"What will happen to Catholics and others . . . ?"

[jsgoddess]

From a blog post that has gotten some discussion on very conservative message boards (like Free Republic):

... if the SSM advocates are right and opposition to SSM becomes analogous to racism in our society, what will happen to Catholics and others whose views on SSM cannot and will not change? Are they to be excluded from public office, political and judicial appointments, or places of trust and responsibility within private institutions (e.g., law firm partnerships)? I posed the question to him because I was curious to hear his response, since he is generally a kind and reasonable person who seemed open to other viewpoints.

His response was very disappointing, and it shook my confidence in him. He responded to me by saying something along the lines of: "Well, they [Catholics and others] will either have to change their views or be treated in the same way that white supremacists and the segregationist Senators were treated. They were excluded from the judiciary entirely for decades because of the South's views on race." (http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/01/what-will-happen-to-catholics-and-others-.html)

I read this and thought, "Well, what else would you expect?" If you behave and vote in a way that others perceive as hateful and bigoted, you will be perceived by them as hateful and bigoted. There really isn't anything shocking about that, is there? Assuming for the moment that this blogger is in earnest and is genuinely shocked at this idea, are they being naive in their surprise at this professor's response, or is the professor really saying something shocking and ugly?

(The post is pretty short, and I while I think I grabbed the important bits, you may believe differently.)

[Inner Stickler]

I'm with you. It's homophobic crap and I don't give anyone a pass for it any more than I would give them a pass for racist, sexist or ageist crap.

[TruCelt]

I agree with the professor. I have personally prevented an openly anti-gay employee from being granted a management position. Were any of the employees she would have managed gay? Maybe, I don't know.

Was she able to leave her anti-gay sentiments at the door when she entered the office building? No. she had attempted to "convert" gay co-workers and left pamplets for religious "healing" workshops on the desks of openly gay subcontractors. I treated her as I would any other person whose personal predjudices impinged upon the atmosphere and productivity of the workplace.

Remember that slave-owners also pointed to religious texts to justify their behavior, even stating that they were mandated by God to control the lives of "lesser" beings.

[Marley23]

It's the marketplace of ideas in action: groups will either change with the times or they'll get rejected and left behind. That applies to political parties, it applies to religious groups, it applies to everyone. I have no sympathy for people who whine that society is rejecting their prejudices.

[Simplicio]

I imagine most Catholics who remain opposed to SSM will just learn to separate their views on the institution from the people who actually practice it, at least publicly.


I mean, the public has pretty much decided that they are OK with couples co-habitating (and presumably shagging and using birthcontrol) without being married. And despite the fact that the Catholic Church has decreed such people to be in "grave moral error", and at least some subset of Catholics presumably agree and occasionally try and convice others of the error of their ways, modern Western Catholics seem to function in a world of unmarried couples without too much friction.

I suspect they'll be at more or less the same place with gay marriage in less then a generation.

[BrainGlutton]

Of course, you can be against SSM and still get elected. That might change someday (just as there's now a practical limit on how much racism a candidate can express and hope to win), but not in your lifetime or mine.

[iiandyiiii]

Various American denominations supported slavery at certain points in history, and (IIRC) many Southern Baptist congregations have openly opposed interracial marriage as recently as just the last few decades. They've changed.

It's probably tougher for the Catholic Church to change, because it's so big and centralized, but I'm pretty sure they were ok with slavery a few hundred years ago- and only recently admitted that prosecuting Galileo was a mistake. I think they can change too.

[ctnguy]

Are they seriously trying to argue that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because if it is then those opposed to it will be perceived to be bigoted? :confused:

[Steve MB]

From a blog post that has gotten some discussion on very conservative message boards (like Free Republic):
...if the SSM advocates are right and opposition to SSM becomes analogous to racism in our society, what will happen to Catholics and others whose views on SSM cannot and will not change? Are they to be excluded from public office, political and judicial appointments, or places of trust and responsibility within private institutions (e.g., law firm partnerships)?


I would bet my next paycheck that 90% plus of the people expressing indignation on "very conservative message boards" (and make that 99% for Free Republic) would have no objection -- and in general would actively support -- the exclusion of gays from "public office, political and judicial appointments, or places of trust and responsibility within private institutions".

Any among them who seek sympathy are cordially direction to the pages of the dictionary between "shit" and "syphilis".

[Steve MB]

Reviewing this "argument" a bit further, I found this gem:

On the contrary, he made it abundantly clear that Catholics and others who persist in their dissent are to be treated the way we treat white supremacists. They are to be stigmatized, subjected to discrimination, and denied the right to hold certain offices. (emphasis added)

One has a right to hold an office such as law firm partnership? Hot damn! Now all I need to do is decide which law office I shall visit to assert this right (preferably one characterized by high six-figure salaries and a nymphomaniacal secretarial staff)....

[trabajábamos]

It's just fun to see the faux "pro-liberty" crowd contorting themselves in anguish over a potential future in which bigots could be taken to task for their bigotry while, at the same time, they ignore the bigotry we have right here in the present.

[dorsk188]

Of course, you can be against SSM and still get elected. That might change someday (just as there's now a practical limit on how much racism a candidate can express and hope to win), but not in your lifetime or mine.
I'm not sure about that. The LGBT has taken amazing strides in the last decade even. In 2004, the GOP's national strategy was to oppose SSM as visibly as possible. Now, most Republican candidates have awkward canned responses, and would really like to go on to the next topic.

It's probably related to the supercharged cultural development in response to the widespread use of the internet, but whatever the reason times' they are a changing, but with a faster and faster beat. I suspect the Catholic Church will probably schism over gays (and over a lot of other issues that currently bubble below the surface), into a progressive and regressive church. No idea which side the Vatican ends up on. The conservative church (or the whole Catholic Church if there is no meaningful split) will have a lot of LDS-esque problems as they are forced by the tide of progress to accept people for who they are.

All of this presupposes that religion continues to exist in a meaningful sense and / or our society doesn't collapse into another dark age, which I think is ultimately more concerning than the fate of bigots.

[Condescending Robot]

The idea that religions don't change their fundamental doctrines in order to remain socially viable, and then pretend the new beliefs of convenience were what they really believed all along, is so contrary to every bit of evidence about how the world actually works as to belong in the ever-expanding category of pure fantasy items that conservatives believe.

Catholics will be doing same-sex weddings in cathedrals within fifty years, shaking their fingers at anyone who has a problem with it, and yelling claims of "bias" and atheism at anyone who disputes the claim that they have been doing so since first century Rome.

[Miller]

The idea that religions don't change their fundamental doctrines in order to remain socially viable, and then pretend the new beliefs of convenience were what they really believed all along, is so contrary to every bit of evidence about how the world actually works as to belong in the ever-expanding category of pure fantasy items that conservatives believe.

On top of which, the idea that Catholics don't have any choice about being homophobic will come as a great surprise to my very Catholic, very pro-SSM mother.

[Guinastasia]

Catholics will be doing same-sex weddings in cathedrals within fifty years, shaking their fingers at anyone who has a problem with it, and yelling claims of "bias" and atheism at anyone who disputes the claim that they have been doing so since first century Rome.


Considering they still don't allow female or hell, even married priests, I highly, highly doubt that.

[Trinopus]

Are they seriously trying to argue that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because if it is then those opposed to it will be perceived to be bigoted? :confused:

No... They're complaining that same-sex marriage will infringe on their right to act upon their bigotry. A guy who is, say, a County Commissioner of Public Records will be forced (gasp!) to issue marriage certificates to two men. This (somehow?) infringes upon his rights.

Same old sewage in a new package. They're also claiming (falsely!) that ministers and rabbis and priests (what is this, some kind of joke?) will be forced to celebrate SSM in their churches. Completely untrue, but their kind of fear-mongering has never been particularly truth-dependent.

[zoid]

Catholics will be doing same-sex weddings in cathedrals within fifty years, shaking their fingers at anyone who has a problem with it, and yelling claims of "bias" and atheism at anyone who disputes the claim that they have been doing so since first century Rome.

Very true.

Catholics will be doing same-sex weddings in cathedrals within fifty years, shaking their fingers at anyone who has a problem with it, and yelling claims of "bias" and atheism at anyone who disputes the claim that they have been doing so since first century Rome.

I got $500 that says this ain't gonna happen. 50 years? No way.

[doreen]

I imagine most Catholics who remain opposed to SSM will just learn to separate their views on the institution from the people who actually practice it, at least publicly.


I mean, the public has pretty much decided that they are OK with couples co-habitating (and presumably shagging and using birthcontrol) without being married. And despite the fact that the Catholic Church has decreed such people to be in "grave moral error", and at least some subset of Catholics presumably agree and occasionally try and convice others of the error of their ways, modern Western Catholics seem to function in a world of unmarried couples without too much friction.

I suspect they'll be at more or less the same place with gay marriage in less then a generation.

It seems like no one involved in that exchange realizes that this is the most likely result. I mean, the Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce, but I haven't seen anyone going around trying to get rid of legalized divorce because of it. One bishop or another complained about the divorced Andrew Cuomo living with Sandra Lee and Cuomo was known before the election to support SSM. Apparently the Catholic voters didn't much care about any of these issues since he got elected anyway.

[MsWhatsit]

It's true that the Catholic church doesn't officially recognize divorce, but they do recognize annulments, which are really not that hard to obtain and which are a de facto divorce. Personally the ease with which one can obtain an annulment these days says to me that the Church has tacitly caved on the whole "no divorce" thing. (And before anyone says that annulments are carefully considered and blah whatever, I'll just point out that my mom has now had three. She is currently engaged to what will be her fourth husband, and they plan to get married with the full blessing of the Church.)

[Skara_Brae]

It's true that the Catholic church doesn't officially recognize divorce, but they do recognize annulments, which are really not that hard to obtain and which are a de facto divorce. Personally the ease with which one can obtain an annulment these days says to me that the Church has tacitly caved on the whole "no divorce" thing. (And before anyone says that annulments are carefully considered and blah whatever, I'll just point out that my mom has now had three. She is currently engaged to what will be her fourth husband, and they plan to get married with the full blessing of the Church.)

This may depend a lot on the local diocese. I know several people who have been denied annulments, even one that could prove emotional abuse and had no children.

[Bryan Ekers]

Hey, increasing the irrelevance of the Catholic Church is but one of the many happy benefits of gay marriage.

[Inner Stickler]

I got $500 that says this ain't gonna happen. 50 years? No way.Especially with Benedict in charge. He is not what one would call progressive.

[Simplicio]

Especially with Benedict in charge. He is not what one would call progressive.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and speculate Benedict's Papacy won't last 50 years.

[panache45]

I've never understood why religious opinions seem to get a pass, and are untouchable by criticism. People are responsible for the beliefs they choose to embrace, and religious beliefs are no exception. If you believe in stupid things, you shouldn't be surprised when people consider you stupid, and act accordingly.

[Bricker]

The idea that religions don't change their fundamental doctrines in order to remain socially viable, and then pretend the new beliefs of convenience were what they really believed all along, is so contrary to every bit of evidence about how the world actually works as to belong in the ever-expanding category of pure fantasy items that conservatives believe.

Catholics will be doing same-sex weddings in cathedrals within fifty years, shaking their fingers at anyone who has a problem with it, and yelling claims of "bias" and atheism at anyone who disputes the claim that they have been doing so since first century Rome.

Can you give an example of another change in fundamental doctrine Catholics have made?

[Inner Stickler]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and speculate Benedict's Papacy won't last 50 years.He seems like the kind of guy who'll hang on from sheer force of will. However, his election to the papacy tells me that the college of cardinals is moving away from the ecumenical reforms of John Paul II and I would not be surprised if the next several popes are as conservative and traditional as he is.

[Krokodil]

Especially with Benedict in charge. He is not what one would call progressive.

He was one of the architects of Vatican II (maybe the most sweeping reform in Church history), long before he was John Paul II's leg-breaker. I'm not a fan in general, but he deserves a little more credit than he gets.

[Bryan Ekers]

He was one of the architects of Vatican II (maybe the most sweeping reform in Church history)

Even more than the Reformation? Wow.

[Inner Stickler]

Can you give an example of another change in fundamental doctrine Catholics have made?Pope Eugene IV (http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html)
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.vs.
The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God's word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize.

[Inner Stickler]

He was one of the architects of Vatican II (maybe the most sweeping reform in Church history), long before he was John Paul II's leg-breaker. I'm not a fan in general, but he deserves a little more credit than he gets.I don't really care what he did 40+ years ago. Now that he's pope, he's basically a hatemonger.

[Guinastasia]

I've never understood why religious opinions seem to get a pass, and are untouchable by criticism. People are responsible for the beliefs they choose to embrace, and religious beliefs are no exception. If you believe in stupid things, you shouldn't be surprised when people consider you stupid, and act accordingly.


Who here said they get a pass? Of course they shouldn't. If you're arguing that by law, they should be forced to perform SSM, that's a different ball game. (Of course, it's late and I'm half-asleep, so I could just be totally misreading you)

[sqweels]

Can you give an example of another change in fundamental doctrine Catholics have made?
MrWhatsit provided one: Marriage annulment, which is an obvious bullshit work-around to avoid the prohibition on divorce.

[2sense]

The thing that struck me was the blogger's view of his relationship with his teacher. He asked his teacher for an opinion and then is affronted when the opinion is given without emotion and despite the fact that the teacher knew he would disagree with it. His confidence in the teacher was shaken.

WTF? Should a teacher be respected for telling students what they want to hear? Or for sugarcoating things for adult students? What does this guy expect?

[sqweels]

A question just occurred to me: If a man marries a woman who turns out to be infertile, it's a safe bet he'll be granted an annulment by the RCC if he doesn't want to stay married to her.

The question is, would the clergy be happy or unhappy about it? Would they encourage him to stay with her in the name of the sanctity of marriage, not to mention compassion for his poor wife? Or would they encourage him to leave her and find someone he can have children with? After all, being married to an infertile spouse is anti-procreation. You're not creating new life, which the Church maintains is all-important. You might as well be using contraceptives, or indeed, you might as well be gay.

[Guinastasia]

MrWhatsit provided one: Marriage annulment, which is an obvious bullshit work-around to avoid the prohibition on divorce.

Annulment has always been a practice by the church - it's not a recent one.

[Miller]

Can you give an example of another change in fundamental doctrine Catholics have made?

Y'all stopped burning protestants at the stake, didn't you?

[flodnak]

Even more than the Reformation? Wow.Possible Nitpick Alert: The Reformation is generally understood to refer to the Protestant Reformation, which can't be said to have been a major change in Roman Catholic Church history. On the other hand, it led directly to the Counter-Reformation, which was indeed an RCC internal matter. The Counter-Reformation as a whole led to more changes than Vatican II, but with one crucial caveat: the C-R was a series of ecumenical councils and decrees during a period that lasted for over a century. Vatican II lasted three years.

As to the original post: people who write these things seem to assume that the US would be entering completely unexplored territory if it had marriage equality laws, as if no one had ever done it before. But there are already ten countries that have full marriage equality, and around twenty more that have some form of legal partnership for same-sex couples. Rather than fret about what might happen, why not look at the reality of what has happened in those countries?

[Der Trihs]

But there are already ten countries that have full marriage equality, and around twenty more that have some form of legal partnership for same-sex couples. Rather than fret about what might happen, why not look at the reality of what has happened in those countries?
Because then the anti-SSM crowd has to face the terrible, horrible truth that the answer is...not much.

[panache45]

Who here said they get a pass? Of course they shouldn't. If you're arguing that by law, they should be forced to perform SSM, that's a different ball game. (Of course, it's late and I'm half-asleep, so I could just be totally misreading you)

No, I'm not arguing for any kind of force. How did you infer that, from what I said?

[John Mace]

As to the original post: people who write these things seem to assume that the US would be entering completely unexplored territory if it had marriage equality laws, as if no one had ever done it before. But there are already ten countries that have full marriage equality, and around twenty more that have some form of legal partnership for same-sex couples. Rather than fret about what might happen, why not look at the reality of what has happened in those countries?

No need to look to other countries. There are several states where SSM is legal in the US already.

And the first state to legalize it, MA, is heavily Catholic.

[Gorsnak]

No need to look to other countries. There are several states where SSM is legal in the US already.

And the first state to legalize it, MA, is heavily Catholic.

Except of course that married gay couples in those states aren't married in the eyes of the federal government. They're still a long way from true marriage equality.

[Illuminatiprimus]

As to the original post: people who write these things seem to assume that the US would be entering completely unexplored territory if it had marriage equality laws, as if no one had ever done it before. But there are already ten countries that have full marriage equality, and around twenty more that have some form of legal partnership for same-sex couples. Rather than fret about what might happen, why not look at the reality of what has happened in those countries?Because ideology and rhetoric are far more comfortable to swathe yourself in than cold, hard reality and evidence.

The war on drugs is predicated on the notion that people being freely able to take drugs will lead to an increase in drug use and the start of the disintegration of society (I'm simplifying but that's the emotive core of it). However if you point to actual places where drugs are decriminalised (Portugal) or legalised/regulated (the Netherlands) you have no evidence of this outcome, so the premise of the argument is clearly flawed. The fact that the US is still waging the war on drugs, even when other countries have stopped and managed to not fall into the sea, and in spite of the growing body of academic opinion that says the war is hurting more than it is helping, shows that the policy is based on anything but evidence.

It's the same for those who continue to hold views on homosexuality that they claim are about the good of society, or the family, or the sanctity of marriage etc but which actually are just them saying they don't like it, because the evidence from the countries which have SSM shows that none of the doomsday prophecies ever come true. As a gay myself I can actually reconcile myself far more easily to someone who says "I just don't like homosexuality, I think it's wrong because I do, and that's that" than to someone who tries to pull some bullshit justification out of their backside which they feel then legitimises their view. It's the reason why I won't give religion a pass on this at all, and I don't understand the need to give "religious conscience" a free ride when it comes to practising discrimination.

[Ravenman]

I realize the premise quoted by the OP is what would happen if society's views on SSM became analogous to those on race, in which opponents were generally viewed as being so far out of the mainstream that simply being Catholic (or whatever) would have the stigma of being in some white nationalist party, or whatever. But I don't think the comparison to race is the most likely.

I think if SSM becomes a widely accepted practice in the US, it would be viewed similar to the abortion issue. The law is the law, it is argued about but is upheld, and having a different viewpoint on the issue would most certainly not be a scarlet letter.

[zoid]

I'm Catholic and honestly the the fierce opposition the church has to homosexuality has a shaky grounding at best. There's like, what 2 or 3 passages that address it? There are probably more instances advocating the stoning of adulterers. It's paranoia and frankly of all the Catholics I know I can think of one person who actually holds the line with the Church and frankly he's a douche.

So - tangential question, is there ANY way those of us in the church can sway doctrine?

[Paranoid Randroid]

I'm Catholic and honestly the the fierce opposition the church has to homosexuality has a shaky grounding at best. There's like, what 2 or 3 passages that address it?

Although that’s true, it should be held in mind that — in the eyes of the Catholic Church — any sexual act must be open in principle to the possibility of conception. (Ignoring for a moment such cases as sterile married couples.) This fact alone would forbid any kind of same-gender sexual activity. Don’t forget that the Church seems to hold that the best kind of life to lead, outside of the vocations, is in marriage with lots and lots o’ children; to them it seems wrong (“unnatural”, “disordered”) to desire otherwise.

So - tangential question, is there ANY way those of us in the church can sway doctrine?

Waiting and hoping? That’s about it.

[Paranoid Randroid]

(FWIW, and maybe not very much, I had a fairly recent brief flirtation with Catholicism. One issue that shook me out of it was the Church’s view of persons like me, who do not desire children — it’s one thing to forbid sex but another to insinuate there’s something wrong with me.)

[John Mace]

I'm Catholic and honestly the the fierce opposition the church has to homosexuality has a shaky grounding at best. There's like, what 2 or 3 passages that address it? There are probably more instances advocating the stoning of adulterers. It's paranoia and frankly of all the Catholics I know I can think of one person who actually holds the line with the Church and frankly he's a douche.

So - tangential question, is there ANY way those of us in the church can sway doctrine?

Americans are pretty famous for being Cafeteria Catholics, so I can see them being pretty much in the mainstream on SSM, as they are on abortion. But I can't see the Church itself reversing it's stance on homosexuality. I mean, they're still anti birth control!

[Lamia]

I read this and thought, "Well, what else would you expect?" If you behave and vote in a way that others perceive as hateful and bigoted, you will be perceived by them as hateful and bigoted. There really isn't anything shocking about that, is there? Assuming for the moment that this blogger is in earnest and is genuinely shocked at this idea, are they being naive in their surprise at this professor's response, or is the professor really saying something shocking and ugly?I'd use a stronger word than "naive" if it really never occurred to this guy that if opposition to same-sex marriage comes to widely be seen as equivalent to racism then opponents of same-sex marriage will be seen as equivalent to racists. He doesn't need to personally believe that this is fair to see that the former would almost certainly lead to the latter.

I suspect this was actually just an attempt to play the victim and make same-sex advocates look like the real bigots, who if they had their way would discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs. In reality there's no way it would become legal to prohibit same-sex marriage opponents from running for public office, etc., they'd just be very unlikely to win due to the unpopularity of their non-mainstream views. As for Catholics, I personally know quite a few Catholics who are all for same-sex marriage. Looking at Wikipedia's list of countries that already recognize same-sex marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Legal_recognition), a majority (6/10) have large Catholic populations and several are predominantly Catholic. If the Portuguese (84% Catholic) can deal with legal same-sex marriage then the Catholics of the US should be able to as well.

[Anduril]

On top of which, the idea that Catholics don't have any choice about being homophobic will come as a great surprise to my very Catholic, very pro-SSM mother.

This. When I was still Catholic, I was taught that you can disagree in good conscience with Church teaching especially when said Church teaching has not been declared to be dogma. It would be very easy for Catholics to simply ignore the Church hierarchy on this issue.

[Illuminatiprimus]

This. When I was still Catholic, I was taught that you can disagree in good conscience with Church teaching especially when said Church teaching has not been declared to be dogma. It would be very easy for Catholics to simply ignore the Church hierarchy on this issue.Doesn't that sort of defeat the point of being part of an established religion one of whom's central tenets that the stewardship of God's workings on earth is the priesthood? If you accept that the the hierarchy of the church represent God, even if it's not on something official, then what's the point in supporting that particular flavour of Christianity at all? There are plenty of Christian denominations within the Protestant wing that don't have a hierarchy and allow personal interpretation of scripture, including acceptance of homosexuality.

If you're going to argue with this point (or indeed abortion, birth control, divorce etc) then why not just chuck out the rest of it?

[Bryan Ekers]

If you're going to argue with this point (or indeed abortion, birth control, divorce etc) then why not just chuck out the rest of it?

It's all arbitrary anyway, so why not pick and choose? Theology isn't like math - you can't decide to "like" addition while disregarding subtraction.

[Illuminatiprimus]

It's all arbitrary anyway, so why not pick and choose? Theology isn't like math - you can't decide to "like" addition while disregarding subtraction.That's a false analogy, so you're right, it isn't. Maths is based on objective fact and choosing to disregard one part of it would have actual consequences for the world of science and engineering, no matter whether you think it should or not. Theology, which is a completely human theoretical construct, only impacts on humans, so yes you can decide to choose one part and ignore another, or ditch the whole lot and pick something else (or nothing) if you really want to. People typically don't want to make that choice because it comes with a social price tag, or because they're comfortable with it because it's how they were raised, but that's not the same as saying they have no hoice in the matter.

[John Mace]

Doesn't that sort of defeat the point of being part of an established religion one of whom's central tenets that the stewardship of God's workings on earth is the priesthood? If you accept that the the hierarchy of the church represent God, even if it's not on something official, then what's the point in supporting that particular flavour of Christianity at all? There are plenty of Christian denominations within the Protestant wing that don't have a hierarchy and allow personal interpretation of scripture, including acceptance of homosexuality.

If you're going to argue with this point (or indeed abortion, birth control, divorce etc) then why not just chuck out the rest of it?

Catholics are required to accept dogma, but not all Church teachings are dogma.

For instance, you can't deny the divinity of Christ and still call yourself a Catholic. Well, you can, but the Church will excommunicate you if you make a big deal about it.

And what a Catholic supports in the civil sphere is not necessarily what he might support in the ecumenical sphere. So, a Catholic might support SSM at the government level, but still accept that it ain't going to happen in RCC.

[Illuminatiprimus]

Catholics are required to accept dogma, but not all Church teachings are dogma.

For instance, you can't deny the divinity of Christ and still call yourself a Catholic. Well, you can, but the Church will excommunicate you if you make a big deal about it.

And what a Catholic supports in the civil sphere is not necessarily what he might support in the ecumenical sphere. So, a Catholic might support SSM at the government level, but still accept that it ain't going to happen in RCC.Sure, but the point being made originally was that one can disagree with the Church hierarchy on an issue, which is essentially saying you're arguing with the Church's position on something. Yes one can exist in a state of cognitive dissonance of believing that Church's teachings in one part of your brain and rejecting them in another, but to me that just sounds like harder work than ditching a belief system that doesn't actually mesh with what you think.

[Bridget Burke]

Doesn't that sort of defeat the point of being part of an established religion one of whom's central tenets that the stewardship of God's workings on earth is the priesthood? If you accept that the the hierarchy of the church represent God, even if it's not on something official, then what's the point in supporting that particular flavour of Christianity at all? There are plenty of Christian denominations within the Protestant wing that don't have a hierarchy and allow personal interpretation of scripture, including acceptance of homosexuality.

If you're going to argue with this point (or indeed abortion, birth control, divorce etc) then why not just chuck out the rest of it?

Where is Catholicism an Established Religion? England has its own Church but most countries have free range religions.

Perhaps they like the Church decor better? Some of the Protestant churches are awfully plain--minimalist but not all that elegant. The Episcopalians come close--Christ Church Cathedral in Downtown Houston is pretty Gothic; there was a bad fire in 1938 (http://www.christchurchcathedral.org/default.aspx?name=au_history):

One fireman, a Roman Catholic, sprayed the rood screen with his fire hose, determined to save it. The screen stands today, with only minor charring visible from the altar side.

But, even there, a very small crucifix above the altar is the only "graven image" you can see. No Stations of the Cross, no BVM, no candles you can light. And no services in Latin, ever....

Regarding the OP: I wouldn't be concerned about what the Freepers think. In my mind, they're one step above the KKK--& as a Catholic kid in Texas, I knew we were among the groups they hated....

No Church is required to marry anybody. They refuse all the time, for all sorts of reasons...

[Illuminatiprimus]

Where is Catholicism an Established Religion? England has its own Church but most countries have free range religions. I was using established to mean an organised religion, with an orthodoxy, some kind of central authority etc. I'm pretty clear that covers the Catholic Church (and if you want to be pedantic it's the established - that is, the state religion - of Costa Rica, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco and Vatican City). Perhaps they like the Church decor better? Some of the Protestant churches are awfully plain--minimalist but not all that elegant. The Episcopalians come close--Christ Church Cathedral in Downtown Houston is pretty Gothic; there was a bad fire in 1938 (http://www.christchurchcathedral.org/default.aspx?name=au_history):



But, even there, a very small crucifix above the altar is the only "graven image" you can see. No Stations of the Cross, no BVM, no candles you can light. And no services in Latin, ever...I have no idea what this anecdote is supposed to be telling me.

[Bryan Ekers]

For instance, you can't deny the divinity of Christ and still call yourself a Catholic. Well, you can, but the Church will excommunicate you if you make a big deal about it.

Well... so? What's to keep someone from declaring himself Pope of the New Catholic Church or the True Catholic Church? What authority is going to prove he isn't? Sure, his closet may not have as many fancy hats and silk slippers as Joseph Ratzinger's, but that's just a matter of time, isn't it?

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Considering they still don't allow female or hell, even married priests, I highly, highly doubt that.Well, it's only been the last 700 or so years that priests weren't allowed to marry. They were allowed to marry for 1300 years before that -- the first 2/3rds of church history. About twice as much time allowing married priests as forbidding them.

So they can always just go back to that, when the celibacy of priests becomes too big an impediment to recruiting enough priests. Just give out an explanation to cover this last temporary period, and that the church are now reverting to the original rules.

P.S. There already are even a few married priests in the Roman Catholic Church. There's an exception for a priest in a communicating church, like a Greek Orthodox church, who wants to convert and become a catholic priest. If he's already married, he can stay married, and still be recognized as a catholic priest.

And with the recent splits in the Anglican/Episcopal church over women & gay priests, the Roman Catholic church has been trying to attract away some of the Conservatives who are upset by this. Including indications that married Angliican priests can become Catholic priests, while staying married (provided, of course, that they aren't female or gay).

[Guinastasia]

No, I'm not arguing for any kind of force. How did you infer that, from what I said?

I didn't think that was what you were saying. But when you said "why should the church get a pass?", who here said they should?


Question -- what is the church's position on an elderly couple getting married? After all, they're certainly not going to be having kids!

[Ulfreida]

As a proud Cafeteria Catholic, I am not going to set foot in the ol' Hierarchy vs Laity of the Catholic Church swamp, but I've been recently thinking about an OP-related something my daughter said after reading one of those anti-ssm rant sites. She said reading such stuff made her reflect upon the fear of shame.

People who share that cluster of beliefs (the inferiority of races other than white, hatred of homosexuality, disbelief in science . . . well, you know the cluster) are afraid that their beliefs will be made so shameful by the greater society that they will be driven into social exile, shamed out of a world which once pretty much believed what they still do. Not an unjustified fear, obviously. They already know that they are mocked by people with more education, greater cultural experience, etc. But even worse than being mocked is being shamed.

If you are ridiculed by strangers, but you know that there are people who love you, support you, believe what you believe, you can withstand a lot. But if you are truly isolated and shamed, that's something that can kill you, psychologically if not literally. Hence the desperate, passionate, unreasoning clinging to the group. I don't think we take the fear of shaming as the serious political force I am beginning to think it is.

I just so wonder what motivates people to cling with all their being to beliefs so demonstrably horrible. Thus, you know, this pondering thing I'm doing here.

I remember another thing she said, now -- she said that if one imagines a culture in which everyone is a part of the whole, instead of everyone being an individual interacting at will with other individuals, then it is a lot easier to see that in such a culture, anyone who deviates from the norms of that culture is a threat to the culture itself, because everyone is -- must be -- deeply connected to everyone else. What you do affects everyone around you. When people say, how is my marriage to someone of the same sex going to threaten YOUR marriage, well, that is how. It is a different way of looking at things and I can't even say that, when it's stated that way, that it doesn't have a kind of beauty and warmth to it sadly missing in our atomized modern world.

There are obvious retorts.

Oh, and my daughter would like to be able marry her girlfriend someday.

[monavis]

Y'all stopped burning protestants at the stake, didn't you?

They also burned other Catholics, they were nor choosey!

[Anduril]

Doesn't that sort of defeat the point of being part of an established religion one of whom's central tenets that the stewardship of God's workings on earth is the priesthood? If you accept that the the hierarchy of the church represent God, even if it's not on something official, then what's the point in supporting that particular flavour of Christianity at all? There are plenty of Christian denominations within the Protestant wing that don't have a hierarchy and allow personal interpretation of scripture, including acceptance of homosexuality.

If you're going to argue with this point (or indeed abortion, birth control, divorce etc) then why not just chuck out the rest of it?

Because as a Catholic you are taught that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church that can trace its lineage back to Peter. A Roman Catholic will not just chuck the RCC when he is given an out via his conscience on the non-dogmatic teachings.

[Illuminatiprimus]

If you are ridiculed by strangers, but you know that there are people who love you, support you, believe what you believe, you can withstand a lot. But if you are truly isolated and shamed, that's something that can kill you, psychologically if not literally. Hence the desperate, passionate, unreasoning clinging to the group. I don't think we take the fear of shaming as the serious political force I am beginning to think it is. Very true - and until recently it has been gays who have had to put up with this kind of shame from the group who you now claim are at risk of experiencing this same shame because of their own views, which again no-one is forcing them to hold. Indeed, there are gays who STILL experience shame at the hands of that group (ex-gay therapy anyone?). So I say cry me a river to a group that chose to put gays through the psychological torture and second class citizen status they did (and continue to try and do) if they now feel bad that other people perceive them as the arseholes they are for doing so.

[Illuminatiprimus]

Because as a Catholic you are taught that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church that can trace its lineage back to Peter. A Roman Catholic will not just chuck the RCC when he is given an out via his conscience on the non-dogmatic teachings.But that's exactly my point. The one true Church as stewards of God view can't be reconciled with a person taking a position on anything that the Church doesn't agree with. If it's the one true Church that never errs then how can anyone disagree with it on anything without suffering massive internal conflict?

I suppose I'm arguing with the entire notion of cafeteria Catholicism as there are people in this thread saying that's exactly what they've done themselves. But as a counterpoint my mother joined the Church as a late teen and then left several years later because she didn't agree with their view on birth control. It was put to her she accepted it all or she was out, so she chose to go. I can understand taking that approach more than my previously mentioned cognitive/moral dissonance.

[Anduril]

But that's exactly my point. The one true Church as stewards of God view can't be reconciled with a person taking a position on anything that the Church doesn't agree with. If it's the one true Church that never errs then how can anyone disagree with it on anything without suffering massive internal conflict?


Because according to Catholic teaching, it can never err ONLY on those teachings that are declared as dogma. The Church CAN definitely err on things that have not been declared as dogma. So, as Catholic, if you in your conscience disagrees with a teaching that has not been declared a dogma, you are free to do so.

[Ulfreida]

Very true - and until recently it has been gays who have had to put up with this kind of shame from the group who you now claim are at risk of experiencing this same shame because of their own views, which again no-one is forcing them to hold. Indeed, there are gays who STILL experience shame at the hands of that group (ex-gay therapy anyone?). So I say cry me a river to a group that chose to put gays through the psychological torture and second class citizen status they did (and continue to try and do) if they now feel bad that other people perceive them as the arseholes they are for doing so.

yeah, that would be the retort all right.

[Saintly Loser]

P.S. There already are even a few married priests in the Roman Catholic Church. There's an exception for a priest in a communicating church, like a Greek Orthodox church, who wants to convert and become a catholic priest. If he's already married, he can stay married, and still be recognized as a catholic priest.

And with the recent splits in the Anglican/Episcopal church over women & gay priests, the Roman Catholic church has been trying to attract away some of the Conservatives who are upset by this. Including indications that married Angliican priests can become Catholic priests, while staying married (provided, of course, that they aren't female or gay).

Not to mention all the priests in the uniate churches (Maronites, Byzantine Catholics, etc.), who are permitted to marry.

There are plenty of married Catholic priests. Just not so many Roman Catholic priests. Although there are some.

[sisu]

The church can say gay marriage is wrong just like some religions say alcohol should be banned. No big deal, it's why we have separation. I don't see the issue here?

[monavis]

Because as a Catholic you are taught that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church that can trace its lineage back to Peter. A Roman Catholic will not just chuck the RCC when he is given an out via his conscience on the non-dogmatic teachings.

It was traced back to Peter when Constantine who was Roman naturally used that the starting point(as I see it) Christianity was very divided before that, and even Paul disagreed with Peter.Many of the other writings were detroyed and many people who disagreed hid their writnings(such as the Gnostics).There is very little writings of Peter in the NT. Even those writings have some doubt as to who wrote them.

[monavis]

Not to mention all the priests in the uniate churches (Maronites, Byzantine Catholics, etc.), who are permitted to marry.

There are plenty of married Catholic priests. Just not so many Roman Catholic priests. Although there are some.

I believe the one's who are married were converted from another branch of Christianity, and allowed to be ordained.

[shiftless]

Annulment has always been a practice by the church - it's not a recent one.

Side question. When the church grants an annulment, doesn't the state still have to grant a divorce? I mean, just because the church says the marriage is annulled doesn't mean that the couple doesn't have to go to court, get the government paperwork, divide assets, work out custody, etc. They have to do whatever the state's divorce laws require, right?

[Shodan]

Correct. Anullment is purely a religious matter, and has no effect on the state recognition of a marriage or a divorce.

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

Correct. Anullment is purely a religious matter, and has no effect on the state recognition of a marriage or a divorce. Correct. After that you have to go get either a civil divorce or(if the state you reside in allows) a civil annulment.

[Bridget Burke]

Or you can get the civil divorce/annulment first & then go through channels to get a church annulment--so you can remarry within the Church.

[Czarcasm]

Or you can get the civil divorce/annulment first & then go through channels to get a church annulment--so you can remarry within the Church.Sounds a little risky to me-a church annulment isn't automatically granted on demand.

[Steve MB]

People who share that cluster of beliefs (the inferiority of races other than white, hatred of homosexuality, disbelief in science . . . well, you know the cluster) are afraid that their beliefs will be made so shameful by the greater society that they will be driven into social exile, shamed out of a world which once pretty much believed what they still do. Not an unjustified fear, obviously. They already know that they are mocked by people with more education, greater cultural experience, etc. But even worse than being mocked is being shamed.

Even more significant, when society rejects a viewpoint that strongly it gets difficult to transmit it to the next generation, unless you're willing to retreat into an isolated enclave community. That's what people on the losing side of these issues really fear, I think.

[sisu]

Correct. Anullment is purely a religious matter, and has no effect on the state recognition of a marriage or a divorce.

Regards,
Shodan

This is the heart of the matter in this debate. Civil Union is marriage by the state's definition but not as per church teachings and as such they shoud just shut up and render unto Caeser!

If we all stopped calling it marriage and just said under law couples who cohabitate should have the same rights regardless of sex, then we would have an easier case.

[Sitnam]

Can you give an example of another change in fundamental doctrine Catholics have made?
Condoms.

[Sitnam]

The church can say gay marriage is wrong just like some religions say alcohol should be banned. No big deal, it's why we have separation. I don't see the issue here?
I'm sure homosexuals living in states passing Constitutional referendums limiting their rights as citizens can sleep easier tonight knowing you don't see a problem because of separation of Church and State.

[sisu]

I'm sure homosexuals living in states passing Constitutional referendums limiting their rights as citizens can sleep easier tonight knowing you don't see a problem because of separation of Church and State.

Just an FYI I am an an Aussie.

Using religious ideology to shape legislation is a matter of fact within the human existence. This is why in the USA and most enlightened countries we have a separation of state and church, it just seems at times that the fundies have a bigger sway than they should!

But my original point stands, I can believe that SSM is a good thing and you can believe it is a bad thing. This is quite OK.

[Bryan Ekers]

This is the heart of the matter in this debate. Civil Union is marriage by the state's definition but not as per church teachings and as such they shoud just shut up and render unto Caeser!

If we all stopped calling it marriage and just said under law couples who cohabitate should have the same rights regardless of sex, then we would have an easier case.

If the "heart" of the matter is truly something as petty and piss-ant (or whatever the Australian slang for "trivial matter that no sane person should be arguing about" is) as quibbling over the use of a word, then giving in would like yielding to the irrational squabbling demands of a bawling two year-old. Allowing this distinction is giving a reward to bigotry, as well as being utterly foolish enough to trust that bigots would be okay with compromise and that they wouldn't try to introduce further distinctions between good straight "marriage" and suspect, second-class "civil union."

[Sitnam]

Just an FYI I am an an Aussie.

Using religious ideology to shape legislation is a matter of fact within the human existence. This is why in the USA and most enlightened countries we have a separation of state and church, it just seems at times that the fundies have a bigger sway than they should!

But my original point stands, I can believe that SSM is a good thing and you can believe it is a bad thing. This is quite OK.
Is it ok for bigotry to wear a religious mask of conviction?

"I don't believe aborigines deserve the right to vote, that is my religious belief". Thinking this is of course anyones right, but can they justifiably form a political action committee to obtain these goals?

[Guinastasia]

Condoms.

Since when? Do you mean they're now for them?

[Sitnam]

Since when? Do you mean they're now for them?
Yup. (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/20/pope-says-condoms-may-be-ok-in-some-circumstances/)

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Since when? Do you mean they're now for them?
The church disapproves of condoms, but many catholic couples use them.
Just as the church disapproves of birth control pills, but many catholic couples use them.
The church strongly disapproves of abortions, but many catholic women have them. (In fact, they are more common for catholic women than women of other churches. Possibly because of the previous statements about birth control methods.)
The church disapproves of masturbation, but all catholic boys and most catholic girls do it.

Previously, the church disapproved of eating meat on Friday, but many catholics did so. Enough that this rule has been dropped, except for the 6 or 7 Fridays in Lent.

The church rules still have 8 or so "Holy Days of Obligation", where all catholics are supposed to attend Mass on that day. But most catholic churches are nearly empty on those days, despite this rule.

It's said that on some of these church rules, lay catholics have 'voted with their feet' -- they simply decline en mass to follow the church's official rules.

(Many of these rules seem to be ones about sex. And ignoring church teachings on sex has been going on for a long time. Decades ago, in parochial school, I heard a joke about this, with the punch line about the Pope: "He no play'a the game, he no make'a da rules".)

[Alley Dweller]

Since when? Do you mean they're now for them? In 2010 in an interview with a book author, the Pope floated a trial balloon. He used the example that it might be OK for a homosexual prostitute to use a condom. This raised a lot of hope that the Church may be trying to take a more reasonable position on AIDS and condoms. This also generated a huge backlash from more conservative elements. He then had an official statement (http://press.catholica.va/news_services/bulletin/news/26596.php?index=26596&po_date=21.12.2010&lang=en#TESTO%20IN%20LINGUA%20INGLESE) issued that carefully walked back his earlier comments. The statement basically said that using a condom and transmitting AIDS were both evils and a "lesser evil" is still an evil and using condoms is "not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection."

[Sitnam]

To t-bonham@scc.net, The Pope is the Catholic god's advocate on Earth, to them his Dogma is infallible. Believers 'voting' on truth is ridiculous and this entire thing unravels if popular opinion is consulted on matters of the divine.

[sisu]

Is it ok for bigotry to wear a religious mask of conviction?

"I don't believe aborigines deserve the right to vote, that is my religious belief". Thinking this is of course anyones right, but can they justifiably form a political action committee to obtain these goals?

This is how the world has worked since the dawn of time.

Of course they can justifiably form a committee, I couldn't justify it but they can as they have a different set of thinking.

[Sitnam]

This is how the world has worked since the dawn of time.

Of course they can justifiably form a committee, I couldn't justify it but they can as they have a different set of thinking.You stated, "The church can say gay marriage is wrong just like some religions say alcohol should be banned. No big deal, it's why we have separation. I don't see the issue here?"

I'm showing you the issue here.

On topic, I can beat you bloody if I fell like it, it's ok cause I have a different set of thinking.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

To t-bonham@scc.net, The Pope is the Catholic god's advocate on Earth, to them his Dogma is infallible. No, only specific ex cathedra pronouncements by the Pope are infallible. To quote the current Pope Benedict: "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations".

And I don't think Pope Benedict has made any such ex cathedra statements so far.

[Sitnam]

Has it always been thus?

[sisu]

You stated, "The church can say gay marriage is wrong just like some religions say alcohol should be banned. No big deal, it's why we have separation. I don't see the issue here?"

I'm showing you the issue here.

On topic, I can beat you bloody if I fell like it, it's ok cause I have a different set of thinking.

No you could say that you want to beat me but it is against the law.

If you are saying that people shouldn't push their own beliefs because they disagree with your view then you are fighting a losing battle. People will ALWAYS push their own agenda and some will be more enlightened. It is up to each group to put their agenda forward and who ever argues/bribes best will win.

But the original question was around whether Catholics will be or should be treated like white power etc is valid. Yes some will say they are hateful etc and some will say, no they are right as it is biblically founded. Me I think they are misguided and as the world changes so will they as they have done for 1700 or so years.

Again the church can believe what they want and can also agitate for change, they should if they wish just as we should also push change.

[Sitnam]

repost

[Sitnam]

No you could say that you want to beat me but it is against the law.
Which has nothing to do with that fact that I don't think it's wrong and my religious belief should be respected.

If you are saying that people shouldn't push their own beliefs because they disagree with your view then you are fighting a losing battle. People will ALWAYS push their own agenda and some will be more enlightened. It is up to each group to put their agenda forward and who ever argues/bribes best will win.
Sure. But just because two sides disagree doesn't mean both sides are half right.

But the original question was around whether Catholics will be or should be treated like white power etc is valid. Yes some will say they are hateful etc and some will say, no they are right as it is biblically founded.
Whether or not they are biblically founded is irrelevant, their beliefs are bigotry.

[Bryan Ekers]

Believers 'voting' on truth is ridiculous and this entire thing unravels if popular opinion is consulted on matters of the divine.

Yeah, individuals thinking for themselves. That would be terrible!

[Sitnam]

Yeah, individuals thinking for themselves. That would be terrible!
It just wouldn't be religion.

[Guinastasia]

To t-bonham@scc.net, The Pope is the Catholic god's advocate on Earth, to them his Dogma is infallible. Believers 'voting' on truth is ridiculous and this entire thing unravels if popular opinion is consulted on matters of the divine.


That's not what papal infallibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility) means.

[Illuminatiprimus]

Whether or not they are biblically founded is irrelevant, their beliefs are bigotry.But in these kids of arguments, to them it's NOT irrelevant. I've heard people actually say "I can't decide what is God's law", and they do it entirely straight faced because they seem to have conveniently forgotten all of the other of God's laws in the old testament which they like to pretend aren't there.

That aside, it is slightly different to argue with someone who believes that the word of God is telling them their belief is justified, and someone who simply thinks it's correct. They can lead you to equally irrational conclusions with their beliefs, but the emotion attached to them is probably going to be higher with the former.

[Sitnam]

That aside, it is slightly different to argue with someone who believes that the word of God is telling them their belief is justified, and someone who simply thinks it's correct. They can lead you to equally irrational conclusions with their beliefs, but the emotion attached to them is probably going to be higher with the former.
Absolutely. Genetic testing on human for instance is an important issue and ones beliefs on it can have nothing to do with religion whatsoever, if they do though, the onus is on them to convince people without their background to agree with them.

You can believe homosexuals marrying is a mistake, but then it is to you to put forth the facts and/or rhetorical argument that lead you to that conclusion.

Saying, "I just believe it's wrong" is not good enough in a society that legislates itself.

[Illuminatiprimus]

Absolutely. Genetic testing on human for instance is an important issue and ones beliefs on it can have nothing to do with religion whatsoever, if they do though, the onus is on them to convince people without their background to agree with them.

You can believe homosexuals marrying is a mistake, but then it is to you to put forth the facts and/or rhetorical argument that lead you to that conclusion.

Saying, "I just believe it's wrong" is not good enough in a society that legislates itself.Oh that that were so - as long as we're "respecting" religious beliefs and the right to hold irrational, bigoted, illogical or bottom line unproven views (sun goes around the earth anyone) it's not simply a matter of saying "well that's all very well religionist, now produce some proof". The special position that belief/views inspired by religion hold in our society allow someone to have them and effectively say "well actually I don't have to justify what I think, it's my religious belief".

[Paranoid Randroid]

In 2010 in an interview with a book author, the Pope floated a trial balloon. He used the example that it might be OK for a homosexual prostitute to use a condom.

I don’t think this properly characterizes Benedict’s remarks, despite the very wide reporting of them as such. His original statement:

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. [...] She [the Church] of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution

In other words: although the use of condoms by male prostitutes remains morally vincible error (in his view), it could at least have the upside of indicating a desire to avoid spreading HIV. In any event he nowhere says “Go ahead, male prostitutes, use condoms.”

This also generated a huge backlash from more conservative elements.

Honestly, I didn’t even see much backlash from conservative elements (beyond that unavoidable and vocal contingent of “bring back the Latin mass!” quasi-sedevacantists). But I did notice a lot of comment that Benedict now sanctioned condom use, sufficient to explain the Vatican’s speedy clarification.

...

The Pope is the Catholic god's advocate on Earth, to them his Dogma is infallible. Believers 'voting' on truth is ridiculous and this entire thing unravels if popular opinion is consulted on matters of the divine.

Others are correct that you misunderstand papal infallibility. It’s also true that there are a lot of (minor) positions with which it is expressly okay to disagree with the Church. Nevertheless you’re quite right that the Church is meant to be regarded as a lasting institution, above the vagaries of popular opinion; and that its leaders intend it to evolve only insofar as it does not contradict prior established dogma. If the Church did state tomorrow that artificial conception were perfectly acceptable, it would mean the end of the Catholic Church as we know it.

[TruCelt]

. . . If the Church did state tomorrow that artificial conception were perfectly acceptable, it would mean the end of the Catholic Church as we know it.

I disagree. It's my understanding that the process is unacceptable because it usually involves the creation of fertilized eggs which are not implanted. Rejection of a fertilized egg for any reason, even danger to the Mother (if there were 10 for example) or obvious deformity (if they could tell the resulting fetus would have substantial malformations) is considered murder. The doctors won't perform the process under these requirements, so the whole thing has been deemed unacceptable.

I do think though, that there's plenty of room for acceptance by the church if the process should become so precise and reliable that every fertilization would result in a pregnancy.

[Kobal2]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and speculate Benedict's Papacy won't last 50 years.

I dunno man, he survived being thrown down an apparently bottomless pit by his top-level manager without any repercussions. He's obviously in good health.

[Paranoid Randroid]

I disagree. It's my understanding that the process is unacceptable because it usually involves the creation of fertilized eggs which are not implanted.

Er, oops. Somehow I mistyped; I meant contraception and not artificial conception. For what it’s worth I agree that there’s a little more wiggle room in that particular example, although there’ll always be persons who cast weary eyes on any mucking with human reproduction.

[sisu]

Which has nothing to do with that fact that I don't think it's wrong and my religious belief should be respected.

Sure. But just because two sides disagree doesn't mean both sides are half right.

Whether or not they are biblically founded is irrelevant, their beliefs are bigotry.

Yep I agree that they are bigots but they can still be right in their own eyes, just as any group or person can. If your religious belief runs against secular law then we have a problem, but holding a view is not in itself morally wrong.

An reverse example might be capital punishment, I find morally bankrupt for someone to take a life in this way but a lot of religious folk will say "hang 'em high" and people vote for it. So again if enough people get active about something we can change it.

[Captain Amazing]

Has it always been thus?

No, the Pope being infallible on certain things didn't really become a defined thing until the 1870s. Before then, it was a maybe thing, with some people saying yes, and some people saying no.

Beyond that, I think it's a Catholic vs Protestant thing. When their church teaches something they can't stand, good Protestants find a church they agree with. Good Catholics just ignore the teaching.

[Guinastasia]

No, the Pope being infallible on certain things didn't really become a defined thing until the 1870s. Before then, it was a maybe thing, with some people saying yes, and some people saying no.


And I believe that there have been only two ex cathedra statements since then, both dealing with the Immaculate Conception of Mary*. In order for a statement to be considered infallible, I believe the Pope has to say it is so, and there probably has to be some specific ceremoney to it. I'm guessing he can't just come out tomorrow and say, "I declare, infallibly, that green is an evil color, and any Catholic who wears it is going to Hell."





*The Immaculate Conception does NOT refer to the virgin birth, but the belief that Mary was born without Original Sin. It's uniquely a Catholic teaching.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

"I declare, infallibly, that green is an evil color, and any Catholic who wears it is going to Hell."What? Green is the most common color of liturgical vestments, worn by the priest in 'ordinary' time (all the normal, non-holiday days).

Just because it's the sacred color to Muslims doesn't necessarily make it evil.

[Captain Amazing]

And I believe that there have been only two ex cathedra statements since then, both dealing with the Immaculate Conception of Mary*.

Here's a Vatican statement talking about papal infallibility and giving an (incomplete list of teachings that are considered infallible:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

1. The Creed
2. The Christological dogmas
3. The Marian dogmas
4. The doctrine of the institution of the Sacraments
5. The doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist
6. The infallibility of the pope
7. The existence of original sin
8. The immortality of the soul
9. That the sacred texts are free from error
10. The immorality of the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being
11. The illicitness of euthanasia
12. That only men can be priests
13. The illicitness of prostitution and fornication.

[Illuminatiprimus]

What? Green is the most common color of liturgical vestments, worn by the priest in 'ordinary' time (all the normal, non-holiday days).

Just because it's the sacred color to Muslims doesn't necessarily make it evil.It was the absurdity of such a statement that made it a useful example. We're not supposed to take it at face value.

[Bryan Ekers]

"I declare, infallibly, that green is an evil color, and any Catholic who wears it is going to Hell."

What? And give Irish Protestants their victory?

[Sitnam]

Oh that that were so - as long as we're "respecting" religious beliefs and the right to hold irrational, bigoted, illogical or bottom line unproven views (sun goes around the earth anyone) it's not simply a matter of saying "well that's all very well religionist, now produce some proof". The special position that belief/views inspired by religion hold in our society allow someone to have them and effectively say "well actually I don't have to justify what I think, it's my religious belief".
Then how on earth did Emancipation happen with Lev 25:44 and Exodus 21:7?

[Illuminatiprimus]

Then how on earth did Emancipation happen with Lev 25:44 and Exodus 21:7?I'm stupid and too lazy to look up those bible verses - tell me what you're driving at if you would.

[Sitnam]

The Bible says slavery is ok.

"My faith says I can own and sell people, anyone who says otherwise is infringing on my religious beliefs."

[Bryan Ekers]

The Bible says slavery is ok.

"My faith says I can own and sell people, anyone who says otherwise is infringing on my religious beliefs."

Heck, I remember a movie about that, describing the generational transfer of slaves.

I think it was called Guys My Father Sold Me.

[Illuminatiprimus]

The Bible says slavery is ok.

"My faith says I can own and sell people, anyone who says otherwise is infringing on my religious beliefs."I would have thought the same thing happened there that is happening now with homosexuality - people didn't agree with parts of the Bible that justified the practice decided to ignore it. But I'm certain that at the time there were probably a ton of people who just wouldn't shut the fuck up with saying "but it's okay for me to own niggers, the Bible says so!".

The difference between then and now is that our societies differ - theirs was almost entire Christian so it wasn't true believers vs non-believers and believers lite, it was a disagreement between those who agreed with the practice of slavery and those that didn't. Religious justification was just one part of the debate.

Now we have a society in which religion can be a dimension, but only for people who actually have it, and that isn't everyone. But within that section who aren't religious, there are people who hold that religious belief is a valid exception when it comes to holding views at odds with society, no matter how strange (have you met a Hassidic Jew or extreme Ahmish? I mean come on!). You also have the counteraction of a religious segment that feel the need to rely on the religious argument that much more because it's becoming less relevant - it's going out of fashion, they know it and so they've just turned up the volume. The tide continues to move against them and we'll have normalisation of views on homosexuality eventually, and we'll look back on it being illegal and there not being legal equality as a sad an unenlightened time (it's already happening in many countries).

Answer your point?

[Illuminatiprimus]

In related news - suck on it Islam (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/20/three-muslims-convicted-gay-hate-leaflets).

[BigT]

Oh that that were so - as long as we're "respecting" religious beliefs and the right to hold irrational, bigoted, illogical or bottom line unproven views (sun goes around the earth anyone) it's not simply a matter of saying "well that's all very well religionist, now produce some proof". The special position that belief/views inspired by religion hold in our society allow someone to have them and effectively say "well actually I don't have to justify what I think, it's my religious belief".

No it doesn't. You justify it by showing how it doesn't violate the law. In the U.S., the church is effectively subservient to the law. I don't know why people pretend it isn't.

Now, of course, you can, via your new religion, advocate for changing the law. But the idea that you can still break the law because your religion tells you you can is not found in our legal system.

As for our moral system: how many people do you know that break the law because of their religion? I'm not aware of any, but surely you have some in mind, Because, apparently, this is supposed to be accepted by the majority as being okay.

[Sitnam]

No it doesn't. You justify it by showing how it doesn't violate the law. In the U.S., the church is effectively subservient to the law. I don't know why people pretend it isn't.

Now, of course, you can, via your new religion, advocate for changing the law. But the idea that you can still break the law because your religion tells you you can is not found in our legal system.

As for our moral system: how many people do you know that break the law because of their religion? I'm not aware of any, but surely you have some in mind, Because, apparently, this is supposed to be accepted by the majority as being okay.
Faith being the foundation of our morality and thereby legal system is pure fiction anyway:

Just for Christianity (the religion in which I'm told our nation was founded on)

10 Commandments:

1) 'You shall have no other gods before Me.' LEGAL TO BRAKE

2) 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' LEGAL

3) 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' LEGAL TO BRAKE

4) 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' LEGAL TO BRAKE

5) 'Honor your father and your mother.' LEGAL TO BRAKE

6) 'You shall not murder.' YEAH GOT ME, THAT'S ONE

7) 'You shall not commit adultery.' STILL LEGAL, ASK NEWT

8) 'You shall not steal.' 2 for 8

9) 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.' IN COURT ITS PURGERY, ANYWHERE ELSE ITS LEGAL.

10) 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.' LEGAL

[tomndebb]

Here's a Vatican statement talking about papal infallibility and giving an (incomplete list of teachings that are considered infallible:The only two statements made by a pope that are considered infallible are the Assumption of Mary to heaven and the Immaculate Conception. Every other statement regarded as infallible was promulgated by a council of bishops representing the vast majority of the church. (That is why the issue of papal infallibility is still argued inside the church--it was only declared at the end of 1869, (in reaction to Pius IX's declaration about the Assumption), and has only been invoked one more time, in 1950. It does not have any long tradition of acceptance, first being suggested, but not actually stated, at the Council of Florence.)

[Procrustus]

Waiting and hoping? That’s about it.

or praying.

[tomndebb]

Having more time to review the linked site, I note that it is not an actual proclamation by the church, but a commentary on church teachings by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict).
The list is interesting in that it includes reserving the priesthood to men. When Pope John Paul II declared that the discussion on ordaining women was "closed," then-Cardinal Ratzinger rushed forward to declare that statement an infallible decree. Pope John Paul, however, when asked about it, said that he had not issued an infallible decree.

The linked article provides insight into the workings of the RCC, (along with some maneuvering by Ratzinger to put his stamp on church teachings), but it does not provide a comprehensive list of infallible declarations. I would also note that, (so far), Pope Benedict has made no effort to reaffirm the infallible nature of the declaration that the discussion is closed regarding ordaining women. (He might be a bit more cautious now that he is actually the head honcho.)

[Illuminatiprimus]

No it doesn't. You justify it by showing how it doesn't violate the law. In the U.S., the church is effectively subservient to the law. I don't know why people pretend it isn't.

Now, of course, you can, via your new religion, advocate for changing the law. But the idea that you can still break the law because your religion tells you you can is not found in our legal system.

As for our moral system: how many people do you know that break the law because of their religion? I'm not aware of any, but surely you have some in mind, Because, apparently, this is supposed to be accepted by the majority as being okay.Whilst you're correct about the US, I live in the EU, and there is case law within the European Human Rights framework that allows people to cite religious belief as an exemption from following certain laws or regulations in certain circumstances. It's certainly not a catch all excuse, and one of the articles specifically states that rights under other articles can't be used to contravene the other rights (so arguing my right to freedom of religious belief trumps your right not to be killed as a homosexual is immediately negated).