The Roman Catholic Church's recent decisions

[Bill the Cat]

In the past few days, 2 separate reports from the Vatican have come out that, I believe, clearly exposes Francis' intent to liberalize the RCC:

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/09/europe/vatican-transgender-baptism-intl-scli/index.html

Rome
CNN
—
A new ruling by the Vatican’s doctrine department has opened the door to Catholic baptism for transgender people and babies of same-sex couples.

The new rules, dated October 31, come from a set of questions, or dubia, submitted to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) by Brazilian bishop Giuseppe Negri. The answers to his questions about certain sacraments were published on the Vatican’s website in Italian on Wednesday evening.

Regarding transgender people, the document says a person who identifies as transgender can be baptized like any other adult, “as long as there is no risk of causing scandal or disorientation” to other Catholics.

Children who identify as transgender can also be baptized if “well prepared and willing,” it says. The document also states that transgender people, including those who have undergone gender reassignment procedures, can be godparents and witnesses in Catholic weddings under the right circumstances.

Children of same-sex couples can also be baptized, as long as there is a “well-founded hope that he or she will be educated in the Catholic religion.”

© Copyright Original Source

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/vatican-confirms-ban-catholics-becoming-freemasons-2023-11-15/

VATICAN CITY, Nov 15 (Reuters) - The Vatican has confirmed a ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons, a centuries-old secretive society that the Catholic Church has long viewed with hostility and has an estimated global membership of up to six million.

"Active membership in Freemasonry by a member of the faithful is prohibited, because of the irreconcilability between Catholic doctrine and Freemasonry," the Vatican's doctrinal office said in a letter published by Vatican media on Wednesday.

© Copyright Original Source

More of each article can be read at the citation.

[rogue06]

I'd have no issue baptizing a baby of a same sex couple in that it is the baby being baptized not the parent's relationship.

[One Bad Pig]

I'd have no issue baptizing a baby of a same sex couple in that it is the baby being baptized not the parent's relationship.

I'd have an issue, as it would lead to cognitive dissonance later. One cannot reconcile Catholic doctrine with a same sex couple; the child would end up needing to reject one or the other.

[rogue06]

I'd have an issue, as it would lead to cognitive dissonance later. One cannot reconcile Catholic doctrine with a same sex couple; the child would end up needing to reject one or the other.

So, kinda like if one parent was an abusive drunk and the other a serial philanderer.

[One Bad Pig]

So, kinda like if one parent was an abusive drunk and the other a serial philanderer.

Neither of those is vigorously affirmed by society, and thus have a rather greater chance of repentance from the wrong they're doing - and neither necessarily entails a lie regarding parentage.

[mossrose]

I'd have no issue baptizing a baby of a same sex couple in that it is the baby being baptized not the parent's relationship.

Infant baptism doesn’t save the infant anyway, but the RCC doing it in this situation gives tacit approval to the lifestyle of the "family" involved.

[rogue06]

So no baptism for the child if the parents are reprobates?

[mossrose]

So no baptism for the child if the parents are reprobates?

Infant baptism is pointless. It's an empty gesture no matter who the parents are.

[Bill the Cat]

I'm honestly more shocked that they are making such a fuss and taking a hard line over freemasonry and then acting like a wet sponge over transgenderism.

[Cerebrum123]

I'm honestly more shocked that they are making such a fuss and taking a hard line over freemasonry and then acting like a wet sponge over transgenderism.

It's to throw everyone off the trail that they are run by Freemasons.

Actually, now that I think about it, maybe that is too believable.

[One Bad Pig]

So no baptism for the child if the parents are reprobates?

Baptism isn't a magic ticket to heaven/out of hell; repentance is required. If the parents aren't going to model at all faith with repentance, there isn't any point in getting the baby baptized.

[One Bad Pig]

Infant baptism is pointless. It's an empty gesture no matter who the parents are.

It's at least a fancy infant dedication. When we baptized a girl who had just turned two, her grandmother (who was present) immediately noticed a change - and her father, who was unchurched, was baptized a few months later.

[Terraceth]

In the past few days, 2 separate reports from the Vatican have come out that, I believe, clearly exposes Francis' intent to liberalize the RCC:

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/09/europe/vatican-transgender-baptism-intl-scli/index.html

Rome
CNN
—
A new ruling by the Vatican’s doctrine department has opened the door to Catholic baptism for transgender people and babies of same-sex couples.

The new rules, dated October 31, come from a set of questions, or dubia, submitted to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) by Brazilian bishop Giuseppe Negri. The answers to his questions about certain sacraments were published on the Vatican’s website in Italian on Wednesday evening.

Regarding transgender people, the document says a person who identifies as transgender can be baptized like any other adult, “as long as there is no risk of causing scandal or disorientation” to other Catholics.

Children who identify as transgender can also be baptized if “well prepared and willing,” it says. The document also states that transgender people, including those who have undergone gender reassignment procedures, can be godparents and witnesses in Catholic weddings under the right circumstances.

Children of same-sex couples can also be baptized, as long as there is a “well-founded hope that he or she will be educated in the Catholic religion.”

© Copyright Original Source

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/vatican-confirms-ban-catholics-becoming-freemasons-2023-11-15/

VATICAN CITY, Nov 15 (Reuters) - The Vatican has confirmed a ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons, a centuries-old secretive society that the Catholic Church has long viewed with hostility and has an estimated global membership of up to six million.

"Active membership in Freemasonry by a member of the faithful is prohibited, because of the irreconcilability between Catholic doctrine and Freemasonry," the Vatican's doctrinal office said in a letter published by Vatican media on Wednesday.

© Copyright Original Source

More of each article can be read at the citation.

I can understand why you'd think the first shows an intention to liberalize the Catholic Church (though I'm not sure if the answers came from Francis himself), but how is the second? The ban on Catholics being Freemasons has existed for almost 300 years at this point (even if they haven't always been that strong at actually enforcing it). There's little that could be considered more conservative on the issue than what they did, reaffirming the ban.

In regards to the transgenderism thing, I looked at some Catholic websites and you can find articles asserting the actual text regarding the transgenderism issue isn't that particularly liberal; see, for example, this:

https://www.ncregister.com/commentar...cent-statement

Too lengthy to quote much of, but its opening summary is "It is critically important to carefully read the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith’s answers to Bishop Negri’s questions in context — and to ignore silly headlines from media sources that do not understand Catholic teaching."

I'm inclined to agree with the article that one can read it in agreement with prior Catholic teaching, the issue is that--and this is a criticism I've seen from a number of things that come (directly or indirectly) from Pope Francis--that it's written in such a way that one can take it in either a liberal or conservative sense, therefore ultimately not really giving people a clear answer and letting people just take whatever they want from it.

[rogue06]

Baptism isn't a magic ticket to heaven/out of hell; repentance is required. If the parents aren't going to model at all faith with repentance, there isn't any point in getting the baby baptized.

So, because the parents aren't models of propriety the innocent baby is refused baptism.

Not a good look at all.

[Bill the Cat]

I can understand why you'd think the first shows an intention to liberalize the Catholic Church (though I'm not sure if the answers came from Francis himself), but how is the second?

It shows that the RCC is really focusing on the wrong things.

The ban on Catholics being Freemasons has existed for almost 300 years at this point (even if they haven't always been that strong at actually enforcing it). There's little that could be considered more conservative on the issue than what they did, reaffirming the ban.

Clearly continuing a ban on Freemasonry but being intentionally obfuscating on LGBT issues is a hallmark of Francis' papacy. These 2 articles are clear evidence of that. The fact that it takes someone else referencing a 1500 year old document to purportedly understand what "not causing public confusion" means is blatant.

In regards to the transgenderism thing, I looked at some Catholic websites and you can find articles asserting the actual text regarding the transgenderism issue isn't that particularly liberal; see, for example, this:

https://www.ncregister.com/commentar...cent-statement

Too lengthy to quote much of, but its opening summary is "It is critically important to carefully read the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith’s answers to Bishop Negri’s questions in context — and to ignore silly headlines from media sources that do not understand Catholic teaching."

The article you cited seems to do some serious gymnastics to say that repentant transgender identifying people aren't really transgender identifying even though they still claim to be transgender identifying.... that makes no sense.

I'm inclined to agree with the article that one can read it in agreement with prior Catholic teaching, the issue is that--and this is a criticism I've seen from a number of things that come (directly or indirectly) from Pope Francis--that it's written in such a way that one can take it in either a liberal or conservative sense, therefore ultimately not really giving people a clear answer and letting people just take whatever they want from it.

That's exactly my point here. There is a clear-cut proclamation about freemasonry, but when it comes to LGBT, one has to know ancient words of Augustine of Hippo.