Vatican launches world survey on modern family life

[muriel_volestrangler]

The Vatican has launched a worldwide survey to find out what Catholics really think about its teaching on marriage and family life.

Pope Francis is calling bishops to Rome next October to discuss possible reform that considers modern social realities.

The questionnaire asks for local views on premarital cohabitation, birth control and gay marriage.
...
The BBC's David Willey in Rome says says Pope Francis is under pressure from Catholics in many countries to take a fresh look at the Church's ban on contraception and its refusal to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to take Communion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24821843

If they remotely listen to the results, the ban on contraception will surely go.

[cbayer]

1. Excellent.

The results should be fascinating.

I wonder how much real information will be reported from the meetings of the bishops. It's good news that they will be focusing on issues relating to families.

[rug]

2. There are nine multi-part questions, none multiple choice.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20131105_iii-assemblea-sinodo-vescovi_en.html

[AtheistCrusader]

3. So much for revealed truth.

[trotsky]

4. LOL

[cbayer]

5. What does this even mean?

Do you really think that all believers think that all data is provided by their god and not obtained through science or surveys?

Or is this jus the snarkiest thing you could think of to say on short notice?

[AtheistCrusader]

6. Ask yourself, what *IS* the Catholic Church?

Why does it exist.

What is the bible. Why does it exist.

And finally, ask yourself, given its nature, why would the church check, or even care to have feedback about these dogmatically-referenced social issues? This is a top-down model. It has been so, since its inception.


If you want a non-snarky comparison, look to the Mormon 'revelation' in 1978 that in fact, black people are just people and not 'cursed' with black skin for not being very valiant in an celestial war between god and lucifer. Very convenient.

When you claim to have the batphone to god, what need do you have for feedback from the laypersons on dogmatic issues?

[cbayer]

7. Ok, I asked myself all those questions and came to a different conclusion.

The catholic church has made changes in the past to accommodate cultural changes in society.

Why would they not do that again?

It is a top down model, but this pope appears to be interested in seeing where those who are catholic stand on particular social issues.

There is a possibility that things will change, as they have in the past.

I suspect you are too young to remember fish on fridays and latin masses. Perhaps that is why you don't recognize that the institution can change.

Or perhaps your hostility to all things religious causes you to have blinders. Also very convenient.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. If they have access to a revealed truth by god, and god is what they claim he is

then it makes no logical sense for his revealed truth to be adapted to current social mores.

HOWEVER, I might be premature in that indictment, perhaps the church is only preparing to double down and invest on social modification efforts/teaching, in places that 'need it more', rather than adapting dogma to the current of political and social change.


I fully expect they will be doing modifications to dogma however, which reveals it for what it is: invented by the hand of man, god created in man's image. Just like the Mormons.

[cbayer]

10. Wow. Talk about dogma.

It makes all the sense in the world to adapt religious teachings to current social mores. Your position that it does not is the definition of fundamentalism.

There will be no proof or disproof of anything one way or another. If we are lucky, the church will make some badly needed changes in regards to it's positions on family.

Hopefully the easiest and first will be to end the prohibition on birth control. Second would be a reconsideration of the rules pertaining to divorce. Third, and least likely, is a change in the position on marriage equal rights.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. No it doesn't.

Not if the dogma within that faith is built upon 'revealed truth' direct from god.

There are certainly religions not guilty of this behavior, but the Catholic Church most certainly is, and the modification itself (if it is forthcoming) reveals that it is NOT revealed truth from god.

Keep in mind, I have only referred to two specific religions in this context, both of which have dogmatic specifications, as revealed truth, through the church, inaccessible to the members.


If they end the prohibitions on birth control, then you can be assured the entire church is fabricated nonsense by the hand of man.
They have built themselves a very uncomfortable position here.

[cbayer]

12. You may feel even more assured that the entire church is fabricated nonsense,

but that doesn't make it so.

As I said, the church has changed in the past and can change again.

There is nothing at all uncomfortable about that. It is, in fact, comforting for many.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. It should not be comforting.

It should result in the destruction of the church, as nonsense.

In 1977, any member of the Mormon Church had no access, no way of knowing, that black people were really just normal humans. The entire church dogma told them, in no uncertain terms, as a literally revealed truth, that black people were cursed, for having been ineffective in a celestial, supernatural war, before their birth even.

In 1978, under pressure to stop being racists, and to increase recruiting efforts, they had a 'new revelation'. Quell surprise. Just in time eh?


It was a clue. A moment of truth. The church is a sham. Invented. Hokum. Meaningless. A parasite upon people who mean well, who seek answers, and have been bamboozled by charlatans for their honest quest for meaning.

These events, these 'changes' that you call comforting, are a bright line litmus test that reveals the church for the fabrication it is. It does not administer revealed truth. It is a lie, however comforting.

And it has RUINED the lives of countless generations. Perpetuates barbarism, misogyny, racism, you name it.
I hope that it does 'reform'. And in doing so, I hope people see it for what it is, and abandon it to the reefs of time, to be destroyed and regarded as mythology, just as thousands of religions before it.

The world will be better for it.

[cbayer]

14. I realize that's your crusade, but it's not going to happen.

But keep at it if you want.

When you call people's religious beliefs nonsense, a sham, invented, hokum, meaningless, a parasite, bamboozled, fabricated, a lie, ruinous, barbaric, misogynistic, racist and a mythology, I am certain that you will win lots and lots of converts.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Not if I can demonstrate it.

I don't think you realize how effective I have been in this regard, in the past.

Then again, I am less acerbic about it, when engaged directly with people of faith over these issues. You are not, to my knowledge, a catholic, nor a Mormon, so I have no reason to moderate my tone, because you are not the target audience.

[cbayer]

16. Why are you less acerbic about it IRL?

Why do you take such an aggressive attitude on the internet when you feel you have been effective with a gentler approach otherwise?

That makes no sense to me. Are your fellow liberals and progressives on DU not worth similar consideration if they are people of faith?

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Their faith is not worthy of consideration, no.

Not to me.

In some cases, especially when we have discussed things in the past, you seem to interpret matter-of-fact statements as 'aggressive attitude'/hostility. I think it's just a failing of conveying tone through text.

You might note, I was actually considerate of the people, like the Mormons, that I described upthread. I did not call them stupid or credulous, or any negative at all. I merely described them as having been taken advantage of, which I stand by. I deplore charlatans and snake oil salesmen, not their victims.

[cbayer]

18. I also deplore charlatans and snake oil salesmen, but I respect and support

people of faith who use their beliefs for good.

I deplore those who want to destroy all religion, repeat the ridiculous meme that religion ruins everything and ridicule all religious belief. But I respect and support non-believers who are tolerant and accepting of the beliefs of others and can see both the good and bad that religion provides.

It's important to be able to make the distinction, imo.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. There is, however, baggage that inevitably comes along with most faiths.

Much of it, in some form or another, destructive.

The very idea of a metaphysical soul, for instance, is the basis for the pro-life movement, which is broad, and exists across multiple faiths. The number of people who do not recognize such things, and also oppose not just abortion, but even contraception is vanishingly small.

These faiths have attendant consequences. That some people use that faith to motivate or bolster themselves in the pursuit of things you and I would describe as 'good works', still has deleterious consequences in almost every example I can imagine. You have to go far afield into things like Unitarian universalism, or Buddhism (which other theists will quickly point out, isn't a religion by their standards at all) to get away from that baggage.

[cbayer]

21. Sure there's baggage. Some of it can be negative and some very positive.

Your experience has been your experience.

There are religious people who are adamantly pro-choice, pro-GLBT equality, and believe in taking care of the neediest among us.

I'm not opposed to challenging those whose religious beliefs impinge on the rights of others or lead them to bigotry. I'm also not at all opposed to challenging those that can't or won't see that many of these very positive positions are advocated without any deleterious consequences whatsoever.

Where you are works for you. That doesn't mean it's the only place that works.

[trotsky]

20. I am glad you hate straw men, cbayer.

I do too.

[trotsky]

9. If the church claims to have revealed truth about god(s)...

why should it need to ask ANYONE about ANYTHING?

FFS cbayer, try discussing the issue before launching directly into attack mode. Or perhaps your hostility to all things (and people) you can't control causes you to have blinders.

[Lordquinton]

22. Seems like a questionare

designed to inform them where they are falling short so they can reinforce their dogma.

And nothing on abortion. They could just move the point where life starts back to birth instead of conception and do away with tons of issues.

[hrmjustin]

23. I think this is a good thing. I hope they listen to the people.

[pinto]

24. If done in good faith, honestly from the parish level to the Bishops to the Vatican,

this may well be a good review of the role a very bureaucratic church plays in present day terms. I've read the "preparatory document". It's typically stilted, formal. Includes many Latin phrases and references to previous Vatican councils.

Although it's framed in established dogma it could provide an "on the ground" picture for the extremely insular Vatican hierarchy.

May be an attempt to move away from previous Papal opinions which advocated reforming the church around the strictly doctrinaire.

May be an attempt at revisiting the relatively more open "big tent" approach of John XXIII.

Or it may be a consideration of how to expand established church doctrine by simply stating them in more modern terms.

It'll be interesting to watch how it goes. Francis seems to have one foot planted in a more humanistic role for the church and the other in the historical, more dogmatic role.

[brooklynite]

25. Why would they bother?

Since when have religious tenets been subject to public approval?

[pinto]

26. I think Francis may well be doing that to an extent.

He's directed the Bishops to bring feedback from their archdioceses to the council. One aspect of that is the role of the church in day-to-day life. i.e. the public.

People often overlook how political the Vatican is. Enormous bureaucracy and any change of course is incremental. The Vatican ship-of-state doesn't turn on a dime. John XXIII made changes because he knew how to play the game. His Vatican council didn't happen overnight, by fiat. Some of its success was due to his widespread approval among Catholics. The public, in the framework of the church.

I think Francis may be going that same route. We'll see, fwiw.