Now What? The Future of the Church After 2020

[Fauken]

I know what you mean. I just got accused of being unethical for making this thread.

You got told that because when it comes to doing research (and you did call this research), one must inform and seek the permission of those the researcher intends to study. It is very basic ethics, not an indignant reaction.

What are we to do as Catholics?

If you’re using the forum for some kind of a research project, I hope you’re being open and ethical about that.

It’s not a secret or anything like that. There’s a thread on it.

 

[MarysLurker]

So we see how it begins. If you aren’t on board with the “consensus” on Pope Francis, there’s something shady/unethical/weird about you or maybe you’re not really a Catholic, etc.

You got called that because when it comes to doing studies (and you did call this a study),

I think I said “model,” not “study,” but I was referring to this thread, and ONLY this thread, and not some sort of formal research study. Though it is interesting to know that I am officially being chased around CAF for just participating in a discussion.

 

[Fauken]

I think I said “model,” not “study,” but I was referring to this thread, and ONLY this thread, and not some sort of formal research study. Though it is interesting to know that I am officially being chased around CAF for just participating in a discussion.

I corrected my post to call it research. You didn’t deny Bear’s description of it as such. “Research” has specific connotations (something you should keep in mind especially when discussing confusion with someone’s words), and we do get such people from time to time. And you are not getting “officially chased around”.

 

[Fauken]

I am being treated with suspicion and hostility for starting a thread on CAF.

No.

Though I think the real reason is because I am in Group 2 and you are in Group 1.

That’s quite an assumption of you to make.

 

[Pug]

one must inform and seek the permission of those the researcher intends to study

So far as I know, this is not always so. I was expressly told by a researcher that if they chose to make a small change to the public environment (say, place a purse on the sidewalk to see what people will do when they see it), no permission is required.

 

[Fauken]

So far as I know, this is not always so. I was expressly told by a researcher that if they chose to make a small change to the public environment (say, place a purse on the sidewalk to see what people will do when they see it), no permission is required.

Which wouldn’t apply to this forum.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If you started this thread on CAF and said if anyone wants to be part of your study, then post in your thread right here, or take your Surveymonkey survey, or whatever, it would be okay. People who didn’t want to be part of this could opt out simply by not posting in your thread or not taking your survey.

However, you just popped up on someone else’s thread and said you would use one of my responses to them and subsequent discussion on that thread with you, that I thought was only discussion, for purposes of “building your model”. I was like “what model?” because I hadn’t read this thread of yours yet. Having read it, I don’t want to be part of your project.

Especially since you’re now starting to make value judgments about other posters about what “group” they are in vis a vis your own. As far as I’m concerned, if you’re Catholic, we’re all in one group: The Church. Creating “subgroups” is divisive. Making judgments based on this is more divisive.

 

[MarysLurker]

I’m going to sign off for a while. Apologies to anyone offended.

 

[LilyM]

MarysLurker:

his pastoral approach.

There is nothing pastoral about being vague. Lost sheep need clear directions.

Moreover, if another Pope tries to clarify the Franciscan teachings, confidence in the Magisterium will be undermined.

This isn’t part of the magisterium. To be magisterial, a statement has to be consistent with the rest of the magisterium, quod non.

The Church before and during the Reformation was all about clear directions. Result was many many souls driven away from the Church and a massive tear in the fabric of Christendom that persists to this day.

Being Catholic is NOT about confidence in any individual human or group of humans, but about confidence in the Holy Spirit.

The first Magisterium was as motley a group of folks as you would ever wish to see, fully the equal of.theor successors in terms of siinfulness, vagueness and every other flaw or failing. God.worked through them.and continues to do so through Francis.

 

[AlbMagno]

1. Pope Francis already clarified what he said in the same interview when he said “this of course doesn’t mean I approve same sex marriage”. Moreover, in other threads about this topic he is quoted talking again about that part of the interview, and how it angered him how it was edited.
2. The Pope didn’t declare anything officially. It was just a commentary in an interview. As other posters noted, Benedict XVI as also been misinterpreted as approving contraception one time.
3. As others said, you can judge other Catholics with what “group” you think they are.

 

[MarysLurker]

So we see how it begins. If you aren’t on board with the “consensus” on Pope Francis, there’s something shady/unethical/weird about you or maybe you’re not really a Catholic, etc.

Analysis: How the Washington Post is Opening the Path to Use the Pope Against the Catholic Church| National Catholic Register

 

[BartholomewB]

My understanding is that the Pope is not only restating the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage, he is also restating the Church’s opposition to same-sex civil unions. Please see whether you agree with this argument.

In Argentine law, there is a clear distinction between “convivencia” and “unión civil.” “Unión civil” is the same as civil union in English: a contract that two people can voluntarily enter into, that stops short of being fully equivalent to a marriage. In those jurisdictions in Argentina that recognize civil unions between same-sex couples, there is a requirement that the couple must have been together in a stable relationship for a specified minimum period, before they are legally entitled to sign a “civil union” contract. In Argentina, the legal term used by the authorities to designate that stable relationship is “convivencia.”

As I see it, the Pope can only have been intending to convey the idea that all couples living in a stable relationship, though without any formal contractual basis either as a marriage or as a civil union, should nevertheless be afforded some kind of legal recognition, without the need to formally enter into a civil union, to which the Catholic Church remains opposed.

Unión civil en Argentina - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

 

[AlbMagno]

Interesting observation, however, I don’t know enough about law (in this case our own law) to answer that.

What I know is that, when the Law of same-sex “marriage” was being debated, there were many Catholics who were able to tolerate it only if it would not be called “marriage”. I think the Pope might agree with this group.

There is also a third legal category, “Concubinato” (concubines) which applies to couples who are not married but have lived together a long time. This, I think, doesn’t apply to homosexuals, as I don’t think the State could distinguish automatically between friends and an homosexual couple living together.

So, to summarize, I think the Pope is indeed referring to some form of Civil Unions, but not to “modernize” anything as some say; but to protect an SSA person from getting homeless by their family, as he said earlier.

 

[Maximian]

many many souls driven away from the Church

No one is ever driven away. The truth is the truth and if you reject it, that’s your responsibility.

Being Catholic is NOT about confidence in any individual human or group of humans, but about confidence in the Holy Spirit.

The first Magisterium was as motley a group of folks as you would ever wish to see, fully the equal of.theor successors in terms of siinfulness,

With respect, I don’t think you have understood what the Magisterium is.

The Deposit of Faith is the accumulation of teaching which can never be contradictory. This is because Jesus is the Truth and is the same “Yesterday, today and forever.” No Pope can ever contradict the Magisterium as he found it. If he does, his words are not magisterial.

 

[Anesti33]

You know, when I saw the subject line, I expected a “blue sky” prediction forum for the next 50, 100, 500 years of the Catholic Churches. But the stage is set, in only 34 posts, to be a simple run-of-the-mill “Bergoglio” flame-fest. I’m out.

 

[MarysLurker]

Especially since you’re now starting to make value judgments about other posters about what “group” they are in vis a vis your own. As far as I’m concerned, if you’re Catholic, we’re all in one group: The Church. Creating “subgroups” is divisive. Making judgments based on this is more divisive.

You say this as if I am the cause of the division. I am merely pointing out that it already exists. You can ask many clerics about it if you like. Or you could watch this outstanding Catholic Answers webinar featuring Bishop Joseph Strickland where he talks about the division.. His Excellency calls this division over doctrinal confusion “devastating.”

As for me, I have not made value judgments against anyone except the “lunatic fringe” that has gone ad hominem on Pope Francis. On the contrary, I specifically said that those Catholics who hold that Pope Francis has validly changed the Church’s teachings are acting in good faith… but that I am concerned that they will unjustly judge those who dissent.

There is no reason to shoot the messenger. The fact that the messenger was nevertheless accused of making up the message and then shot, speaks volumes–in light of the fact that my whole argument was that such messengers were actually in danger of getting shot in the future.

 

[Fauken]

As for me, I have not made value judgments against anyone except the “lunatic fringe” that has gone ad hominem on Pope Francis. On the contrary, I specifically said that those Catholics who hold that Pope Francis has validly changed the Church’s teachings are acting in good faith… but that I am concerned that they will unjustly judge those who dissent.

When you claimed I was in Group 1, you sure didn’t mean it as a compliment.

If you have read my posts on CAF, you would know I don’t fit what you claim is characteristic of someone in Group 1. I as a Dominican especially find it rich that you put me in the group that:

are less interested in doctrine than in social justice

You put me in that group because I pointed out why people objected to your methods of research. Because I “dissented”. So if you want to talk about shooting the messenger and the dangers involved in dissent, I suggest you look at your own posts. You’ve done precisely that. If you want to talk about division, then your post putting me in Group 1 is an example of exactly that.

 

[MarysLurker]

You put me in that group because I pointed out why people objected to your methods of research

I don’t see how you can object to something that doesn’t exist. I called this thread a “model” and suddenly I was falsely accused of conducting some sort of clandestine research project. All I have done is propose a forecast on how people who don’t agree with the apparent current direction of the Vatican will be mistreated by those who do.

 

[Adamek]

You got told that because when it comes to doing research (and you did call this research), one must inform and seek the permission of those the researcher intends to study.

This is absurd. Ask permission to do research? This sounds too much like preventive censorship.

 

[Maximian]

Im baffled by the objections to your thread.

I find it a reasonable analysis and a good starting point for a fair discussion.