- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Where the 7 leading Candidates for Pope stand on the Issues
Posted on 5/8/25 at 11:34 am to cajunangelle
Posted on 5/8/25 at 11:34 am to cajunangelle
...and none of these things probably matter to the conclave in terms of selecting a Pope.
0
Posted on 5/8/25 at 11:38 am to Adajax
quote:A quick look at the OP data makes Tagle look most favorable to me
I think Tagle (called the Asian Francis) might be the favorite but Parolin would be a compromise if the cardinals want a little change this time around.
but I have been hoodwinked by propagandists before, so
Posted on 5/8/25 at 12:24 pm to FriendofBaruch
And Robert Prevost wasn’t on the list
Bummer
Bummer
Posted on 5/8/25 at 12:44 pm to icecreamsnowball
Ooooooof
Posted on 5/8/25 at 4:32 pm to icecreamsnowball
quote:Blessing a sinner is one thing (though I disagree with the RCC's view of such blessings), but blessing a couple in a sinful relationship is another thing. The document in question specifically speaks to providing blessings to same-sex couples and other couples in "irregular situations".
And those Catholics who perceived what he was saying this way were incorrect to have done so, and they should have actually listened or read what the Pope said.
Pope Francis was very clear that same sex marriage will never happen in the Church and saying that it is okay to bless people actively engaged in a sinful lifestyle isn’t controversial at all.
I think this is important because it's not merely a generic blessing of a person who may or may not be in sin in some way that the priest or deacon may not be aware of. It's specifically for couples in "irregular situations", including same-sex relationships. That means that the priest likely knows what the blessing is for and why he is being asked (to bless the couple, together in their relationship), and is able to provide that blessing to that couple as a couple.
What the 2023 document did was differentiate between the formal blessings which had some moral component to them and informal blessings, which do not have to pass a morality test. What I'm seeing, however, is an obvious tension between blessing homosexual couples and not wanting to look like they are really blessing homosexual couples.
On the one hand, it says "When people ask for a blessing, an exhaustive moral analysis should not be placed as a precondition for conferring it. For, those seeking a blessing should not be required to have prior moral perfection", while on the other hand it limits where and when such blessings can be performed. "The blessing also should not be given "in concurrence" with a civil marriage ceremony to avoid appearing as a sort of church blessing of the civil union."
USCCB
So they are downplaying these blessings by saying they are good for anyone seeking God's blessing while at the same time recognizing that they could give a bad appearance, so they limit where and when they can be performed.
It says that "an exhaustive moral analysis should not be placed as a precondition for conferring it", yet there is no need for an "exhaustive moral analysis" when an openly homosexual couple comes to a priest and asks him to bless them in their obviously sinful relationship. This is why it could create an appearance of support because someone in a homosexual relationship is definitionally in sin, yet they are asking for their sinful relationship to be blessed by the priest. In Protestantism, we differentiate between unrepentant sin and repentant sin when coming to the Lord's Table in Communion, for instance. We don't require moral perfection to come, but we require a repentant heart. Someone in an ongoing homosexual relationship is not repentant, yet the priest can bless their relationship all the same.
Posted on 5/9/25 at 9:42 am to FooManChoo
quote:
If you want to stop Protestants or other non-Catholics from hitting Catholicism with a baseball bat, perhaps the Pope should stop handing out the bats.
That sounds a lot like an abusive husband telling his abused wife: "If you want me to stop beating you up, you should stop doing things that make me want to beat you up." In other words, the haters will always find a way to grab a weapon and use it to beat their victim.
In the hater's mind, the abuse and hate is justified, and that is enough justification for them.
Posted on 5/9/25 at 9:48 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Someone in an ongoing homosexual relationship is not repentant, yet the priest can bless their relationship all the same.
You seem to be able to read minds and hearts! What a unique gift you have!
Look, this issue was and is controversial. Blessing any sinner who seeks a Blessing is appropriate. Could the sinner seeking a blessing honestly be repentant or maybe is just fooling the Priest? Why would anybody lie to a Priest to obtain a Blessing?
Jesus Christ Blessed the sinners. At the time of the Blessing some were repentant and some were not. "Go and Sin no more" to the adulterous woman, He said. At that moment, was she truly Repentant in her heart? At that exact moment just before Christ spoke to her, maybe not. Afterwards? We assume so.
So, unless you can read minds and hearts, I say we can't discern with certainty which Sinners are seeking a blessing because they are repentant and which are seeking a blessing because they want to trick a Priest into praising their Gay Sex Lifestyle.
It's a controversial issue and a convenient baseball bat to use against the Catholic Church, so, this issue isn't going away and I know that for you, it's not going away.
As always, thank you for your intense interest in the Catholic Church. For those who truly would like to learn more, the website Catholic Answers is awesome.
Catholic Answers
This post was edited on 5/9/25 at 9:51 am
Posted on 5/9/25 at 10:15 am to Champagne
quote:It's more like handing the baseball bat to the victim or a witness to use against the abuser.
That sounds a lot like an abusive husband telling his abused wife: "If you want me to stop beating you up, you should stop doing things that make me want to beat you up." In other words, the haters will always find a way to grab a weapon and use it to beat their victim.
In the hater's mind, the abuse and hate is justified, and that is enough justification for them.
Posted on 5/9/25 at 10:37 am to Champagne
quote:Well, if a person is in an on-going homosexual relationship and they are asking a priest to bless their relationship, it's hard to believe it is anything but unrepentant. How many repentant homosexuals do you know of that want their homosexual relationships blessed?
You seem to be able to read minds and hearts! What a unique gift you have!
quote:Who knows? I was told already in this thread that many people were wrongfully upset about the pronouncement from the Pope about this because they just didn't understand it. There's all sorts of misunderstandings with Catholicism (like any religion), such as thinking going to confession is all you need to wipe away pre-meditated and unrepentant sin, or that only going through the motions without faith is sufficient. Perhaps even hearing that you can have your homosexual relationship blessed by a priest is enough for a person to think that homosexuality is fine with God and doesn't need to be repented of.
Look, this issue was and is controversial. Blessing any sinner who seeks a Blessing is appropriate. Could the sinner seeking a blessing honestly be repentant or maybe is just fooling the Priest? Why would anybody lie to a Priest to obtain a Blessing?
quote:Jesus can certainly read minds and hearts and He is free to do so as God, but what should homosexuals seeking blessings be told but to "go and sin no more" rather than seeking a blessing in their sin?
Jesus Christ Blessed the sinners. At the time of the Blessing some were repentant and some were not. "Go and Sin no more" to the adulterous woman, He said. At that moment, was she truly Repentant in her heart? At that exact moment just before Christ spoke to her, maybe not. Afterwards? We assume so.
There's a reason why I likened it to the Eucharist and the practice of most Protestants to encourage self-examination and repentance prior to partaking, because God warns us that judgement may come upon us for not coming to the table in a worthy manner (repentant).
quote:Read above. A couple coming for a blessing is what is in question. I'm not even arguing about the practice of the RCC to provide blessings the way they do generally. This is about a couple coming to be blessed together, which in the case of a homosexual relationship in particular, is more obvious and doesn't require a deep moral analysis.
So, unless you can read minds and hearts, I say we can't discern with certainty which Sinners are seeking a blessing because they are repentant and which are seeking a blessing because they want to trick a Priest into praising their Gay Sex Lifestyle.
quote:I don't understand why it's controversial if it's been the long-standing practice of the Church Universal. I understand why people who are ignorant of history can get upset about things they don't like, but I think the reason this is controversial is because it is ultimately a change in practice.
It's a controversial issue and a convenient baseball bat to use against the Catholic Church, so, this issue isn't going away and I know that for you, it's not going away.
Posted on 5/9/25 at 10:42 am to Champagne
quote:
That sounds a lot like an abusive husband telling his abused wife: "If you want me to stop beating you up, you should stop doing things that make me want to beat you up." In other words, the haters will always find a way to grab a weapon and use it to beat their victim.
In the hater's mind, the abuse and hate is justified, and that is enough justification for them.
The Popes are the abusers in this scenario.
Posted on 5/9/25 at 10:54 am to cajunangelle
Sounds like Zuppi may need to read The Holy Bible several more times. Doesn’t sound like he much knows Jesus or His teachings at all.
Posted on 5/9/25 at 12:54 pm to FooManChoo
You are working very hard to find fault.
No Priest can change the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Regardless of whether two sinners are blessed by a Priest or not, the Catechism remains the same - if they continue to engage in Gay Sex, they are going to Hell.
There are lots of people in Hell who, at some point in their lives, received a blessing from a Catholic Priest.
If you are interested in reading the Catechism regarding this issue, you can find it for free on-line. That will clear up any misunderstanding any reasonably interested serious person might have. For those who wish to continue to utilize this issue as a baseball bat to batter the Church, no amount of reading or explaining will stop them.
No Priest can change the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Regardless of whether two sinners are blessed by a Priest or not, the Catechism remains the same - if they continue to engage in Gay Sex, they are going to Hell.
There are lots of people in Hell who, at some point in their lives, received a blessing from a Catholic Priest.
If you are interested in reading the Catechism regarding this issue, you can find it for free on-line. That will clear up any misunderstanding any reasonably interested serious person might have. For those who wish to continue to utilize this issue as a baseball bat to batter the Church, no amount of reading or explaining will stop them.
Posted on 5/9/25 at 1:50 pm to Champagne
quote:Actually I'm not working hard at all to find fault, because the fault is clear and easy to see. It's why so many Catholics were/are uncomfortable with the pronouncement about providing blessings to same-sex couples.
You are working very hard to find fault.
quote:I don't disagree with you at all on this. The issue isn't the RCC's stance on homosexuality, but the confusion and seeming contradiction of refusing to support same-sex "marriages" or unions while allowing blessings to same-sex couples.
No Priest can change the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Regardless of whether two sinners are blessed by a Priest or not, the Catechism remains the same - if they continue to engage in Gay Sex, they are going to Hell.
There are lots of people in Hell who, at some point in their lives, received a blessing from a Catholic Priest.
quote:I'm quite aware of the Catechism and have referenced and quoted it directly multiple times in our past discussions that have mostly gone unanswered by you. I would love for you to engage with me over my understanding of the Catechism rather than just pointing me to it as if that's all that is needed. As I've said before, my beliefs are summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith and Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, yet I don't just point you to those documents in these discussions. I attempt to explain the concepts to you in argument form as to engage directly with your statements. It would be nice if you did the same with me. Reference the Catholic Catechism all you want, but use it as a support, not your entire argument. That seems lazy, and I don't think you are a lazy person.
If you are interested in reading the Catechism regarding this issue, you can find it for free on-line. That will clear up any misunderstanding any reasonably interested serious person might have. For those who wish to continue to utilize this issue as a baseball bat to batter the Church, no amount of reading or explaining will stop them.
Posted on 5/9/25 at 2:05 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The issue isn't the RCC's stance on homosexuality, but the confusion and seeming contradiction of refusing to support same-sex "marriages" or unions while allowing blessings to same-sex couples.
The confusion seems to be fomented by people who have not read the Catechism's clear explanation of the Church's doctrine on gay sex.
The reason why I have not engaged in any long conversation about the nature of the Catechism is because it is extensively footnoted and I could not explain anything better than those footnotes. IMHO people should read your church documents and my catechism and see which one is more complete and more persuasive.
My theory regarding why you and I aren't going to see eye to eye on this issue is due to the fundamental theological opposition that a Double Predestination Calvinist would contend with when facing a Catholic. I could be wrong on that and it's not an important point anyway.
But, sure, this practice of blessing these folks arguably causes confusion, but, when the matter is examined in any kind of depth or based on any research, it's not confusing.
Posted on 5/9/25 at 3:26 pm to Champagne
quote:I repeat, that is not the issue. I agree with the RCC's position on homosexuality being sinful. The issue is with an apparent contradiction between blessing a homosexual couple and the RCC's position on homosexuality. It's why the pronouncement ruffled so many feathers, not because it changed the Magisterium on homosexuality, but because it seems to conflict with the Magisterium on homosexuality.
The confusion seems to be fomented by people who have not read the Catechism's clear explanation of the Church's doctrine on gay sex.
quote:I agree with you regarding desiring people to read and compare. The Westminster standards are thoroughly proof texted with Scriptures and comport with what the Scriptures teach.
The reason why I have not engaged in any long conversation about the nature of the Catechism is because it is extensively footnoted and I could not explain anything better than those footnotes. IMHO people should read your church documents and my catechism and see which one is more complete and more persuasive.
quote:While we do disagree on many things, I don't think this is the issue. Whether there is an active predestining to Hell or a passive receiving to Hell in the face of the active election to Heaven, the end result is the same. However, I firmly believe that the fundamental difference is about authority. I adhere to sola scriptura and you adhere to sola ecclesia, at least in practice (I know you don't affirm that officially; that's a logical conclusion I'm making). The final and ultimate authority for the Christian is at the root of our disagreements and why we will never see eye-to-eye. Issues like predestination and free will are secondary disagreements to final authority.
My theory regarding why you and I aren't going to see eye to eye on this issue is due to the fundamental theological opposition that a Double Predestination Calvinist would contend with when facing a Catholic. I could be wrong on that and it's not an important point anyway.
quote:I've read the distinction between the types of blessings and understand that this sort of blessing is not the same as a church-sanctioned, sacramental wedding, for instance, however how do you get around the fact that homosexuals couples are being blessed rather than homosexual individuals? That seems to be the sticking point and why the reasoning given regarding not doing a deep-dive into someone's moral background doesn't make sense when it comes to homosexual relationships getting blessed, since it is an open and obvious situation that doesn't require an analysis of any kind.
But, sure, this practice of blessing these folks arguably causes confusion, but, when the matter is examined in any kind of depth or based on any research, it's not confusing.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News