Pope rants about gay marriage again

The BBQ Pit
121

[QUOTE=Kimstu]

Okay then, it looks as though you agree that it’s hypocritical for the Church to enforce a Biblical prohibition against gay sex while ignoring other Biblical prohibitions.

[/QUOTE]

I don’t agree that it’s hypocritical.

You misunderstand what the Church is. Unlike the various Protestant denominations, the Church claims that she is the institution divinely appointed by Jesus. The first Pope was Peter, who was directly appointed to this role by Jesus.

As such, the Church has the authority and the right to interpret what the Bible says and what it means. Scripture alone does not guide the faithful – Scripture PLUS the Church’s inerrant application of God’s teachings are what guide the faithful.

You may, of course, disagree that the Church has any such divine guidance or mandate. But that is the position the Church takes.

So, within that context, it’s not hypocritical to declare that God’s will is to refuse same-sex marriage and to ignore the prohibition on eating shellfish. They are the only source of correct information concerning God’s will. There is no hyprocisy - “hypocrisy” meaning preaching one thing and then actually doing the opposite. Their claims and their actions are consistent.

122

Fair enough, but when the Pope and other Christians talk about how it should be illegal for homosexuals to marry, but not adulterers or divorcees, it does make me wonder where their priorities are. The Catholic church, after all, doesn’t recognize marriages performed outside the Catholic church, yet they would hardly deem such marriages to be illegal ones, just unconsecrated ones.

123

I was replying to kanicbird, who apparently does. It was fetus and kanicbird who agreed that the Pope was being hypocritical about forbidding gay sex while permitting the wearing of mixed fabrics. I was just pointing out to kanicbird that that makes him a hypocrite too, unless he abstains from wearing mixed fabrics and all the other Biblical prohibitions.

But I’m happy to discuss the issue with you too, if you like.

But “the Church’s inerrant application of God’s teachings” also depends on voluntary choices of interpretation, which is kind of my point.

It’s inadequate to argue that “the Church has to ban gay sex because it says so in the Bible”, because the Church is making voluntary choices about how to interpret the Bible.

Likewise, it’s inadequate to argue that “the Church has to ban gay sex because it says so in Church teachings”, because the Church is also making voluntary choices about how to interpret its own tradition.

I understand the doctrinal concept that “there is only one infallibly true and self-consistent Church interpretation of Biblical truth and it has always been completely constant and invariable”. But that concept is simply irreconcilable with historical fact. The Church has changed its doctrinal positions and its Biblical interpretations over the course of its history, and those changes involve voluntary choices. The “just following orders” argument is bankrupt.

124

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t agree that it’s hypocritical.

You misunderstand what the Church is. Unlike the various Protestant denominations, the Church claims that she is the institution divinely appointed by Jesus. The first Pope was Peter, who was directly appointed to this role by Jesus.

As such, the Church has the authority and the right to interpret what the Bible says and what it means. Scripture alone does not guide the faithful – Scripture PLUS the Church’s inerrant application of God’s teachings are what guide the faithful.

You may, of course, disagree that the Church has any such divine guidance or mandate. But that is the position the Church takes.

So, within that context, it’s not hypocritical to declare that God’s will is to refuse same-sex marriage and to ignore the prohibition on eating shellfish. They are the only source of correct information concerning God’s will. There is no hyprocisy - “hypocrisy” meaning preaching one thing and then actually doing the opposite. Their claims and their actions are consistent.
[/QUOTE]
You are, as you well know, arguing a technicality. The Bushian doctrine of infallibility aside–if Bush/the Pope does it, it is by definition not illegal/hypocritical–it’s still perfectly valid to express an opinion on whether a church policy is, in the larger context of reality, hypocritical or not.

Clearly, it’s hypocritical to pick and choose from Holy Writ and choose not to enforce the laws you think are silly, like not wearing mixed fibers. This establishes, beyond question, that the church proscribes homosexual marriage NOT because the bible says so, but because of a pre-existing prejudice against it in the human beings “interpreting” the writ. The writ is used to bolster the prejudices which the humans find unpleasant (homosexuality), while the same writ is dismissed on issues prejudicially unimportant (mixed fibers).

If the writ is dismissable on fibers, it’s dismissable on homosexuality. Only the prejudices of the HUMANS involved–not the abstract Mother Church–hiding behind Leviticus, legislate from their own personal prejudices.

125

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t believe it’s useful to call the Church’s stance “bigotry.”

They take the position that God has revealed certain universal truths, and that among those truths are the fact that a marriage represents a religious sacrament as well as a civil contract, and that it’s not possible for a sacramental marriage to exist between two people of the same sex.

Their motive for this claim, then, is not animus towards gays, or, indeed, towards anyone. Their motive is that God said it, and it is therefore so.

Now, you may disagree, of course, on any number of grounds. You may object to the notion that this is what God actually meant, you may object to the notion that anything that God said is valid guidance for civil, secular law, or you may say that the entire notion of God is absurd; there IS no God, and thus forming any policies based on God’s word is foolish.

But I don’t believe you can impute to the Church the sort of mailce that the word “bigotry” commonly conveys.

For example, it’s not necessarily misogynistic for a military officer to refuse to assign women to combat infantry. He may simply be making that decision because that’s what the law currently requires. It’s not correct to call him bigoted against women.
[/QUOTE]

A question, Bricker: Is it appropriate to obey an unjust law, or a statute you firmly believe to be unconstitutional? It’s not a smartalec comment – what exactly are the appropriate grounds for civil disobedience? At what point do you say “upon the throne be wrong” and take a stance against the civil law in favor of what you believe to be morally right?

And, addressing the board as a whole rather than Bricker, does that line in the sand differ for, say, Otto, and for Kanicbird? At which point is each of them acting immorally in making that judgment?

126

[QUOTE=Bricker]
.So, within that context, it’s not hypocritical to declare that God’s will is to refuse same-sex marriage and to ignore the prohibition on eating shellfish. They are the only source of correct information concerning God’s will. There is no hyprocisy - “hypocrisy” meaning preaching one thing and then actually doing the opposite. Their claims and their actions are consistent.
[/QUOTE]
Given all you state, I still see hypocrisy. they believe they are ordained by God, and as such have the authority to interpret the Bible. Perfectly logical. The problem lies in that their overall claim is “Gay marriage/sex is a sin - it says so in the Bible. It is our duty to educate people on and prevent sin, if possible” which, while on it’s own leads understandably to an anti-gay stance, doesn’t explain why other sins are not acted on so strongly.

Going with your definition; their claim is that their interpretation of the Bible contains the “rules” to live by, while their action is to ignore some of those rules whilst focusing strongly on another. Their claims and their actions are not consistent.

127

[QUOTE=Bricker]
They are the only source of correct information concerning God’s will.
[/QUOTE]

Well isn’t that conveeeeeeeenient.
[/church lady]

If the Pope is an infallible mouthpiece for God, then based on the Pope’s words, God is a giant jackass who deserves not worship but scorn and disgust.

128

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t believe it’s useful to call the Church’s stance “bigotry.”

They take the position that God has revealed certain universal truths, and that among those truths are the fact that a marriage represents a religious sacrament as well as a civil contract, and that it’s not possible for a sacramental marriage to exist between two people of the same sex.

Their motive for this claim, then, is not animus towards gays, or, indeed, towards anyone. Their motive is that God said it, and it is therefore so.

Now, you may disagree, of course, on any number of grounds. You may object to the notion that this is what God actually meant, you may object to the notion that anything that God said is valid guidance for civil, secular law, or you may say that the entire notion of God is absurd; there IS no God, and thus forming any policies based on God’s word is foolish.

But I don’t believe you can impute to the Church the sort of mailce that the word “bigotry” commonly conveys.

For example, it’s not necessarily misogynistic for a military officer to refuse to assign women to combat infantry. He may simply be making that decision because that’s what the law currently requires. It’s not correct to call him bigoted against women.
[/quote]

So, we can’t call the Church bigoted, because they’re just following God’s mandate. But we can’t call them hypocrites, because they’re the only ones who can decide what God’s mandate is. Smells like a double standard to me.

129

He did put the words “In that context” in that statement. Unfortunately, the “context” most of the world lives in is quite a bit broader than will fit in the RCC’s claim to be right simply due to its *being * the RCC.

That’s Bricker’s trademark approach, though - to try to redefine a case on narrow enough grounds that he can claim a better argument, while pretending the rest of the world (and the arguments relating to it) simply doesn’t exist. No doubt that approach is very effective in the courtroom, though.

Now, Bricker, show us what your answer would be if you weren’t advocating for your own particular denomination’s policy of self-justification by tautology. Remove the context you define and try again, okay?

130

[QUOTE=Siege]
Fair enough, but when the Pope and other Christians talk about how it should be illegal for homosexuals to marry, but not adulterers or divorcees, it does make me wonder where their priorities are. .
[/QUOTE]

Well, actually, the Catholic Church launched a big campaign in Ireland to stop divorce, and even was able to defeat a 1986 referendum that would have allowed divorce. So, I think the Catholic Church would like to see divorce illegal…they just realize that in most places, it’s a settled issue, and there’s not much they can do to make it happen.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, is being debated right now, and so they’re able to put resources into defeating it and have a chance at success.

131

[QUOTE=Polycarp]

And, addressing the board as a whole rather than Bricker, does that line in the sand differ for, say, Otto, and for Kanicbird? At which point is each of them acting immorally in making that judgment?
[/QUOTE]

As I mentioned. Piulling slect verses from an ancient book written by a different culture and using them to justify prejudice against a group of people can be seen as immoral.

132

[QUOTE=Bricker]
They take the position that God has revealed certain universal truths, and that among those truths are the fact that a marriage represents a religious sacrament as well as a civil contract, and that it’s not possible for a sacramental marriage to exist between two people of the same sex.
[/QUOTE]
First, that’s just wrong,since there are religious groups willing to marry gays. No matter how much they whine that they are the one true religion, a marriage is just as much a religious sacrament if it’s performed by Preacher Bob of the one-man Church of Bob as it is by a Catholic priest.

Second, if God forbids gay marriage, that just means God is a bigot, like I’ve said. Real or fictional, just because God tells you to do something doesn’t make it right.

133

He said “they take that position”. And they do. As if that’s supposed to settle the matter without further debate.

They’re wrong, obviously, as you say, not for what you say but for the reason that the RCC’s claim to be The One and Only *True * Interpreter of God’s Coommands is no different from, or more convincing to nonadherents than, the claim of virtuallyany *other * church’s, or New Age movement for that matter. Except, that is, to those who have already dismissed their own reason, their own humility, and even the awareness that churches are after all run by fallible humans, and unquestioningly accepted that claim to institutional innerrancy themselves.

It’s almost a pity that True Believers are forced to live in plural societies, where it’s accepted by the majority that religion has to stay out of politics. I almost feel sorry for them sometimes. But only almost. Their hypocrisies and hatreds are of their own choosing, even if that act of choice may have seemed like hearing the Voice of God Incarnate.

134

[QUOTE=Kimstu]
But “the Church’s inerrant application of God’s teachings” also depends on voluntary choices of interpretation, which is kind of my point.

It’s inadequate to argue that “the Church has to ban gay sex because it says so in the Bible”, because the Church is making voluntary choices about how to interpret the Bible.

Likewise, it’s inadequate to argue that “the Church has to ban gay sex because it says so in Church teachings”, because the Church is also making voluntary choices about how to interpret its own tradition.

[/quote]

You see them as voluntary.

The Church would argue that they are not voluntary at all - they are compelled, because they represent the actual and truthful reflection of God’s will.

Why is it bankrupt? At any given point, the Church is following God’s orders, according to her best understanding of those orders at the time.

At one time, in science, the “law” of gravity was that things fall at a particular rate of speed. Now we understand that that’s an observation that’s true only on this planet, and the real law of gravity is F=Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup].

In the future, we may discover some addition to that law. It doesn’t make us bankrupt. It means the we are applying the best, most complete model as we understand it at the time.

135

[QUOTE=lissener]
You are, as you well know, arguing a technicality. The Bushian doctrine of infallibility aside–if Bush/the Pope does it, it is by definition not illegal/hypocritical–it’s still perfectly valid to express an opinion on whether a church policy is, in the larger context of reality, hypocritical or not.

Clearly, it’s hypocritical to pick and choose from Holy Writ and choose not to enforce the laws you think are silly, like not wearing mixed fibers. This establishes, beyond question, that the church proscribes homosexual marriage NOT because the bible says so, but because of a pre-existing prejudice against it in the human beings “interpreting” the writ. The writ is used to bolster the prejudices which the humans find unpleasant (homosexuality), while the same writ is dismissed on issues prejudicially unimportant (mixed fibers).

If the writ is dismissable on fibers, it’s dismissable on homosexuality. Only the prejudices of the HUMANS involved–not the abstract Mother Church–hiding behind Leviticus, legislate from their own personal prejudices.
[/QUOTE]

Again - so say YOU. The Church denies that her ruling is based on personal prejudice. Nor is it based strictly on the words of the Bible. It’s based on the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church. It’s not hypocritical - they are accurately and consistently applying that one rule.

If it were true that they were simply making things up, then your charge would have some weight. But - in their view - they are not.

Again, the analogy is the military officer who enforces the discharge of a subordinate after the subordinate announces he’s gay. Is the officer a bigot? No - he’s simply applying the law as it’s given to him.

You are saying, in effect, that the Church is the one making the rules, and they are not the position of that officer applying someone else’s rules. THEY DO NOT AGREE. They are not the makers of the rules - they are merely passing them on.

136

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
A question, Bricker: Is it appropriate to obey an unjust law, or a statute you firmly believe to be unconstitutional? It’s not a smartalec comment – what exactly are the appropriate grounds for civil disobedience? At what point do you say “upon the throne be wrong” and take a stance against the civil law in favor of what you believe to be morally right?

And, addressing the board as a whole rather than Bricker, does that line in the sand differ for, say, Otto, and for Kanicbird? At which point is each of them acting immorally in making that judgment?
[/QUOTE]

In our system, my own view of constitutionality does not control. We have a method to determine constitutionality of laws, and a social contract that binds us to following that authority.

If the law crosses from merely unconstitutional into outright evil, where it is actively doing moral harm and represents an on-going evil, it may be appropriate to disobey that law. Knowing, of course, that there are temporal consequences for civil disobedience.

Where that line is for a given issue must be decided by each person, in light of an informed conscience.

137

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Going with your definition; their claim is that their interpretation of the Bible contains the “rules” to live by, while their action is to ignore some of those rules whilst focusing strongly on another. Their claims and their actions are not consistent.
[/QUOTE]

You switched.

You compared their interpretation of the Bible in the first instance with simply “the Bible” in the second instance.

You contrasted their claim and their action:

their claim is that their interpretation of the Bible contains the “rules” to live by, while their action is to ignore some of those rules whilst focusing strongly on another.

Their action is NOT to ignore any of those rules… IN THEIR INTERPRETATION. Their claim and their action is completely consistent: follow their interpretation. They don’t ignore any rules in their interpretation.

138

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
First, that’s just wrong,since there are religious groups willing to marry gays. No matter how much they whine that they are the one true religion, a marriage is just as much a religious sacrament if it’s performed by Preacher Bob of the one-man Church of Bob as it is by a Catholic priest.

[/quote]

Again, though, not by their admission or understanding. YOU may argue that anyone who claims “religious sacrament” has an equal claim to the title; the people that claim their religion is the correct one do not agree.

[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
Well isn’t that conveeeeeeeenient.
[/church lady]

If the Pope is an infallible mouthpiece for God, then based on the Pope’s words, God is a giant jackass who deserves not worship but scorn and disgust.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]

Second, if God forbids gay marriage, that just means God is a bigot, like I’ve said. Real or fictional, just because God tells you to do something doesn’t make it right.
[/QUOTE]

OK. That’s certainly a valid argument. You can certainly argue that if that’s what God says, then God is wrong.

139

[QUOTE=Miller]
So, we can’t call the Church bigoted, because they’re just following God’s mandate. But we can’t call them hypocrites, because they’re the only ones who can decide what God’s mandate is. Smells like a double standard to me.
[/QUOTE]

No, it’s not a double standard. It’s just a focus on correctly identifying the argument.

You can absolutely claim that there is no God; that there is, but the Church is wildly off base in divining his will; that there is a God but these rules make Him evil; that the existence or non- of God is an inappropriate basis for the development of secular law… all sorts of arguments remain. But “hypocrites” and “bigots” are not among them.

140

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Again - so say YOU. The Church denies that her ruling is based on personal prejudice. Nor is it based strictly on the words of the Bible. It’s based on the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church. It’s not hypocritical - they are accurately and consistently applying that one rule.

If it were true that they were simply making things up, then your charge would have some weight. But - in their view - they are not.

Again, the analogy is the military officer who enforces the discharge of a subordinate after the subordinate announces he’s gay. Is the officer a bigot? No - he’s simply applying the law as it’s given to him.

You are saying, in effect, that the Church is the one making the rules, and they are not the position of that officer applying someone else’s rules. THEY DO NOT AGREE. They are not the makers of the rules - they are merely passing them on.
[/QUOTE]

That argument only works as an excuse if I accept that 1) there is a God, 2) He’s Catholic, and 3) He’s actively involved in the formulation of Church policy. I don’t accept any of those premises. God doesn’t exsist, and he’s not IMing the Pope with the current offcial interpretation of scripture. The idea that homosexuality is a sin has to come from somewhere. It’s not just from the Bible, because as has been pointed out, the Church does not follow all the rules and restrictions therein. And it’s not from God, because there is no such animal. That pretty much just leaves the Pope’s own brain as their source. Which makes him a bigot. Even if he really, truly believe that God is guiding him when he speaks on the subject. All he’s really doing is revealing his personal prejudices.