Of course, sex with boys under the age of consent is fine, it’s just consensual adult homosexual sex that’s a problem. Post-menopausal sex, sex with people who have had hysterectomies, rhythm method sex that the Catholics at least think is unlikely to lead to a child, all of this is either explicitly fine or so irrelevant to their crusade that it’s ridiculous to call them “consistent.”
The Church hates homosexuals because their religion tells them to be douchebags. There is no “consistency” or “principle” to it beyond that, and to say so is delusional.
While that may be technically true, I think the way you phrased it leads to a misinterpretation of RCC doctrine. Any sex which precludes the possibility of procreation is sinful, but one mustn’t be striving to procreate in order to have non-sinful sex. The Church recognizes sex as part of the bonding process in marriage, and allow the rhythm method which can be an effective birth control method if rigorously followed.
n.b.: I’m an atheist and find no common ground with RCC’s teaching on sex, even if I was raised in the Church and have a pretty good understanding if it’s position.
Well, in the language of the catechism, they must be “open to life”. Of course, as Condescending Robot points out above, God is probably more likely to split a condom than to grant a post-menopausal woman a pregnancy. Oh well, Catholic doctrine is ineffable.
Oh I found this while looking for their official stance. Reminds me of David Lodge.
Oh and when I was younger I used to get “You’re not a Christian, you’re a Catholic”, “Fenian bastard” and (once) “Papist”. There is only Christian cohesion against a common enemy. As soon as it comes down to actual dogma, I’d say most Christians hold that marginally different sects are still going to end up in hell.
Internet Tough Guy at 12 o’clock! “Where’s that blah blah blah?” Like he just walked into his neighborhood dive bar looking for the man who slashed his tires.
Here’s a word of advice from an uninvolved bystander…drunk posting is rarely a good idea.
Ok, I will try to remember that.
Sitnam, I do not know you, so calling you a punk ass bitch was an over reaction on my part. I am sure you are a fine upstanding citizen.
See, this is what I don’t understand. What exactly is the “everything” that the author needs to “make up for?” It reads to me like you’are unsatisfied with the essayist’s ability to personally atone for all the evils done by the group whose current membership he’s admonishing for those same evils.
If your brother tends to bully others and your father acts hypocritically and your mother organizes for homophobic legislation, would I be justified in sarcastically disdaining your efforts to change their attitudes because your words don’t compensate for the damage they’ve already done?
“Ah, Knorf treats people fairly. Well isn’t that just swell?”
Right. So if I’m a US citizen, it’s hypocritical and disgusting of me to oppose targetted military assassinations, marriage inequality or draconian drug laws?
Sometimes the “hate the sin, love the sinner” idea is hard to grasp. But let me ask you this: If you had a brother who you were close to and loved completely, and he committed premeditated murder and went to prison, would you visit him? Try to comfort him? Would you still love him?
Yes, however I doubt I could say I loved him completely under those circumstances. There are two main differences, however. Firstly, murder is wrong, and homosexuality isn’t. Secondly, murder is something you do, homosexual is something you are. The latter difference is the issue here. By hating homosexuality you are hating the homosexual, on top of the fact that you have no right to hate it in the first place.
I agree about the differences, and I was not equating murder with homosexuality. I was using an extreme example to show how one might love a person yet detest an act associated with that person.
I don’t think anyone has any trouble grasping the idea behind “hate the sin, love the sinner,” or, for that matter, particularly disagrees with it. It’s the part where someone says my relationship with my boyfriend is a sin that’s punch-in-the-mouth offensive.
The other problem, of course, is that a great number of people who “love the sinner, hate the sin” act in a way that’s indistinguishable from “hate the sinner.” Which leads to a strong suspicion that they do not, in fact, love us at all, and are just using the phrase as a fig leaf to justify their inexcusable actions.
That being said, I still don’t see how this particular criticism applies in anyway to the person being pitted.