site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   29304 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is pope Francis attempting to bring in gay marriage by the back door?

Kind of a long story, so bear with me for the background(https://www.ncregister.com/news/cardinals-send-dubia-to-pope-ahead-of-synod-on-synodality):

Dubia are formal questions brought before the pope and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) aimed at eliciting a “Yes” or “No” response, without theological argumentation. The word dubia is the plural form of dubium, which means “doubt” in Latin. They are typically raised by cardinals or other high-ranking members of the Church and are meant to seek clarification on matters of doctrine or Church teaching.

The dubia were signed by German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, 94, president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences; American Cardinal Raymond Burke, 75, prefect emeritus of the Apostolic Signatura; Chinese Cardinal Zen Ze-Kiun, 90, bishop emeritus of Hong Kong; Mexican Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, 90, archbishop emeritus of Guadalajara; and Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah, 78, prefect emeritus of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Submitting dubia is not a particularly uncommon occurrence and does not have a strong partisan(for lack of a better term) valence. The summary of these particular dubia later on in the same article is fairly accurate, but you can read them in their entirety, along with Cardinal Burke's statement on resubmitting them, here: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/10/full-text-of-new-dubia-sent-to-francis.html

What is unusual is resubmitting dubia after being dissatisfied with the response received, which is what happened here:

The same group of senior prelates say they submitted a previous version of the dubia on these topics on July 10 and received a reply from Pope Francis the following day.

But they said that the pope responded in full answers rather than in the customary form of “Yes” and “No” replies, which made it necessary to submit a revised request for clarification.

Pope Francis’ responses “have not resolved the doubts we had raised, but have, if anything, deepened them,” they said in a statement to the National Catholic Register, CNA’s partner news outlet. They therefore sent the reformulated dubia on Aug. 21, rephrasing them partly so they would elicit “Yes” or “No” replies.

The cardinals declined the Register’s requests to review the pope’s July 11 response, as they say the response was addressed only to them and so not meant for the public.

Interestingly, the pope's(in reality Cardinal Fernandez's[head of the DDF, the Vatican's doctrine branch, occupying the position that in recent pontificates has been a de facto #2 spot]) responses were leaked anyways, by the Vatican(https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255539/read-pope-francis-response-to-the-dubia-presented-to-him-by-5-cardinals). As that link demonstrates, the responses are indeed not the customary yes or no replies. I'm not quoting the whole thing, because they're lengthy word salad, but the most interesting, and controversial, part, is below, the response to the second dubia:

a) The Church has a very clear conception of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the begetting of children. It calls this union “marriage.” Other forms of union only realize it “in a partial and analogous way” (Amoris Laetitia, 292), and so they cannot be strictly called “marriage.”

b) It is not a mere question of names, but the reality that we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that demands an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal.“

c) For this reason the Church avoids any kind of rite or sacramental that could contradict this conviction and give the impression that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.

d) In dealing with people, however, we must not lose the pastoral charity that must permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which is also made up of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot become judges who only deny, reject, exclude.

e) For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage. For when a blessing is requested, one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea for a better life, a trust in a Father who can help us to live better.

f) On the other hand, although there are situations that from an objective point of view are not morally acceptable, pastoral charity itself demands that we do not simply treat as “sinners“ other people whose guilt or responsibility may be due to their own fault or responsibility attenuated by various factors that influence subjective imputability (cf. St. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17).

g) Decisions which, in certain circumstances, can form part of pastoral prudence, should not necessarily become a norm. That is to say, it is not appropriate for a diocese, an episcopal conference or any other ecclesial structure to constantly and officially authorize procedures or rites for all kinds of matters, since everything “what is part of a practical discernment in particular circumstances cannot be elevated to the level of a rule,“ because this “would lead to an intolerable casuistry“ (Amoris Laetitia, 304). Canon law should not and cannot cover everything, nor should the episcopal conferences claim to do so with their various documents and protocols, because the life of the Church runs through many channels in addition to the normative ones.

That's a lot of words to come full circle, but the middle part- about blessing same sex non-weddings- is what has hair on fire. If you take the position that any of those paragraphs are not meaningless argle-bargle, paragraph g about the need to ensure blessings of same sex couples doesn't become a norm would not be among them. Again from the first article:

On the topic of blessing same-sex unions, which have been pushed for in places like Germany, the Vatican’s chief doctrinal office, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, weighed in on the matter in 2021, clarifying that “the Church does not have, and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same sex.” However, some have speculated that, in spite of the DDF text referencing his approval, Pope Francis was displeased by the document. Relatedly, Antwerp’s Bishop Johan Bonny claimed in March that the pope did not disapprove of the Flemish-speaking Belgian bishops plan to introduce a related blessing, although this claim has not been substantiated and it is not clear that the Flemish blessing is, in fact, the kind explicitly disapproved by the DDF guidance.

Regarding the DDF text, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin cited it in his criticism of the German Synodal Way’s decision to move forward with attempted blessings of same-sex unions, but he also added that the topic would require further discussion at the upcoming universal synod. More significantly, new DDF prefect Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, a close confidant of Pope Francis, stated in July that while he was opposed to any blessing that would confuse same-sex unions with marriage, the 2021 DDF guidance “lacked the smell of Francisco” and could be revisited during his tenure.

I am inclined to believe Cardinal Fernandez here, because A) responsa ad dubium are normally approved by the pope himself, so the middle paragraphs about blessing same sex non-weddings were approved by pope Francis B) firing Cardinal Fernandez over a previous screw up and disowning his comments would be trivially easy due to his atrocious record on handling sex abuse cases, yet he was appointed personally by Pope Francis rather than as a compromise(as Ladaria, the previous occupant of the office- and the issuer of the 2021 clarification against blessing same sex unions which it is rumored played a part in Francis' decision not to appoint him to a second term) or a holdover from Benedict XVI(as was Muller, the predecessor to Ladaria) and C) breaking with precedent in this manner is so highly unusual for a cabinet-level Vatican position that there's something there, and dragging your boss under the bus is not recommended.

What would it mean if the synod on synodality(which starts wednesday, and kicked off the whole brouhaha with this particular round of dubia) does in fact create significant wiggle room for bishops to authorize same sex non-weddings? Well, back to Cardinal Muller, who has previously pointed to this as a possible red line for some kind of ill-defined drastic action(https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/cardinal-muller-warns-same-sex-blessings-are-blasphemy-as-synod-on-synodality-looms/):

“A fictitious ‘blessing’ of same-sex couples,” he expounded, “is not only a blasphemy against the Creator of the world and man, but also a grave sin against the salvation of the people concerned, who are led to believe that sexual activity outside of marriage is pleasing to God, which is described in the revealed Word of God as a grave sin against the sixth commandment (Rom 1:26f; 1 Cor 9:-11).”

And:

Here, Cardinal Müller raises the question of the status in the Church of those who wish to change the Church’s teachings, by quoting St. Irenaeus: “With apostolic succession, bishops have received the reliable charism of truth (charisma vertitatis certum), as it pleased God. But all others who do not want to know about this succession, which goes back to the origin, and who gather arbitrarily anywhere, are suspected of being either heretics with evil in mind, or schismatics…. All these people forsake the truth.” (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies IV 26, 2).

For Cardinal Müller, the truth of Christ is what matters at the synod: “I hope that the truth of Christ will determine the direction of the Synod and not a group dynamic process will lead the participants in the direction of an anti-Christian anthropology that questions the two-gendered nature of man created by God. This blatant contradiction to the divine and Catholic faith is gladly veiled with an alleged pastoral care for persons with any ‘erotic preferences.’”

That is to say, Cardinal Müller will not go along with such an attempted change of Church teaching at the upcoming synod in Rome.

Cardinal Muller, for those who are unfamiliar, is powerful enough within the church oligarchy to have previously vetoed a candidate for Cardinal Fernandez's current spot(https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/12/cardinals-block-appointment-of-heiner.html), so him saying something like this is a very big deal, albeit poorly defined what it would actually look like.

It probably seems confusing to outsiders, but the question, "Maybe there is some sort of blessing we can give to a same sex couple who asks for one?" is not the same thing as, "A same sex couple can contract a sacramental marriage." A blessing is not the same thing as a sacrament.

I think this line is the most significant in the response to the dubia: "For when a blessing is requested, one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea for a better life, a trust in a Father who can help us to live better." The emphasis on a gay couple asking God to help them "live better" does not bring to mind Rainbow flags and Pride. If anything, reading this makes me think the Pope will encourage some sort of "help us live chastely" blessing for any gay couples asking for their relationship to be blessed.

Edit: I'm wondering if people know what I'm saying here, based on the responses. A couple definitions and elaborations:

Blessing: happens all the time, in private. Happens during the mass as well. Throats are blessed during flu season. Water, salt, and candles are blessed to take home. Mothers are blessed on Mother's day, sick people are blessed, anxious people are blessed, anyone can be blessed for pretty much any reason.

Taking the response as a whole, it sounds like the Pope is saying, if a couple comes up to a priest after mass and asks for a blessing to live chastely because it is something they are really struggling with, they can get a blessing to help them live a less sinful life.

Chaste: Only having sex or any other sort of sexual activity in the context of a marriage between a man and a woman, where all sexual activity is open to creating life. Gay sex is by definition not chaste in a Catholic context.

It probably seems confusing to outsiders, but the question, "Maybe there is some sort of blessing we can give to a same sex couple who asks for one?" is not the same thing as, "A same sex couple can contract a sacramental marriage." A blessing is not the same thing as a sacrament.

There are liberal Catholics who have suggested this, but the rebuttal is convincing to me. A "gay marriage" is inherently scandalous. We all know that it means these the couple are engaged in an amorous/erotic relationship with each other, not a fraternal/brotherly/sisterly/friendship relationship. If two men said to a priest, "we have committed to be lifelong friends/bondsmen/blood brothers/partners, can you bless our vows of permanent friendship to each other" obvious there would be no issues. No, we all know "LGB" means same-sex eroticism. Since that is the common understanding, blessing a "gay marriage" is blessing sin and blessing scandal and that is something that a Catholic priest should not do. Now the liberal Catholics have also suggested, "Well they shouldn't bless the relationship itself, but the good in it." To me, this is just sophistry and ridiculous hair-splitting. The fact remains the priest is giving the impression of blessing sin. But it is perhaps the viewpoint Francis takes.

What I think Francis's statements amount to is that he is not going to change Church teaching, or formally create a policy of blessing gay marriages, but he is also not going to police and discipline priests who are bending doctrine and somehow claiming to be blessing elements of good in same-sex relationships.

But aren't, under Catholic doctrine, homosexual couples inherently sinful? I'm no Catholic so I can't say I understand the minutia but surely it's not acceptable to bless sin?

I don't think anyone understands what I'm saying here. If a couple came up to a priest and asked for a blessing to help them "live better", i.e. stop having homosexual sex, then that sort of blessing could be given. That is the plain reading of what Pope Francis wrote.

I see, that makes more sense.

I think your original post would have benefited from saying it that explicitly, because I don't think I would have guessed that's what you meant.

the Pope will encourage some sort of "help us live chastely" blessing for any gay couples asking for their relationship to be blessed.

I thought this was spelling it out explicitly, but I don't know what the word "chaste" means to the average Mottizen now.

Only if they engage in sexual acts with one another, as all sex outside of marriage is sinful. Living together as, essentially, best friends, is not sinful. Living together and lusting after one another, even while not acting on that lust, would still be sinful, though. I think some would say that this living arrangement would qualify as Near Occasion of Sin and therefore ought to be avoided.

St. Paul wrote that celibacy was preferential to marriage, but that those who lack the temperament to remain celibate should marry.

Fair enough, that's how the clergy exists in the first place after all, but that's not quite what we're talking about is it? People of the same sex that have deep platonic love for one another aren't "homosexual couples" or I've been in a lot more of these than I thought over the years.

Generally the Church will use the phrase "people struggling with same-sex attraction" to refer to people who have same-sex attraction but are trying their best not to actually acting on it and engage in homosexual activity. Such people are welcome in the church, welcome to take communion, and if they screw up and engage in same sex activity they just need to confess and try do better in the future, they aren't excommunicated for sinning. However, if they take "pride" in homosexuality activity, that is an open rejection of doctrine and living scandalously, so that is not welcome in the church.

In the broader culture, "homosexual" basically means "same-sex attracted and unapologetically acting on it." However there are some liberal Catholics who will equivocate/motte-and-bailey on this, saying things like, "the Church should welcome homosexuals" which to the public makes it seem like they want to the Church to change doctrine, but then when pressed on it by conservative Catholics they will fall back and say, "well homosexual just means same-sex attracted, it does not mean they are actually sinning."

Which will inevitably be advertised as a wedding, be received by lesbians in wedding dresses/gay men in tuxedos, featuring flowers, organs, a reception, etc. IIRC the Episcopalians had that for a bit before moving to full on gay weddings.

Pope Francis already answered a Dubia in a more standard way in 2021:

TO THE QUESTION PROPOSED: Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?

RESPONSE: Negative.

Today's response to the Dubia says:

c) For this reason, the Church avoids any type of rite or sacramental that might contradict this conviction and suggest that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.

Today's Dubia Response is a total nothingburger, but everyone is reading into it what they want to read.

The ambiguity is the message. He could have just reiterated the clear "no" instead of speaking about pastoral discretion and avoiding "suggestions" that a not-marriage is a marriage.

He's been unambiguous when speaking against traditionalists.

How can I avoid drawing conclusions that he's being strategically ambiguous so as to allow priests to practice his real preference where those preferences happen to align?

Compare the short and straightforward 2021 dubia:

Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?

With the Cardnial Burke et.al. dubia -

According to the Divine Revelation, attested in Sacred Scripture, which the Church teaches, “listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit" (Dei Verbum, 10), "In the beginning," God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them, and blessed them to be fruitful (cf. Genesis 1:27-28) and hence, the Apostle Paul teaches that denying sexual difference is the consequence of denying the Creator (Romans 1:24-32). We ask: can the Church deviate from this "principle," considering it, in contrast to what was taught in Veritatis splendor, 103, as a mere ideal, and accept as a "possible good" objectively sinful situations, such as unions with persons of the same sex, without departing from the revealed doctrine?

If you ask a long,nuanced question, you get a long, nuanced response.

You’ll notice I cited in the OP a discussion of trying to overturn that Dubia with the explanation of cardinal Ladaria having gone rogue. Do I think it’s likely to happen? Probably not officially. I think it’ll simply be ignored.

The prior response to the dubia lacked the Pope's inability to get to the point, but presumably it has the same level of authoritativeness as the current leaked dubia (Unless the Pope wants to go on record and declare the first dubia response was not approved by him.)

Pope Francis doesn't want to be mean and make wide sweeping declarations (except when it comes to liturgy, for some reason.) The very thing that keeps him from giving a straight answer to a dubia is the very thing that will keep him from actually changing anything in the Church. He wants to meet each person face to face, to discuss a situation in all its intricacies, but never act as a judge or king.

The 2021 letter was approved by the pope, but technically it was from the CDF. The 2023 letter was from Pope Francis personally, even if it was literally written by Cardinal Fernandez.

It's kind of funny to me that the Church has reinvented the concept of civil unions a full quarter of a century after it failed as a stopgap in conservative states.

Makes me wonder if it will have the same level of success and trajectory in church that it had in secular politics.

I guess, if civil unions are celibate unions? There were recognized “Rites of Entering into Spiritual Brotherhood” in various parts of the Church that could be adapted. Or you mean Marriage-In-Everything-But-Name? I don't think the response to the Dubia alone makes such a thing more likely.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats