Emdeeh
Pacific Coast Highway
Posts: 520
Likes: 532
|
Post by Emdeeh on Oct 14, 2023 3:40:17 GMT
I just discovered this thread, so when my hubby started telling me about the porphyras story tonight and asked me to guess what the one word was, I was ready with "purple." Thanks, Kapitan.
Also, talking about video games, I recently attended a festival where one of the featured acts was a jazz band playing video game music. They were quite good.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 29, 2023 13:13:21 GMT
Sheriff John Stone and I had traded posts a while back about tensions within the Catholic church. Along those lines, the monthlong synod ended in Vatican City yesterday with participants voting to include a few statements regarding some of the controversial topics, but no major changes. They voted to emphasize an increased role for women in the church, but the most substantive thing is a study on the potential for allowing women to be deacons, with about 75% seeming to favor that change. Even more favored a study into clerical celibacy, about 80% in favor. But the final document almost entirely removed any language about LGBTQ issues, not even reflecting the debates. Some interesting aspects of the resulting document involve its treatment of Africa, a major growth area for the church. For example, it's African bishops who are among the most opposed to more engagement with LGBTQ people; conversely, the rest of the world asked Africa to study "how to accompany people in polygamous unions who are approaching the faith." This isn't exactly an issue the church has had to deal with often in Europe or the Americas. Both conservatives and liberals came out of the meeting disappointed that the other side was winning. And while Catholics worldwide were invited to participate in a survey on topics covered in the synod, fewer than 1% participated. There was a very good feature in NYT earlier this week showing two very different Chicago-area parishes, one on either side of that debate. Next steps are another similar synod meeting next October, in which the bishops should produce a final report that includes recommendations to the Pope, who will then release a papal letter (which may or may not include concrete changes to church policy).
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Oct 29, 2023 13:42:41 GMT
Sheriff John Stone and I had traded posts a while back about tensions within the Catholic church. Along those lines, the monthlong synod ended in Vatican City yesterday with participants voting to include a few statements regarding some of the controversial topics, but no major changes. They voted to emphasize an increased role for women in the church, but the most substantive thing is a study on the potential for allowing women to be deacons, with about 75% seeming to favor that change. Even more favored a study into clerical celibacy, about 80% in favor. But the final document almost entirely removed any language about LGBTQ issues, not even reflecting the debates. Some interesting aspects of the resulting document involve its treatment of Africa, a major growth area for the church. For example, it's African bishops who are among the most opposed to more engagement with LGBTQ people; conversely, the rest of the world asked Africa to study "how to accompany people in polygamous unions who are approaching the faith." This isn't exactly an issue the church has had to deal with often in Europe or the Americas. Both conservatives and liberals came out of the meeting disappointed that the other side was winning. And while Catholics worldwide were invited to participate in a survey on topics covered in the synod, fewer than 1% participated. There was a very good feature in NYT earlier this week showing two very different Chicago-area parishes, one on either side of that debate. Next steps are another similar synod meeting next October, in which the bishops should produce a final report that includes recommendations to the Pope, who will then release a papal letter (which may or may not include concrete changes to church policy). Women allowed to be deacons? That's been under discussion for awhile now. I can see that happening, maybe in my lifetime. Clerical celibacy? Maybe 80% favored a study, but that ain't changing. LGBTO issues? I have noticed that the Catholic church just doesn't want to go there. At all.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 29, 2023 14:11:25 GMT
Sheriff John Stone and I had traded posts a while back about tensions within the Catholic church. Along those lines, the monthlong synod ended in Vatican City yesterday with participants voting to include a few statements regarding some of the controversial topics, but no major changes. They voted to emphasize an increased role for women in the church, but the most substantive thing is a study on the potential for allowing women to be deacons, with about 75% seeming to favor that change. Even more favored a study into clerical celibacy, about 80% in favor. But the final document almost entirely removed any language about LGBTQ issues, not even reflecting the debates. Some interesting aspects of the resulting document involve its treatment of Africa, a major growth area for the church. For example, it's African bishops who are among the most opposed to more engagement with LGBTQ people; conversely, the rest of the world asked Africa to study "how to accompany people in polygamous unions who are approaching the faith." This isn't exactly an issue the church has had to deal with often in Europe or the Americas. Both conservatives and liberals came out of the meeting disappointed that the other side was winning. And while Catholics worldwide were invited to participate in a survey on topics covered in the synod, fewer than 1% participated. There was a very good feature in NYT earlier this week showing two very different Chicago-area parishes, one on either side of that debate. Next steps are another similar synod meeting next October, in which the bishops should produce a final report that includes recommendations to the Pope, who will then release a papal letter (which may or may not include concrete changes to church policy). Women allowed to be deacons? That's been under discussion for awhile now. I can see that happening, maybe in my lifetime. Clerical celibacy? Maybe 80% favored a study, but that ain't changing. LGBTO issues? I have noticed that the Catholic church just doesn't want to go there. At all. To be clear, I'm not taking a side on this: I have no dog in the fight. But this is one of those things I find interesting since it doesn't have clear scriptural demands, and wasn't a church-wide requirement (and maybe not even an especially common practice) for several centuries after the start of the church. So it seems to this outsider more tradition than necessity. BUT...that's coming from somebody who was raised conservative Lutheran, "sola scriptura" and all that. So unlike Catholicism, for that type of Lutheran, Scripture (capitalized here because in that tradition, it's absolutely a proper noun!) is everything. That was a big part of the Reformation, after all, for Luther especially. So I can see why to Catholics, tradition matters a lot more. EDIT - btw, it might interest you to know, the form of Lutheranism I come from is almost opposite of what you're describing. Married clergy is more or less a given--while there is no rule about it, it's very rare to see a pastor who isn't married--but where you're saying women deacons has been under discussion for a long time (hinting it might happen), this form of Lutheranism staunchly opposes women in clergy. In fact, that has been among the major issues keeping it from joining the much larger, much more liberal forms of Lutheranism that most people in America know.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Oct 29, 2023 18:38:45 GMT
Women allowed to be deacons? That's been under discussion for awhile now. I can see that happening, maybe in my lifetime. Clerical celibacy? Maybe 80% favored a study, but that ain't changing. LGBTO issues? I have noticed that the Catholic church just doesn't want to go there. At all. To be clear, I'm not taking a side on this: I have no dog in the fight. But this is one of those things I find interesting since it doesn't have clear scriptural demands, and wasn't a church-wide requirement (and maybe not even an especially common practice) for several centuries after the start of the church. So it seems to this outsider more tradition than necessity.BUT...that's coming from somebody who was raised conservative Lutheran, "sola scriptura" and all that. So unlike Catholicism, for that type of Lutheran, Scripture (capitalized here because in that tradition, it's absolutely a proper noun!) is everything. That was a big part of the Reformation, after all, for Luther especially. So I can see why to Catholics, tradition matters a lot more. EDIT - btw, it might interest you to know, the form of Lutheranism I come from is almost opposite of what you're describing. Married clergy is more or less a given--while there is no rule about it, it's very rare to see a pastor who isn't married--but where you're saying women deacons has been under discussion for a long time (hinting it might happen), this form of Lutheranism staunchly opposes women in clergy. In fact, that has been among the major issues keeping it from joining the much larger, much more liberal forms of Lutheranism that most people in America know. Oh, yes, tradition reigned/reigns. That being said, this is just an opinion; I have done no research on the subject. I think the main reason(s) that women deacons, clerical celibacy, LGBTQ issues, and other related topics are getting the discussion and attention they are now getting is because of necessity. Supply and demand. I don't want to be cold or...mathematical...in addressing the issues, but the Catholic church has a numbers problem. The diaconate is dwindling. There is a serious shortage of priests. Nuns/sisters are almost extinct in Catholic schools. We've discussed the decreasing attendance and participation in the parishes. As I mentioned above, LGBTQ has to wait in line; there's enough other issues and traditions (ha ha) ahead of them. So, I think the church is saying, hey, we can't go on like this. We need...people. How can we get them? How can we keep them? Let's talk about it. They don't necessarily want to break centuries' old traditions. They don't want to open the proverbial Pandora's Box. But, they don't want churches (buildings) closing either.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 15, 2023 14:10:11 GMT
Strange things in the sky above the forests of north-central Minnesota! On Monday, many residents (and a few cameras) near the small city of Bemidji (where you can find Paul Bunyan and Babe, his ox ... or at least big statues of them) observed a flash of light and, a few seconds later, a loud boom that rattled windows and could be heard throughout approximately a 50-mile area. Experts and officials at first suggested it might be a meteor, but some experts now say the boom should have been louder and happened later after the flash if that were the case. However, no alternatives have been (credibly) suggested. www.startribune.com/bright-flash-in-bemidji-sky-on-monday-could-have-been-a-meteor/600319602/There is one famous northwestern Minnesota UFO incident already ... maybe this is another!
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 3, 2024 17:01:01 GMT
If you live in southeastern Iowa, central Illinois, or maybe northwestern Indiana, bugs could make your life loud and a little bit gross this spring. This spring will mark the once-every-221-year event of the overlapping appearances of cicadas of both the Northern Illinois Brood (every 17 years) and the Great Southern Brood (every 13 years). It last happened in the year of the Louisiana Purchase, 1803! The result will be the appearance of more than 1 trillion cicadas in a 16-state area mostly in the Midwest and Southeast. This is enough cicadas that, if laid one after the other, could go to the moon and back 33 times. Cicadas live about a month, but apparently there could be enough of their corpses piling up during that time that people may even need to shovel or sweep them from sidewalks. Here's a story about it.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 6, 2024 13:00:48 GMT
This is superficially about politics, but it's more about American society in general, so I'm putting it here. As you probably know, polling organizations like Gallup and Pew regularly conduct polls on demographics either for approval or in a political context. It's the latter--"would you vote for someone who is [category] for president?"-- that Gallup just published. It is really disheartening. The number of groups of people--not fringe ideologies, but just ethnic groups and such--that a significant number of Americans would NOT vote for just because of their demographic categories is surprisingly high. Among them: The below numbers are the percentages of those respondents who WOULD vote for a person of the listed categories if their political party nominated such a person. The remainder, of course, are those who would not or who aren't sure. - A woman, 93% - A Hispanic, 93% - A Catholic, 92% - A Black, 92% - Jewish, 88% - Gay or lesbian, 74% - A Muslim, 71% - Someone 70+, 63% - An atheist, 60% - A socialist, 42% - Someone 80+, 31% - Someone charged with a felony, 29% - Someone convicted of a felony by a jury, 23% (The latter categories, I suspect, will be tested in about nine months.) Maybe I'm naive, but I am shocked that, for example, 12% of people would not vote for their own party's candidate if s/he was Jewish, or that 26% wouldn't vote for their own party's candidate if s/he was gay. Because that would make me suspect the actual numbers of people biased against these various groups are higher (since I'm sure they feel more fondly toward people in their own party).
|
|