site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   29326 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 New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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