Catholics and Rainbow Sashes

[Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup]

@sqweels

In the absence of the ability to proove that God thinks something is a sin, we have to rely on real-world assesments on the impact of behavior.

But we do have the ability to prove it, at least according to us. That’s where the College of Cardinals’ interpretations, papal bulls and encyclicals come in.

[QUOTEScott Plaid]
Actually, it’s both. Now, under Bricker’s definition, something is wrong, because god, as seen in an ancient book, says it is. You say something is moral, because of common sense. Bricker’s is a true definition of morality, as is yours. However, Bricker’s conception is all so stupid. Wonder why I am an atheist? It is because, when so one can point to a book, and state “Certain things are wrong, just because god says they are” and then uses circular logic to prove the book really is god’s word, I start to suspect these people are simply interpreting facts to suite an old legend, and they can use it to justify any prejudice they want to. There is no value in, or reason to follow a system of morality that is like that.
[/QUOTE]

Then where is your dog in this fight?

We get it. You’re an atheist. Our rules and morality are foreign to you and silly. Then what do you care who receives communion and who does not?

Communion is a ritual for those Catholics who are in a state of grace and who can come forward with a clear conscience, among other, smaller rules.

So what’s it to you, Scott? You’re not Catholic, nor are you in a state of grace with the Church. Sure, you can sneak on line and eat the wafer, but you’re not taking Communion.
There are a number of issues surrounding homosexuality and homosexual acts that have been clarified by advances in biology, and these issues have prompted changes in certain doctrine and also clarified the reasons behind others as having nothing to do with expressions of love.

This dichotomy has caused many Catholics, both homo- and heterosexual, a great deal of pain. But the underlying issue is that we believe certain things to be eternal and immutable, and trying to bring about a sea change in Church teaching, especially concerning marriage and procreation, through confrontational means is an extremely difficult undertaking.

You don’t have to leave the Eternal Church, but if you want to change it to reflect your temporal beliefs, you should at least appreciate that this is the way your agitaiton is viewed.

[Bricker]

@Steve MB

I thought I was clear enough the first time, but I’ll try again. Stipulating the modern understanding of “usury” (the charging of excessive and exploitative interest, as opposed to the charging of any interest at all), the Church hasn’t shown any detectable interest in keeping an eye out for usurers (again, by the modern definition) barging in upon the Communion rail where they have no legitimate place.

No one (I assume) disagrees that the Church condemns shoplifters. But what effort can you point to to show that the Church has a detectable interest in keeping an eye out for shoplifters barging in upon the Communion rail where they have no legitimate place?

I suspect it’s because there is no group urging that the Church change its stance on stealing, and there is no group wearing stolen sashes coming forward in an effort to receive communion - were there such, I feel confident that the Church would not be eager to grant communion to them.

[Bricker]

@Spiff

I am not a biblical scholar, so could you briefly explain why homosexual behavior is sinful (according to the Bible)?

Again I’ll defer with an explanation.

As a practical Catholic, in union with the Holy See, I believe that both Scripture and holy tradition are authorities. In other words, it’s not merely Scripture, but the divine teaching office of the church, that promulgates truth.

So if that defuses your inquiry – that is, if you were going to point out that Leviticus also forbids mixing linen and wool in garments, for instance – then my initial response is that I am guided not simply by Scripture but by the teaching of the Church as authority.

If you’re still interested in the myraid building blocks that the Church has used to arrive at her conclusions, I will be happy to provide them.

[Scott_Plaid]

@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup

Then where is your dog in this fight?

There are three possible answers to your question. Take your pick:
[ol]
[li]I am a private citizen who has followed this debate with interest, and wants to add my 2 cents[/li][li]I saw bricker’s post, and was overcome with an irrational desire to debunk him.[/li][li]I believe that the teaching of catholic beliefs actively brings harm to this world, and has in the past, so I want to show how irrational they are, in order to bring people away from the church. True, I may catch more flies with honey then with vinegar, but that is not my style. Should someone deconvert because the teachings are irrational, then they are capable of taking that first step without my coxing.[/li][/ol] Oh, and Bricker, I have read your statement about why the catholics consider “loss of profit” to be different from “give me money for loaning you money” in terms of realpolitik , and not just ignoring reality.

[Bricker]

@Scott Plaid

Oh, and Bricker, I have read your statement about why the catholics consider “loss of profit” to be different from “give me money for loaning you money” in terms of realpolitik , and not just ignoring reality.

I have read this sentence several times, and remain at a loss as to what it might mean.

[Scott_Plaid]

By these remarks, however, we do not deny that at times together with the loan contract certain other titles - which are not at all intrinsic to the contract - may run parallel with it. From these other titles, entirely just and legitimate reasons arise to demand something over and above the amount due on the contract. Nor is it denied that it is very often possible for someone, by means of contracts differing entirely from loans, to spend and invest money legitimately either to provide oneself with an annual income or to engage in legitimate trade and business. From these types of contracts honest gain may be made.

The above sounds to me, just like “I loaned out money, I deserve to be paid for it” with the church saying, “Well, we can’t really have a world without loans, despite what it says in the bible, so lets just make a very convoluted reason why we can.” Under that term, a bishop can say, “Hold on, all this being paid for loaning out money, rather then insisting on not being paid back, amounts to the exact same thing as usery. Since it is clearly forbidden, I have better put a stop to it!”

P.S. Realpolitik: politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations. Perhaps not the best words to chose, but it is what came to me.

[Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley]

@Scott Plaid

The above sounds to me, just like “I loaned out money, I deserve to be paid for it” with the church saying, “Well, we can’t really have a world without loans, despite what it says in the bible, so lets just make a very convoluted reason why we can.”

Really? To me it sounds like “Fred the banker dropped a large sum of money in the collection plate, and a larger sum of money directly into my pocket, so I guess “times have changed,” and that eternal truth changed along with it, wink wink.”

IMCynicalO

[Bricker]

@Scott Plaid

The above sounds to me, just like “I loaned out money, I deserve to be paid for it” with the church saying, “Well, we can’t really have a world without loans, despite what it says in the bible, so lets just make a very convoluted reason why we can.” Under that term, a bishop can say, “Hold on, all this being paid for loaning out money, rather then insisting on not being paid back, amounts to the exact same thing as usery. Since it is clearly forbidden, I have better put a stop to it!”

If that’s what it sounds like to you, then that’s what it sounds like to you. However, you’ll forgive me if I point out that you don’t strike me as particularly scholarly, especially if you view the explanation as convoluted, and I am thus relatively unconvinced that your reaction is of value in determining any subject under discussion.

Is it really “convoluted?” Did you follow the example of the olive picking? Of the olive orchard? Did you understand that damnum emergens was ALWAYS recognized as a legitimate extrinsic title? Where did the discussion go off the rails for you?

[Scott_Plaid]

Oh, I followed the reasoning just fine, you condescending :wally, it just that the result is the same. People still loan out money, and people still get paid. A rose is a rose, no matter what the name.

However, I hope you will forgive me (No, I don’t.) if I do not trust the words of someone who believes they can defend the church’s position on condom use in Africa.

[Guinastasia]

@Steve MB

I’m curious about the answer myself. (Presumably it doesn’t involve the ancient-vs-modern definition of “usury” – the Church doesn’t seem to target even practitioners of the latter, such as loan sharks or the executives of abusive credit-card firms, for this treatment, ergo, relying upon this distinction is to invoke an explanation that doesn’t explain.)

On that note, wasn’t John Gotti given a full Catholic funeral Mass? Hmmmm…viscious murders like Gotti are somehow better than homosexuals and their supporters? (Not everyone wearing a rainbow sash was gay.)

[UrbanChic]

@Guinastasia

On that note, wasn’t John Gotti given a full Catholic funeral Mass? Hmmmm…viscious murders like Gotti are somehow better than homosexuals and their supporters?

Wrong. Gotti was buried in a Roman Catholic cemetary, but not given a funeral Mass.

Cite.

[Siege]

Hmmm. Jesus had something to say which I know Episcopalians consider relevant to the Eucharist, even though it hadn’t been invented yet. It’s in Matthew 5, after the Beatitudes:

@Jesus

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherwill be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

There’s a footnote that indicates “Raca” is a term of contempt. The Book of Common Prayer has this to say under"Disciplinary Rubrics" for the Eucharist:

If the priest knows that a person who is living a notoriously evil life intends to come to Communion, the priest shall speak to that person privately and tell him that he may not come to the Holy Table until he has given clear proof of repentence and amendment of life.

The priest shall follow the same procedure with those who have done wrong to their neighbors and are a scandal to the other members of the congregation, not allowing such persons to receive Communion until they have made restitution for the wrong they have done, or at least promised to do so.

When the priest sees that there is hatred between members of the congregation, he shall speak privately to each of them telling them that they may not receive Communion until they have forgiven each other. And if the person or persons on one side truly forgive the others and desire and promise to make up for their faults, but those on the other side refuse to forgive, the priest shall allow those who are penitent to come to Communion, but not those who are stubborn.

Now, I’ve no idea what the Catholic equivalent has to say on this subject, but it seems to me that based on the words of Jesus and the policy of the Anglican church, if the parties in question were Anglicans, there’d be at least as much grounds for denying Communion to those blocking the aisle as those who were wearing the sashes, possibly more.

I’ll also note that the Disciplinary Rubrics call for things to be done in private, not by publicly blocking the aisle. I’ve been the chalicist, the person who gives people the wine, at an Episcopal Church. I can tell you that it’s entirely possible for a person to come to the altar rail and not take either the bread or a wine. This is routinely done for small children, who are given a blessing instead; I’ve also seen several people who’ve chosen not to drink the wine and the reason they do so is none of my business. At the risk of sounding hopelessly English, it’s possible to deny someone the Eucharist discretely if the appearance of normality and conventionality matters to them. The Catholic Church does not allow non-Catholics to participate in the Eucharist. The note in the bulletin at my brother’s wedding said if they did, it would “imply a oneness which does not exist.” Still, if I were to approach the altar for Communion, I doubt anyone would block the aisle and draw attention to me.

Anyway, that’s just my Anglican 2 cents.
CJ

[Spiff]

@Bricker

Again I’ll defer with an explanation.

But you’ve already revealed some aspects of this: In post #57 you say that the biblical prohibition against homosexuality was **not ** due to a misundertanding 2000+ years ago that it was a choice and not a biological condition.

Am I reading that post correctly?

[tomndebb]

Oh, I followed the reasoning just fine, you condescending :wally,

Scott, both hurling personal insults and the use of the “wally” smiley (even if you can’t manage to type it correctly) are forbidden in Great Debates. Do not do this again.

[ /Moderator Mode ]

[Scott_Plaid]

@tomndebb

Scott, both hurling personal insults

What was the insult? The fact that has defended, for the longest time, the church’s insupportable position on condom use, and that I called him on it, so that lurkers reading this thread would know that defending your religion’s position is sometimes morally indefensible?

and the use of the “wally” smiley (even if you can’t manage to type it correctly)

No, I figured that as he is being condescending, I would post the wally, but not as a smiley, so as to turn it down a notch, via clicking the button marked “Disable Smilies in text”. I am perfectly capable of coding, thank you very much.

are forbidden in Great Debates. Do not do this again.
[ /Moderator Mode ]

I will not, do not worry. That being said, as the rules forbid being an asshole, but while being a condescending jerk is bad, it is not being an asshole, what do you suggest I do about Bricker’s palatable condescension in the future? Please email me, if you care to tell me, (and/or lecture me) so as not to hijack this thread any further.

P.S. Yes, I know this is also hijacking it, but I can not stand to have my “good” name be putd own in a thread.

[DMC]

@Scott Plaid

That being said, as the rules forbid being an asshole, but while being a condescending jerk is bad, it is not being an asshole, what do you suggest I do about Bricker’s palatable condescension in the future?

I’m not a mod, but the generally understood rule we live by in this forum is “Attack the post, not the poster.”, so you can freely call his post condescending, but you can’t call him a condescending putz.

Similarly, someone can call my arguments idiotic (they’d be ferret wankers if they did, of course), but they can’t call me an idiot here.

[Scott_Plaid]

:smack:How stupid of me.

Good advice. Thank you.

[Bricker]

@Spiff

But you’ve already revealed some aspects of this: In post #57 you say that the biblical prohibition against homosexuality was **not ** due to a misundertanding 2000+ years ago that it was a choice and not a biological condition.

Am I reading that post correctly?

In that post, I was referring to the Church’s teaching, not the Bible itself, which (at least with regards to the Old Testament) is much older than 2,000 years.

However, I agree with your reformulation as well: the Biblical prohibition was not due to a misunderstanding about choice as opposed to innate characteristic. It was simply forbidden. In the same way, pork was forbidden - was it because of disease? No. It was forbidden because God forbade it. The prohibition against mixing linen and wool (the rule of shatnes to observant Jews) - does it have a reason? No. It’s forbidden because God said so.

The above relates to Old Testament, Biblical law. Observant Jews are still bound by it today. Catholics believe that with the coming of Jesus, and His establishment of a church on Earth, there are additional and updated authorities concerning what we may and may not do.

[Guinastasia]

@UrbanChic

Wrong. Gotti was buried in a Roman Catholic cemetary, but not given a funeral Mass.

Cite.

Ooops! Thanks for the correction! :smack:

[Spiff]

Bricker, am I then correct in assuming that humans cannot know – even through careful study of the Bible – why God has determined that homosexuality is a sin? That He has His reasons for doing so, and that the reasons are unknowable to humans?

From your reply that mentions *shatnes *and Kosher rules, I gather that my assumption is correct, but I just want to make sure.

But if I’m wrong, and the RCC has pontificated further on this matter, do you have a good (i.e., relatively brief) online cite that outlines the Church’s teachings on this matter?

Thanks.