It’s not up to us, is it? He may be there. Maybe not. He’s definitely an asshole scumbag, at least in my book. Maybe God forgave him.
The RCC sort of certifies *some *people got to Heaven (canonization) but about everyone else it will not assert one way or the other. And don’t get people around here started on the canonizations of Mother Theresa or of José M. Escrivá.
In any case yes, there is evil inside the religious institutions and they have been remiss in expunging it and too quick to rationalize away claiming to address some other problem. e.g. with the cover-up of child abuse there was the bullshit excuse of “avoiding scandal” lest it lead people to abandon the church altogether which in their eyes “would be worse” :rolleyes: [pukey smiley]. The religious institution goes into a mode of “job 1: protect our own existence” instead of serving God/serving Man. And yes it leads to factions within the religions taking sides on social/political issues, and to situations where some lower-rank clergy may say “eh, I’m OK with you folk, but, y’know, can’t say that too loud around the Boss…”
That we already knew independently of the LGBQT issue.
But this does reflect the thread issue: is inclusion of the LGBQT not just in the form of tolerance and acceptance but of active affirmation, a social/political issue on which individual denominations may agree to disagree doctrinally, or is it a matter of fundamental morality? Is it comparable to abolitionist churches in 1850?
Is it sufficient for a congregation to say “if you truly seek to do good, love justice and walk by the side of the Lord, we will not reject you”? I can see some in this thread would say it is, but others may consider that weak patronizing. But do we then tell that congregation “ye are neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm, so I spit ye out”, and say they are useless as allies?
(Nonfundamentalists tend to adapt to historic circumstance by adopting the principle that if reason, a sense of justice, and the observation of reality seem to contradict the written text of the Scripture, then it must be that we have been interpreting it wrong and we must re-read it with different eyes. e.g., the hard evidence is the Earth has existed for over 3 billion years and life evolved over that time, therefore the first chapters of Genesis have got to be a symbolic allegory, get over it.)
Since you bother with the stress marks, the first lastname is Escrivá de Balaguer, please.
There is evil in every religious institution. Let’s not kid ourselves. There is evil in humanity: greed, desire, power, etc. Once an institution gets big enough, any institution religious or not, there will be pockets of evil, or at least human weakness and frailties.
My church is no exception. In my current church, and we have about 100 members, about 15-20 years ago before I moved here and joined it, the Pastor, a married family man, had an affair with the young hottie Youth Director — a female, to be clear (and given this thread topic!). That scandal nearly tore the congregation apart.
I’m not sure what point you are attempting to make, here. “Name Cardinal Surname” is the standard formal method of address for guys who hold that position in the RCC.
It is unclear whether you are taking issue with any reference to anyone by his clerical title, taking issue with any reference to Law by his title, or taking issue with the use by Cartooniverse of that title. Your utter lack of clarity suggests that your epithet “asshole” might have been directed toward Cartooniverse, which would be a violation of board rules.
I would strongly suggest that you make your posts more clear (and avoid personal insults), lest you incur a Warning for personal insults outside The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Name Cardinal Surname — oh, I didn’t realize that was the standard format. Thanks for clarifyning.
From briefly visiting the guy’s Wiki page I was calling him an asshole for what he did.
Is that not allowed?
I certainly was not calling Cartooniverse that, and I hope that was clear. But in case it was unclear, Cartooniverse, I hope you did not take it that way. Or anybody else.
In my post I was asking Cartooniverse what his (her?) point was.
Measure for Measure:
Good grief, could this law possibly be mis-construed even further? That prohibition is about mixing different fabrics, not different colors of thread. That much should be apparent even from the basic English translation of the verse itself. (More specifically, it’s only about a mixture of wool and linen, though you need to be a bit more knowledgeable about the totality of the Bible and the proper translation of the original to get that understanding.) But different colors is nowhere near correct.
I appreciate the correction.
FTR, here’s a bunch of translations: Leviticus 19:19 You are to keep My statutes. You shall not crossbreed two different kinds of livestock; you shall not sow your fields with two kinds of seed; and you shall not wear clothing made of two kinds of material.
I’m not quite willing to sign off on your interpretation though. Here’s Everett Fox’s translation, which tends towards the literal: [INDENT][INDENT] My laws, you are to keep:
Your animal, you are not to (allow to) mate (in) two-kinds;
your field, you are not to sow with two kinds;
a garment of two-kinds, of shaatnez, is not to go on you.
footnote:
two-kinds: That is, a mixture. The prohibition regarding the field entails avoiding mixing different crops on a single field. Mixtures in the Bible seem to be reserved for the divine sphere alone. shaatnez: Of uncertain origin, this word probably means "of mixed-stuff’; it breaks the rhythm of the law, and so was probably a later addition meant to explain “two-kinds” in reference to clothing (Fishbane 1988)
[/INDENT][/INDENT] It looks to me like it would prohibit cotton/polyester or other blends such as the historical linen and wool. Calling two different colors “two-kinds” is probably a stretch though, (IMHO, for the moment).
Measure for Measure:
This is the reason for my two-part answer - what’s clear from that verse alone, and what can be understood given the wider Biblical context.
Since the translation you posted included the word “shaatnez” (which I didn’t expect), I can point out that this word’s definition is specifically the wool-linen mixture. The definition is in Deuteronomy 22:11. I don’t see this Everett Fox translation as one of the on-line options in the link you posted, but I’d wager that his translation of that verse, which in some English translations only says “mixture of wool and linen”, would also reference the word “shaatnez”.
Wikipedia has a nice article on shaatnez.
The balance of the evidence destroys my point. Thanks again to cmkeller for the correction.
What does he have to do with anything? I’m not even Catholic.
Regardless this Law person will have to stand before the throne someday, as will I, as will you. Many will not make it into heaven because they had sin in their lives and had not truly given themselves over to the Lord.
Now I agree people like Law did terrible things while pretending to be a servant of God and I know they lead many astray. I hope and pray I can reach out to those persons.
When/if you decide to turn away from religion, I will forgive you-no questions asked.
edited to add: Forgiveness is not necessary for your heterosexuality, of course. You were born that way.
I don’t know whether the OP expects too much or not. Couple thoughts:
I’m an Episcopalian in the diocese of New York. My congregation is very strongly pro LGBT… Our current rector is gay, our previous one was too. We have a lot of gay congregants. We are a counterpoint to the notion that Christianity is antigay. Now, we have maybe a hundred people at the main Sunday service…we are not the size of a megachurch and aren’t therefore a really STRONG counterpoint, but we try to do what we can, and I for one think that’s important.
So. First, this level of acceptance would’ve been astonishing to me even twenty five years ago. If you had asked me then whether my church would be in this situation I would have said absolutely not. I knew at the time a handful of openly gay people and none in the church. We were in many ways cutting edge with regard to social justice, but the toleration, let alone the embracing, of gays just did not seem anywhere near the horizon…and yet, here we are. Change can come quickly and unexpectedly.
The other, less positive, and perhaps this is more along the lines of what the OP is complaining about. We had a bishop for a number of years who was, no doubt, an early champion of gay rights. He was a strong voice for marriage equality and for acceptance, legal and moral, of people who were not straight. And yet, his true guiding principles were not justice and equality, but some weird idea of Church Unity. He knew there was plenty of opposition to his views in parts of the US—Fort Worth, South Carolina, Pittsburgh, San Joaquin—and vehement opposition in much of the rest of the Anglican Communion (especially Africa) and when his pro gay perspectives were challenged by these forces he always, always blinked. It was appalling and I was delighted when he retired. This seems like a really good example of not using your bully pulpit in defense of your religious ideas—he had a chance to show the courage of his convictions, time and time again, and he wouldn’t do it.
On the other hand, once again, Time marches on. He is retired, and the new guy has a very different attitude, and does not throw gay and lesbian people under the bus in the interests of unity.
Anyway… These things are rarely as simple as they seem. Proslavery forces in the south used the Bible to justify slavery; some of the greatest abolitionists (Theodore Weld for example) were Christian ministers. Segregationists 100 years later used religion to justify keeping the races apart; some of the greatest civil rights leaders were clerics and many others were inspired by their understanding of God and scripture. Today, too, Christianity can be a force toward keeping gay and lesbian people down; it can also be a force Leading toward greater acceptance of alternative sexualities. Not always good, not always bad; like most things, a weapon that goes both ways.
Regardless of religion and politics, this is my philosophy;
Which is better for us as individuals and for society?
That we should be who we are?
Or that we should be forced to be who we are not,
for the comfort of the small minded?
There’s too much focus on what other people are doing.
And too little focus on what we ourselves are doing.
I honestly don’t get how people want to fill themselves up with hate or dislike for someone who is different from them. The entire basis of that to me seems to be fear. Fear that if others are different from us, if others can believe other things or speak different languages or have different cultures, that there might be something wrong within ourselves. So we project that outward and insist that they must be wrong so that we can be correct.
But there’s so much of that spent on inconsequential bullshit. I don’t give a fuck who you fuck, as long as it is someone capable of giving consent. Beyond that, it really isn’t my business and this constant insistence on regulating other people’s lives and beds is just…
Busybodyism
nm
Bullitt, thank you very much for the clarification. I appreciate it. ( I’m a he. )
The point of my post: In urbanredneck’s quote I used in my post up there, he/she was asking another poster how they knew of such things. Of such behaviors and people behaving in a most un-Christian manner.
This is the post he/she had replied to:
And they had replied with:
I was simply providing one name by way of proof of that asking “Are you a Christian” is a lousy way, in this day and age, to prove one’s position.
You see I dont because if your not a Christian, then why do you care what a Christian believes?
So I ask again, are you a Christian?
What definition of “Christian” will you accept?
If I am, what does that make me? As evil as Bernard Cardinal Law or as good as Pope Francis? If I’m not, what does that make me?
You cannot use MY personal faith as a bludgeon against me. This is Great Debates, not the Inquisition.
The SDMB doesn’t work like that.
Neither does the United States of America.
Believe whatever the hell you want-It’s when you act on those beliefs to the detriment of others, or when your beliefs lend silent support to those who would act to the detriment of others that concerns me.