Fasincating interview by the pope...could religion be turning the corner on open-minded thinking?

davesdatahut: Check this article out about interviews given by the Pope in which suggest he wants to move the Catholic Church away some more it's fouler stances on things, like abortion and gays?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/pope-bluntly-faults-churchs-focus-on-gays-and-abortion.html?hp&_r=0

near50ohoh: pls give those of us who dont have the NYC papers the gist??

davesdatahut: Paste the link into your web browser and you can see the story. You can get 20 free NY Times articles free each month.

near50ohoh: its not quite that easy dave sorry i did try

Zanjan: You know, 40 years ago I said what the pope said; nobody blinked an eye. But they hear it from him and are SHOCKED......as if its a stunning new revelation!!!

Is it possible that no Catholic anywhere in the world ever thought of this on their own?? The priests say they like his ideas. No, it's not open-minded thinking, it's more like coming up to speed with what's going on in the world.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the pope. Seems he's making a real effort, working hard; but, no one should think he's going to change the rules of Christianity, no matter how many special interest groups protest.

I do think he could have been more forthright to Catholics who are involved in civilian politics - they're the ones making these subjects into issues. He should have made it clear the church has no business ruling over non-believers.

Quoting from the article:

"“We have to find a new balance,” the pope continued, “otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.” "

Freshness???? After 2 thousand years........hahahahaha......

However, the fragrance of the Gospel will always waft like an autumn potpourri in winter, even to someone who's never read it before. Since it will take one to the next journey, it's truly an indispensable study.

KoAm: The NY Times' article is inaccurate, Dave. Go to the website of "America," the Jesuit magazine in which the Pope's interview appears. You'll be able to read what he REALLY said -- not what the media are saying he said.

If you really think the Church is going to change its teachings on things like abortion & homosexuality, you're in for a major disappointment.

There's nothing "foul" about the Church's teaching on abortion, Dave. The unborn are human beings, and that's not even scientifically debatable anymore. (If you disagree, please prepare to convince me that pregnant women have two hearts, two blood types, and two sets of DNA.)

You think the Church's teaching on abortion is "foul." No, Dave. Killing human beings is foul. And the unborn are human beings. Anyone who disagrees is a denier of science. Neonatal technology tells us clearly that the unborn are human, and when we kill humans, Dave, it's called murder. Nothing is more "foul" than that.

KoAm: The day after the Pope's interview was published, he spoke to a gathering of doctors and specifically condemned abortion. Did you read that in the NY Times, Dave? Of course not.

Here it is: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1303991.htm

In the prior interview, the Pope was NOT saying or even hinting that its teachings on abortion, homosexuality, etc. would be changed. He simply said that they must be rooted in a context -- and that context is the mercy and love of Christ.

I'm afraid that the NY Times sold you a bill of goods, Dave, and you bought it. Don't think for a second that a person can be OK with abortion and homosexuality and still be "in good standing" with Church teaching. For the NY Times and other secular media outlets to pass on that misrepresentation as fact is highly unfortunate.

KoAm: " I do think he could have been more forthright to Catholics who are involved in civilian politics - they're the ones making these subjects into issues."

Not true. In the U.S., it's not the Catholic Church that is "making these subjects into issues." It's the Obama administration, by forcing everyone via its HHS mandates to cover things like contraception and abortion ... even for employers that are Catholic entities.

No one should be forced by law to enable things that their religion teaches is sinful -- because enabling sin is itself a sin, and being forced to do so is a First Amendment violation. Again, the Church isn't making a public issue out of these things -- it's Obama and others who are trying to push them on people.

davesdatahut: Jennifer, I have no illusions that the Catholic Church is going to change overnight its views - foul as they have been - on the subjects of abortion, birth control or homosexuality. I just note how remarkable it is that the Pope is even talking about this stuff and acknowledging that if the church doesn't dredge itself out of the 19th century on these issues, it is going to gradually find itself more and more out of step with its members and its potential members. It is a very smart move on his part politically...and a way to begin opening the tent to those who might differ with its heretofore doctrinaire view on these issues. He is basically saying that the church needs to stop being so utterly obsessed with people's sexual habits and focus on what religion is supposed to be about - you know...that whole love and acceptance thing that most organized religions conveniently ignore.
Perhaps he wants to the church to move toward a place where you can be a member in good standing and still be ok with gays, with people practicing birth control and with a woman having a choice about whether to bear a child. In other words, welcome to the 21st century. This is rather refreshing to hear.

near50ohoh: i will never be so pro life that i take another woman's control over her life and her body away from her as i would not want it taken from me. And i can see circumstances in which abortion should be very legal. but most of all i want it monitored. the only way to have that is to make it legal.
as to gay rights? i think in an egalitarian world, we are only as free as we allow others to be. if we want control over our bodies and our sexuality in a safe world for us then we need to be clear that that same right is inherently every one else's also. or not ours either.
what fascinates me is when churches cry about freedom and their rights to believe and practice as they wish but would take away the rights of people who don't even belong to their group. what hypocrisy!!
we live in a multi-cultural world with many faiths and each should be free to practice them as they see fit or neither should you. the kitty of tax dollars for services should not be directed by any one faction of beliefs either. i wonder often who the moral majority are that they can feel able to legislate what everyone else does. It is not your right to do so.
have your feelings but understand they have NO power over the rest of the world. none at all.
Jesus Christ was far more inclusive and forgiving than many who use his name are. who use his name to control people who have never spoken or learned his name. who do you think you are?!!
and before you try to suggest that i don't understand your position because i don't know the bible? i grew up very conservative christian and have pastors in my family line. i may know it better than you do. there are many believers who do not believe as you do and it endlessly fascinates me that you feel you can speak for us all in your hatred and bigotry. Jesus Christ said the first rule of his kingdom was to love. try spreading that around instead of your ignorance.
dave why do you keep raising these topics?? :

davesdatahut: Hear, hear, o ye Near! Well said.
I bring them up because others bring them up. And it is necessary to shine the light of day on them if we are to progress at all toward a better day.

near50ohoh: again : can i have my first please??

Zanjan: " Don't think for a second that a person can be OK with abortion and homosexuality and still be "in good standing"

Perhaps you should have clarified what the pope clarified. Being a homosexual isn't a sin, this is why a homosexual is welcome in the church - that is, in good standing as long as they're not breaking the law. Whereas, actively practicing extra-marital relationships is prohibited. Like anyone else, one can think about romantic relationships and sex, but acting on it is another matter.

"HHS mandates to cover things like contraception and abortion ... even for employers that are Catholic entities. "

There are no mandates to tell one they MUST practice birth control or what type of control one can use.

The church allows birth control; it approves of two methods. In the time of Jesus, the only other method of birth control besides that was infanticide.

In the world of God, we don't march for our rights - that's a civilian practice - God gives us what we need.

near50ohoh: like abstinence is a plausible method and what's the other method the rhythm method? like no babies were ever born using that . or withdrawal? yeah actually pre-orgasmic fluid is more potent that ejaculation is. (no freaking surprise there are so many christians esp catholics!!) and if all cheaters and beaters were kicked out of the church there would be echoes in the building!!

Zanjan: No, not withdrawal.

If the followers showed up to birth control classes they'd know how to perform it. And if they actually followed the instructions, they'd find it works quite well. But hey, are you gonna tell yer friends the story of how you just couldn't wait?? Puleeeeese.

davesdatahut: I should add, Jennifer, that we can debate until priests become pious whether abortion is murder or whether women should have the right to end an unwanted pregnancy. It is an imperfect solution to an imperfect problem. I think they should have that right, for many reasons. I do not expect the church to suddenly change its tune on this matter. But it is nice to hear the Pope at least talk about the idea that the church just might accept people who choose this option. Lest, of course, centuries of rigid doctrine and punitive sanctions against those who step out of line be acceptable in the modern world.

davesdatahut: Abstinence, timing and the rhythm method as good birth control measures? Oh dear. I'm totally with you on this, Near.

Zanjan: If they could wait before marriage, and marry as virgins.........why would that be impossible to them?

If you desire to obey the law and practice self-discipline, which is what religion is all about, God will give you the strength to do it.

davesdatahut: I can hear the bands now, playing that tune leading people on a march back to the 1950s.

near50ohoh: i have had sex and want to meet the person who is in complete control of their mind and body and their lover's also the whole time : um keep the him away from me ok?

Zanjan: I'm like that.......and so was my husband to be. We don't control each others bodies, only our own.

We didn't have sexual relations before marriage; neither of us would want to date anybody who would pressure us for that. This is why we're gloriously happy as a married couple - we care about each other.

Let's look at motivation: who will you put first - God, your children, or your self? You reap what you sow.

near50ohoh: that is a joyless, passionless life you say God wants us to have?? blegh :

davesdatahut: "If you desire to obey the law and practice self-discipline, which is what religion is all about"
Is that what religion is all about?

Zanjan: Yes, it's about education and social training to be a real man.

If were were just about worshiping God, as in lip service, you could do that in your own home.

Zanjan: Near, true joy is nearness to God and freedom from the tethers of self.

All other happiness is fleeting.

davesdatahut: I missed the real-man classes. I fear I am a fake man.