A Sign Of The Times?

Calvin,

So you believe the students should have formal debates about the issue among themselves, and leave it at that? Let's just say I disagree. Also, I disagree that the scripture you quoted about children obeying their parents was about all Israelites, of all ages. You quoted Ephesians, which was a letter Paul wrote to fellow Christians in Ephesus, and the context of that chapter make it pretty clear to me that Paul was talking about literal children, not using some metaphor for all Israelites.
 
The students should be free to raise questions, ask why this is the case, ask if it was justified, etc. etc. And I agree with you, River, that the discussion shouldn't only exist among them. This is an important subject and it should absolutely be discussed.

However, if the Church's position is that same-sex marriage (like inter-species relationships, polygamy, incestuous relationships, etc. etc.) don't align with the sacrament of marriage, then they shouldn't change their views just for same of people walking out of the Church.

Marriage is a pretty big deal to the Catholic Church, more so than most religions/institutions. It's not just a partnership or something nice for couples in love -- it's first and foremost a vocation. This is why when a couple married in the Catholic Church wants a divorce and wants to do in a means that aligns with the Church, they don't get a divorce. They go through an annulment process which can sometimes take time.

I think some of the students have their hearts in the right place and protested because they oppose homophobia -- I oppose homophobia, too. But the those who work within the Church didn't do this because they are homophobic, they did it because it's important to keep the integrity of the faith.
 
Lysander,

I agree with you on the question of the teacher being fired for breaking the terms of his contract, in what is a very important matter to the Catholic Church. I also agree that the Church isn't going to change its position just because membership is declining.

What I wonder though, is that as the "old school" leadership dies off and the younger generations assume positions of power within Catholic, and other religious institutions, will things change then?

IMO, something has to give here. The data is clear that the younger generations overwhelmingly are on the side of marriage equality. So either they have to change their views as they get older, or the Church (through attrition and generational change) has to change its position. If neither happens, then it may be that membership in these sorts of denominations rapidly declines to the point of demographic irrelevance.
 
RiverJordan said:
Lysander,

I agree with you on the question of the teacher being fired for breaking the terms of his contract, in what is a very important matter to the Catholic Church. I also agree that the Church isn't going to change its position just because membership is declining.

What I wonder though, is that as the "old school" leadership dies off and the younger generations assume positions of power within Catholic, and other religious institutions, will things change then?

IMO, something has to give here. The data is clear that the younger generations overwhelmingly are on the side of marriage equality. So either they have to change their views as they get older, or the Church (through attrition and generational change) has to change its position. If neither happens, then it may be that membership in these sorts of denominations rapidly declines to the point of demographic irrelevance.
Click to expand...

That's a fair question too -- I think a lot of people, including many Catholics, are asking this.

Regarding the sacraments, the Church hasn't changed ever since it began 2000 years ago. Granted, approaches to the sacraments have had changes (people don't have to do their penances in public anymore, the Eucharist takes place with the priest facing the congregation, etc. etc.). But the performance of the Eucharist, the fact that penances are still necessary and how it leads up to them, and vocations themselves, none of these have changed.

Little t traditions aren't dogmatic, but when something changes in the Church, it's never due to an outcry from the laity. So if even 90% of Catholics, both secular and religious, were to decide they wanted out because of how the Church approaches marriage, the Church wouldn't, nor shouldn't, change Church Tradition (big T). In fact, the Church CAN'T even if the Pope himself wanted to. The pope can only act as vicar, not as God.
 
I guess we'll see. Even now Pope Francis is chastising Christians for being overly focused on gay issues.

History shows that these sorts of things rarely change in one big jump. They change over long periods of time, in almost imperceptible steps.
 
RiverJordan said:
I guess we'll see. Even now Pope Francis is chastising Christians for being overly focused on gay issues.

History shows that these sorts of things rarely change in one big jump. They change over long periods of time, in almost imperceptible steps.
Click to expand...

Pope Francis has brought criticism to Christians for overly focusing on gay issues, but this doesn't mean he's opposing their views -- his position is that there is more important things that can't be left aside. Pope Benedict made the same statement in one of his encyclicals from 2009 (though he doesn't speak/write as bluntly as Pope Francis, which is why it's now coming as a shock to people).
 
I realize that and wasn't trying to say that Pope Francis was changing anything. As I said, these sorts of changes usually happen gradually over time, and a Pope saying something like, "We're focused too much on gay issues" may be one very small step in that direction.
 
RiverJordan said:
I realize that and wasn't trying to say that Pope Francis was changing anything. As I said, these sorts of changes usually happen gradually over time, and a Pope saying something like, "We're focused too much on gay issues" may be one very small step in that direction.
Click to expand...

Changes are gradual, but this is one thing that technically can't change, even if a pope 50 years from now wanted it to. This is one of those things that people misunderstand about the phrase "The Catholic Church." Some think it means the members (which is partly true). Some think it means the clergy (which can also be true). But people forget that it first and foremost means the magisterium--the entity founded by Christ, not made up of people, but made up of God's authority through Christ. The magisterium of the Church regarding Her Traditions don't change, no matter how much some might will it.
 
It's what I said earlier today...

IMO, something has to give here. The data is clear that the younger generations overwhelmingly are on the side of marriage equality. So either they have to change their views as they get older, or the Church (through attrition and generational change) has to change its position. If neither happens, then it may be that membership in these sorts of denominations rapidly declines to the point of demographic irrelevance.

In sum, either younger generations change their minds, the churches change their stances, or "traditional marriage" churches become a relic of the past.
 
RiverJordan said:
It's what I said earlier today...

IMO, something has to give here. The data is clear that the younger generations overwhelmingly are on the side of marriage equality. So either they have to change their views as they get older, or the Church (through attrition and generational change) has to change its position. If neither happens, then it may be that membership in these sorts of denominations rapidly declines to the point of demographic irrelevance.

In sum, either younger generations change their minds, the churches change their stances, or "traditional marriage" churches become a relic of the past.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. Granted, I think if there is a massive exodus of Catholics, then the Church has a responsibility to better explain its position in hopes that people will understand, but the Church cannot, I repeat, cannot change dogmatic Tradition. If 95% of Catholics were to leave, the dignity of the Church should not be abandoned just because people choose to ignore it.

The Church does want to see numbers grow within Catholicism, but not at the price of the dignity of it. It would rather shrink in fact if the only option was to compromise its holiness.
 
Actually, you're not disagreeing with me. You're just taking the "younger generations will change their minds" stance (if the Catholic Church better explains itself).

That may very well happen. I don't think it will, but I could be wrong. And btw, I'm not just talking about the RCC here. I'm speaking in general about all "traditional marriage" churches.
 
RiverJordan said:
Actually, you're not disagreeing with me. You're just taking the "younger generations will change their minds" stance (if the Catholic Church better explains itself).

That may very well happen. I don't think it will, but I could be wrong. And btw, I'm not just talking about the RCC here. I'm speaking in general about all "traditional marriage" churches.
Click to expand...

Understood.

Yes, there is definitely a current exodus of people from religions that practice this concept, that's for sure.
 
RiverJordan said:
Calvin,

So you believe the students should have formal debates about the issue among themselves, and leave it at that? Let's just say I disagree. Also, I disagree that the scripture you quoted about children obeying their parents was about all Israelites, of all ages. You quoted Ephesians, which was a letter Paul wrote to fellow Christians in Ephesus, and the context of that chapter make it pretty clear to me that Paul was talking about literal children, not using some metaphor for all Israelites.
Click to expand...
Yes I quoted Ephesians which in turn quoted Exodus 20:12. where all of God's people for all of time are in focus....You disagree? OK your choice River. In some discussions here you have seen the possibility that the younger generation could change their ideas as they get older. How might civil, disciplined debate help this happen and how might unruly conduct help this happen?
Well I guess we might be able to agree to disagree.
Have a safe and blessed 2014.
 
It really is a sad statement about modern times that a group that practices unnatural acts and is less than 5% of the population
can so sway a culture and determine what the masses may or may not call "marriage".
 
Glomung said:
It really is a sad statement about modern times that a group that practices unnatural acts and is less than 5% of the population
can so sway a culture and determine what the masses may or may not call "marriage".
Click to expand...

While I agree with you, the framers had it in mind to protect a minority when the constitution was written. Not that gay marriage is constitutional, just that a minority can influence laws in their favor if their rights are threatened. With that said, marriage is a religious institution more than a secular one. I agree with Ben Carson when he said that if any two people want to have tax rights and property rights, that's fine, but no one has a right to redefine a pillar of society.
 
Last edited:
calvin said:
Yes I quoted Ephesians which in turn quoted Exodus 20:12. where all of God's people for all of time are in focus....You disagree? OK your choice River.
Click to expand...
You quoted from the part of Ephesians that was Paul's "Instructions for Christian Households" (It starts at Ephesians 5:21 and continues on through Chapter 6). So yeah, I think it's abundantly clear what Paul was talking about. He directly says so.

In some discussions here you have seen the possibility that the younger generation could change their ideas as they get older. How might civil, disciplined debate help this happen and how might unruly conduct help this happen?
Click to expand...
The students engaged in what is called "civil disobedience". It's a form of non-violent protest, used by people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. I think the students showed a great deal of maturity in this situation. Rather than be destructive or throw tantrums, they expressed themselves in a way that shows they've been paying attention in history class.

And no, I don't think they're going to change their minds. In fact, I think in the very near future, history will not be kind to American Christians on this. I believe this time will be looked back on with a similar amount of disgust as we now look back on the Jim Crow south, except this time Christianity will be directly blamed.

Well I guess we might be able to agree to disagree.
Have a safe and blessed 2014.
Click to expand...
No doubt. You too!! :D
 
Glomung said:
It really is a sad statement about modern times that a group that practices unnatural acts and is less than 5% of the population
can so sway a culture and determine what the masses may or may not call "marriage".
Click to expand...
As Man of God noted, we live in a country that guarantees "equal protection for all" under the law. Do you think that's a bad thing?
 
"equal protection for all" has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue.
Shall we endorse "marriage" of an adult man and a minor child? Don't pedophiles want to be "equal"?
How about a man and a sheep? Can't leave the bestiality supporters out in the cold.

I was lamenting the fact that no amount of indecency or perversion seems to offend the modern mind.
No matter what kind of sugar coating you may wish to put on it, homosexuality is a perversion of natural desires.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top