Yes! No!. Oh! (pope’s head explodes)
You think it’s a joke, but there was a gay teacher in a Catholic school in Florida who reported that he was offered the chance to keep his job if he divorced. Admittedly, that is his side of it, and it’s not like the local bishop put it in writing or anything.
Still the clarification was worthwhile: strictly speaking in the eyes of the Church, there is no marriage to begin with, they are just two gays cohabitating like a bunch of straight parishioners are at any given time. Of course, as in the case linked by Ambrosio Spinola (if the report is accurate) there can always be officials who’ll be dicks about it.
I’ve kept reading the Catholic Vote blog out of morbid curiosity, and it does not disappoint. First, they post the awful and offensive video Not Alone. Then, they round up all the negative reports on the video in the media, and claim that it’s the secular media revealing their intolerance. Next, they write a lame, tone-deaf humor piece on a Catholic hardware store getting sued for refusing to sell a “gay” extension cord. The comments on these posts are flooded with people-- including Christians and even Catholics-- who find them offensive.
Several days pass, and Catholic Vote writes a post on how people keep calling Catholics hypocrites for appearing to harass and oppress gay people while neglecting to love and show charity towards the downtrodden. Whatever Catholics have been doing that, you need to stop it! You’re giving Catholics and Catholocism a bad name! But it feels disingenuous, because nowhere do they own or apologize for their own awful behavior.
Honestly, there’s no point in even trying to parody them, because they do it themselves so effectively.
^
The last part hardly means anything. What do you call trannies who are parodies? Figuratively and literally.
Would a gay couple even consider converting?
Of course! The vestments! The incense! The stained glass! The polychrome statues! The getting down on your knees and opening your mouth! Catholicism is fabulous!
Cassocks.
Hot young priests in cassocks.
…I’ll be in my bunk.
Fifty Shades of Grace.
Conservative Catholic here and there are already plenty of things that go against Church doctrine that are legal secularly (including remarriage after divorce) so I am not really concerned about another one. The concern will be if there is a push to punish churches for not redefining the sacrament to match the secular definition. I guess at that point the legal ceremony and the religious one are uncoupled (heh) and folks who meet the Church’s criteria will have to go through both.
They’ve always BEEN uncoupled. The state allows priests/ministers/rabbis/imams/etc to act as the magistrate/JP, but there have always been two separate things going on during a religious wedding ceremony.
No one forces churches to perform weddings that go against their doctrine NOW, no one in the USA has ever forced churches to perform weddings that go against their doctrine in the past, and no one is going to force churches to perform weddings that go against their doctrine in the future. Churches need to quit trying to appropriate non-existent persecution.
Never happen. They take in too much money selling their politics of fear.
Why, Jews, Muslims and all the other infidels are girding their loins for the War on Christmas surge, only five months away, along with the unexpected power-play attack on true marriage, the like of which turned Canada into a barbaric and moral wasteland 10 years ago.
Right, I just mean that the Catholic ceremony won’t count as a legal ceremony for secular purposes. Couples will need to go through both. I don’t consider that persecution. I just don’t want to be considered a bigot because the Church defines a religious marriage as it does.
I never know what this means. We donate money to keep the lights on and the staff paid, and to pay for charitable works in our community, diocese, country, world. How is this some kind of money grab?
If you don’t want to be considered a bigot, don’t be one. Your freedom of religion doesn’t make you free of criticism.
[QUOTE=gigi]
The concern will be if there is a push to punish churches for not redefining the sacrament to match the secular definition.
[/quote]
And what I’m saying is that that shouldn’t even be a concern. It never has been one. Ever. It will never be one, under US law. Ever. It’s religious paranoia to even imagine it happening.
Why wouldn’t it count? The legal part is just signing the form. A priest and a witness is just as good as somebody down at the courthouse. Couples already have to “go through both” - the legal matter just tends to happen before or after the religious part.
For a Catholic getting married, literally nothing has changed legally or religiously.
I didn’t say it has changed, I said it could, and I too don’t see it as a big deal. It is a courtesy in the United States that the priest is given the secular power to marry two people for legal purposes. I’m just saying that this could be separated as I believe it is in Europe, and again, not a big deal.
I don’t care what happens secularly. But many many people cannot be married in the Roman Catholic sacrament, for many reasons, and it’s not bigotry.
I think it is. Now what?
The sacrament itself???
Sure. Just as saying the priesthood is only for men is sexism. I don’t care, as I’m not Catholic, but that doesn’t mean I can’t identify it.