3 ms·

Not “absent religion”, but with a non-homophobic religion. I’d you look at the history of Catholic Church (I like this particular example, because I know it mu

by trasz 5y ago

Not “absent religion”, but with a non-homophobic religion. I’d you look at the history of Catholic Church (I like this particular example, because I know it much better than any other religion), you’ll see that it’s a repeating pattern of: 1. “The law, given to us by Christ themselves, requires us to condemn and fight against <insert any of the Human Rights>“ 2. Eventually the society forces the Church to stop this nonsense 3. “The Church has always been a proponent of <that same human right>“ 4. GOTO 1 This is a slow process, so people no longer remember the Church was against eg woman voting rights, or against freedom of thought or freedom of religion. Same way in a hundred years nobody will remember it used to be homophobic.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
Actually, this has never happened. Women voting rights was never doctrinal - no Catholic was bound to believe women should or should not be able to vote, it was just a popular opinion among the laity with room for disagreement. "Freedom of thought" - the Catholic Church, was, is, and remains against certain types of thought. You can't be a Satanist for example. However, other types of thought are once again not doctrinal, so it is a matter of personal opinion again. "Freedom of religion" - the Catholic Church once again does not put this in doctrine and has not edited doctrine, but once again there is a popular opinion that may change, but nobody is obligated to have an opinion on it. The opinions of it's members are changing, but the doctrines (the things you must believe) remain unchanged, even when unpopular. The Church's ban on birth control is very unpopular among the laity but hasn't moved.
- trasz 5y ago
  Of course Catholics were bound to be against woman rights - the pope himself told them so. Your problem here is you seem to believe anyone cares about the (largely made up) distinction between doctrinal vs non-doctrinal, which in real life doesn’t matter at all.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    Actually, if you enter Catholic spheres (which I have to examine their thinking), they argue about doctrine and non-doctrinal all the freaking time. Constantly. They argue whether they need to follow the Pope on something or not and their internal Canon Law requirements without stop. However, there is no dispute about what is doctrinal. There is instead dispute about how that doctrine is put in practice. Such as can a Pope do Action A without being doctrinally not Pope anymore, and what non-doctrinal process would need to follow.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      To expand on this, the whole canonical-non-canonical meme in pop culture is a derivative, approximation and dilution of the Catholic tradition.
    - trasz 5y ago
      The theologians discuss that, because that’s their job, but it doesn’t matter to anyone else. The difference has no consequences, but also has no real reasoning behind it.

by trasz 5y ago

gjsman-1000 5y ago

Actually, this has never happened. Women voting rights was never doctrinal - no Catholic was bound to believe women should or should not be able to vote, it was just a popular opinion among the laity with room for disagreement. "Freedom of thought" - the Catholic Church, was, is, and remains against certain types of thought. You can't be a Satanist for example. However, other types of thought are once again not doctrinal, so it is a matter of personal opinion again. "Freedom of religion" - the Catholic Church once again does not put this in doctrine and has not edited doctrine, but once again there is a popular opinion that may change, but nobody is obligated to have an opinion on it. The opinions of it's members are changing, but the doctrines (the things you must believe) remain unchanged, even when unpopular. The Church's ban on birth control is very unpopular among the laity but hasn't moved.

trasz 5y ago
Of course Catholics were bound to be against woman rights - the pope himself told them so. Your problem here is you seem to believe anyone cares about the (largely made up) distinction between doctrinal vs non-doctrinal, which in real life doesn’t matter at all.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  Actually, if you enter Catholic spheres (which I have to examine their thinking), they argue about doctrine and non-doctrinal all the freaking time. Constantly. They argue whether they need to follow the Pope on something or not and their internal Canon Law requirements without stop. However, there is no dispute about what is doctrinal. There is instead dispute about how that doctrine is put in practice. Such as can a Pope do Action A without being doctrinally not Pope anymore, and what non-doctrinal process would need to follow.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    To expand on this, the whole canonical-non-canonical meme in pop culture is a derivative, approximation and dilution of the Catholic tradition.
  - trasz 5y ago
    The theologians discuss that, because that’s their job, but it doesn’t matter to anyone else. The difference has no consequences, but also has no real reasoning behind it.