree with the Church. Is that harsh wording? Yes. Is it also the truth? Yes. It is also the truth that if I were to commit sins of a sexual nature, I would be in the same boat and in just as much danger of hell. You don't see me asking the Church to water down its language about my ultimate resting place if I live a life of sin. It is also the truth that God loves us all equally, regardless of inclination, and he wants us all in heaven with him and to in turn reject our base passions if they're leading us towards sin.

 

I am fully empathetic to the inclination towards sin, as I also sin. I am not empathetic to making us feel better about our sin by watering down its ugly truth with nicer language.

 

The difference is, Future Packer, that you're a devout Catholic actively pursuing holiness. Telling you that x or y behaviour is sinful is effective for you because you believe in sin and don't want to offend God. Telling you it leads to Hell is effective because you believe in Hell.

However none of that harsh language will work for someone in an irregular situation who isn't a strong Catholic. If I go around telling the gay people or cohabitating people I know that their sexual behaviour is "disordered" and that for that reason they need to repent or go to Hell they're not going to listen. What they will do is write me off as judgmental and want nothing more to do with me. That's why it's important that Catholics, including our leaders, use a language that is both intelligible and attractive to the mass of people who aren't devout Catholics, because the "harsh language" you're advocating simply won't be effective for them. 

[veritasluxmea]

The difference is, Future Packer, that you're a devout Catholic actively pursuing holiness. Telling you that x or y behaviour is sinful is effective for you because you believe in sin and don't want to offend God. Telling you it leads to Hell is effective because you believe in Hell.

However none of that harsh language will work for someone in an irregular situation who isn't a strong Catholic. If I go around telling the gay people or cohabitating people I know that their sexual behaviour is "disordered" and that for that reason they need to repent or go to Hell they're not going to listen. What they will do is write me off as judgmental and want nothing more to do with me. That's why it's important that Catholics, including our leaders, use a language that is both intelligible and attractive to the mass of people who aren't devout Catholics, because the "harsh language" you're advocating simply won't be effective for them. 

Pretty sure FP knows that already, pretty sure this thread needs to die. 

[Benedictus]

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.

 

 

Cardinal Carlo Martini said that the church was at least 200 years out of date on most things. I think there was a tug in the 1960's, but yeah. Apparently it's now the 21st century!
 

[PhuturePriest]

The difference is, Future Packer, that you're a devout Catholic actively pursuing holiness. Telling you that x or y behaviour is sinful is effective for you because you believe in sin and don't want to offend God. Telling you it leads to Hell is effective because you believe in Hell.

However none of that harsh language will work for someone in an irregular situation who isn't a strong Catholic. If I go around telling the gay people or cohabitating people I know that their sexual behaviour is "disordered" and that for that reason they need to repent or go to Hell they're not going to listen. What they will do is write me off as judgmental and want nothing more to do with me. That's why it's important that Catholics, including our leaders, use a language that is both intelligible and attractive to the mass of people who aren't devout Catholics, because the "harsh language" you're advocating simply won't be effective for them. 

 

I adamantly refuse to once again explain the two sides of the Truth and why we can't be selective about it. If you want to know my thoughts in detail about this, read my other posts.

 

Also, it's different if they're not Catholic. Everything when it comes to evangelization is different if they're not Catholic.

[Aragon]

Yeah, I don't think you're seeing the point or comprehending the issues as they often play out in the world today.

 

We're not talking about one lapsed Catholic gay wiccan hindu vegetarian martial artist, we're talking about a vast population who's often very hateful and very militant against Catholics.

 

And the Pope is saying that both sides have to come to a middle ground.  Part of that middle ground, however, does involve changing some language that is not divine (eg from the Bible) so that people can understand it better.

 

Language is a powerful tool but gets dated.  I mean just look at when people begin the Our Father or Hail Mary.  I know traditionalists who just about loose their top if you say "the" and "your" rather than "thee" and "tho".   And "thee" is not really Biblical, the Latin/Aramaic dosn't add up...its just how it was translated into English back in the 1500's.  Those languages don't even have classifiers.   So to change our language, weither it be thee's or anything else is part of a natural evolution of culture and language and, yes, even feeling.
 

 

This point about language is incredibly important.

 

For this reason I think it's about time the Church got rid of the "intrinsically disordered" language. The word "disordered" is understood in a teleological/aristotelian sense by about 0.1% of the population. It's far, far too easy for poorly catechised Catholics and non-Catholics to read that word in the Catechism (or, dare I say it, hear Cardinal Burke use it about 12 times in an interview) and think that the Church teaches gay people are suffering from a mental illness. Sadly that makes people think we view gay people as sick and they put us in the same camp as the 'ex-gay boot camp' and 'pray the gay away' fundamentalist Protestant groups who actually do regard homosexuality as a mental illness. 

 

Mental illness is what the word "disorder" commonly means in English, and its a pity the bishops didn't think of this problem when they were translating the Catechism into English. Someone who speaks a romance language fluently can correct me, but I don't think the word 'disorder' has the same medical connotations in Spanish, Italian, French, etc, as it does in English. 

[Aragon]

Pretty sure FP knows that already, pretty sure this thread needs to die. 

 

Yeah, sorry. Reminder for next time: read thread first, then post. Don't do it the other way round :P

[veritasluxmea]

Yeah, sorry. Reminder for next time: read thread first, then post. Don't do it the other way round :P

been there done that

[blazeingstar]

Studies I've seen say 18 for men and 30 for women.

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/07/04/health-myth-do-men-really-hit-their-sexual-peak-at-18/  Testosterone output is highest but males need time to "build it up" in their system so they have the largest amount of testosterone in their system about 10 years later.  But yes, men at 18 are more at risk for things like accidental arousal because the output is so high...however, they do not have enough overall to be considered at their sexual peak.

 

This point about language is incredibly important.

 

For this reason I think it's about time the Church got rid of the "intrinsically disordered" language. The word "disordered" is understood in a teleological/aristotelian sense by about 0.1% of the population. It's far, far too easy for poorly catechised Catholics and non-Catholics to read that word in the Catechism (or, dare I say it, hear Cardinal Burke use it about 12 times in an interview) and think that the Church teaches gay people are suffering from a mental illness. Sadly that makes people think we view gay people as sick and they put us in the same camp as the 'ex-gay boot camp' and 'pray the gay away' fundamentalist Protestant groups who actually do regard homosexuality as a mental illness. 

 

Mental illness is what the word "disorder" commonly means in English, and its a pity the bishops didn't think of this problem when they were translating the Catechism into English. Someone who speaks a romance language fluently can correct me, but I don't think the word 'disorder' has the same medical connotations in Spanish, Italian, French, etc, as it does in English. 

 

 

From my understanding the problem stems from Latin and finds itself in other Indo-European languages, so Italian and Spanish would be affected.  Languages like Polish, Taglong and Russian not so much.  A Polish priest I knew loved Jackie Chan...the idea that someone foreign became America's hero...  He had this saying "English cuts like a bullet when you only need a nice light karate chop"  Now that doesn't make the world's most sense, but I've heard it from other priests raised in other languages that English (and Spanish, but that less so) have a horrible way of being demoralizing and degrading.

 

If you look at the 3 Popes, and subtract out the environmental factor of their upbringing and their personalities, much of their doctrine is affected by the language they spoke.  It's no surprise to me that a German pope used harsher language than a Polish one, and that a Spanish speaking Pope has different ideals than his predecessor.

[Cherie]

I appreciate the discussion, everyone. Thanks for weighing in!