Pope Francis shows Democrats how to take back America

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

72. Oh, there are people on DU who trash the Pope

I have seen posts which call him a "homophobic, misogynous bigot", apparently because he won't recognize gay marriage and won't ordain women.

The Catholic doctrine on marriage from time immemorial is that it is between a man and a woman. Period. This is not going to change, given that it would entail a radical change in sacramental theology -- i.e., a core doctrine of the Church.

There are those who say that Francis is no different from Fred Phelps. No, there is a difference in kind, not just in degree. Can anyone see Phelps saying "Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill?"

The ordination of women is more problematical. I have written in http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1221&pid=1155 and a following post on the crap which is the Vatican position paper on the ordination of women, Inter Insigniores. I should also have gone into Pope John Paul II's exercise in sexismMulieris Dignitatem

One of the major problems of the Catholic Church is that it is very slow to change doctrine. The Church proclaims that it is in the business of teaching absolute, eternal truth. So then, how can the teachings change? Even a cursory examination of the history of doctrine shows that the teachings do change. For example, as late as1745, Pope Benedict XIV's encyclical, Vix Pervenit, taught that the taking of interest on loans was usury and therefore sinful. The teaching has never been rescinded, but has been quietly dropped.

When I was in graduate school, I wrote a paper on how the Church went from the Council of Trent's "Biblical translations must be based on the Latin Vulgate" to Vatican II's "Biblical teachings must be based on the original languages" without ever contradicting (indeed, quoting from) the previous position papers.

Unfortunately, the quoting from previous position papers is obviously highly selective. Cherry picking quotes is really dishonest. I'm sure that when Pope Benedict was a theology professor, he would have slapped down any student who ignored evidence which did not support his thesis. (If you read Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, he starts each article by citing evidence against his thesis; he then answers each one.) However, ignoring contrary evidence is expected in Vatican position papers. The most egregious recent case I can think of was Pope Paul VI's encyclical defending priestly celibacy, Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, which wholly ignores 1 Corinthians 9:5, in which the Apostle Paul is saying that he has a right to be married. That he chose not to exercise that right is immaterial.

Unfortunately, this sort of thing is, as I said, expected in Vatican position papers. For example, Inter Insigniores:

• Admits that one of the main reasons for denying ordination to women has been the attitude that women were inferior to men (see, for example, Aquinas' Summa Theologica, Supplement, question 39 article 1) and says that this argument should be abandoned but then resurrects it without saying it is doing so.

• Relies on the extremely dubious argument that Christ ordained only men to the priesthood. First, even if you grant this argument, one can just as reasonably say that since Christ ordained only Jews to the priesthood, gentiles should not be priests. But the fact is that Christ did not "ordain" anyone. And since the Last Supper was a Passover Seder, and the Seder is a celebration for the family ("You shall tell your children on that day..." -- Exodus 13:8), there were undoubtedly women present.

• Makes the really silly argument that since the priest is supposed to "mirror Christ", the laity would not be able to see Christ in a woman. I daresay that the laity would be far less likely to see Christ in a pedophile. This argument also shows the Vatican's basic contempt for the laity.

Finally, Pope John Paul II attempted to quell discussion in his Ordinatio Sacerdotalis -- "On Priestly Ordination", which can be summed up as "Women cannot be ordained because I say so. Now sit down and shut up!" This argument may work with very small children (but don't count on it), but it only convinces those who believe that every burp which issues from a papal throat is the word of God. They shouldn't expect any adults to buy it.

That is the problem with much of Vatican teachings: Cherry-picked evidence, contrary evidence ignored, sloppy reasoning, dubious (at best) history, and shutting down discussion by fiat.

So, do not expect any swift changes in doctrine.

One final comment on Pope Francis. He comes across as authentic. He does what he does because of who he is. As that old windbag, Polonius said in Hamlet, "This above all: to thine own self be true, thus it must follow, as does the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."