Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, who was appointed last July, came under fire for a book he wrote and published in the late 1990s entitled Mystical Passion: Spirituality and Sensuality.
The Pope had already tackled the vice of gluttony last week and there was no suggestion that his sermon on lust during Wednesday’s general audience was related to criticism of the cardinal.
In December, Cardinal Fernández introduced a text, later approved by Pope Francis, detailing guidelines allowing priests to bless same-sex couples relationships that were still considered sinful.
In a lengthy response posted online, Cardinal Müller said that a priest blessing a homosexual union would be committing a “sacrilegious and blasphemous act”.
Prelates around the world also released statements condemning the decision, including American conservatives, who have long been vocal in opposing the Pope’s plans for reforming the Catholic Church.
Tensions reached a nadir when the Pope evicted outspoken critic US Cardinal Raymond Burke from his Vatican apartment and revoked his salary.
The original article contains 437 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 63%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The reason it’s only the word of God while he’s sitting on the throne is because the holy Spirit enters through his butt and talks through him like a puppet.
Most of the time the pope is no different from any other Catholic. He has a lot of respect by virtue of his post, but what he says is not the word of God.
This changes if he speaks “ex cathedra” (Latin for “from the chair”, the throne the previous poster is alluding to). Ex cathedra means the pope is defining dogma for all the faithful as the supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church. Think of it as the difference of the US president saying something in a private conversation vs. him issuing an executive order. When the pope speaks ex cathedra, he is considered infallible in the Catholic faith.
Popes rarely speak ex cathedra. Most of Catholic theology is settled, so there is rarely need to clarify anything. The last time it happened was in 1950 about the Assumption of Mary.
Papal (and church council) infallibility does mean that the Catholic Church can never change its mind about things like homosexual marriage and abortion. The Catholic Church says it is Christ’s church on earth, and is protected by the Holy Spirit from error that could lead Christians astray. Saying that they got something as vital as “what is and is not sin” wrong would undermine the church’s entire foundation.
That would be doctrinal breaktrough, but the long strings of popes saying whatever they find convenient at the moment tuned the formal requirements for pope to be infallible pretty high. And i won’t even mention that whatever cool thing Francis ever said as a pope have exactly zero influence on church reality.
So by “relationships” he just meant “marriage” as church always did? It’s clear from the context he is not, since lower there is mentions of “same-sex relationships”, not to mention even the word itself suggest any something wider.
I think he’s intentionally vague when using the word relationships. The word does not explicitly mean any one thing. But yeah sex within marriage has always been praised in Christianity. It’s been a big selling point of marriage in general. I don’t see anything in the article to suggest he’s explicitly blessed homosexual sex or truly changed any doctrine.
Yeah, if that was taken on a face value then the acceptance of all kinds of extramarital relationships would be a big doctrinal change, but nothing is happening, as i noted in my first post.
This seems consistent with what I learned in CCD and Catholic school in the 90s-00s. We were always told that sexual pleasure was increased in a marriage and a sign of god blessing the marriage, whereas sexual pleasure outside of a marriage was cheap and damaging.
Edit: side note, I didn’t think this fucked me up until I got married and realized I’d felt ashamed every other time I’d had sex. I never believed in god, and this is pretty obviously trying to steer behavior, so I thought I was unaffected, but it’s still a brain virus
It’s pretty common, but I’ve always been very sex positive, with zero shame about nudity or bodily functions. I don’t notice any shame since I got married ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Of course, I didn’t think there was any beforehand, so who knows
Pretty sure sexual pleasure is the result of friction, nerve endings, a bunch of neuro-chemicals, and a whole lot of fetishes. If anyone is letting us enjoy sexual pleasure, it’s the other department.
Under half of women orgasm from penetration alone, and for about one in ten it’s outright painful. For me it does pretty much nothing. I guess we could move to whether air and vibrations on clit count as friction, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what anyone had in mind. Nor whether kisses and general intimate closeness count as “sexual pleasure”.
I guess we could move to whether air and vibrations on clit count as friction, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what anyone had in mind.
At the risk of mansplaining, I suspect that actually was what they had in mind, though not exclusively. Friction doesn’t inherently mean PIV. Clitoral stimulation is still down to (the proper amount and application of) friction and (fuckloads of) nerve endings to sense it.
But more importantly, I also think that’s an overly simplistic way of seeing sexual gratification. Sex with a partner is sometimes less directly pleasurable, since the owner of the equipment often (though not always, thanks repression) knows best how to make it feel good, but sex with a partner is still usually better because of the intimacy that comes into play. And sex with a long-term partner can be exceptionally good, because you learn better and better what the other person needs.
(Obviously everyone is different though, and there are always going to be individuals with different experiences and preferences. The world is full of spectrums, not well-defined lines.)
I guess we’re all God’s pets children and He wants us to keep reproducing. Evolution is compatible with believing in God. Now why He put my g spot inaide my ass can only be proof of His immense sense of humour.
The Catholic Church has protected pedophiles among their ranks for as long as the Catholic Church has been around.
It is documented and undeniable that there have been such figures in the church, but it is my opinion that this specific pope has been trying to bring the church in a different direction, both on this specific issue, but also generally more progressive, if you want.
Yeah, a real leader among leaders.
Thanks for sharing this article, I’ve read it and tried to do more reaserch on the topic (turns out the wikipedia page on the matter is pretty dense and source-full, while the NYT wrote just has a couple lines written quickly). I will answer with this article from the guardian
“Despite recent measures to root out abuse by priests and increase transparency, some victims say the Vatican still has not gone far enough to protect children even in the West, where intense media coverage of paedophile priests has led to greater scrutiny of church practices.”
Francis has been in power for over a decade now, and that quote (from your link) was written years ago. Nothing has really changed.
bbc.co.uk
Oldest