"What will happen to Catholics and others . . . ?"

[Bryan_Ekers]

Hey, increasing the irrelevance of the Catholic Church is but one of the many happy benefits of gay marriage.

[Inner_Stickler]

@zoid

I got $500 that says this ain’t gonna happen. 50 years? No way.

Especially with Benedict in charge. He is not what one would call progressive.

[Simplicio]

@Inner_Stickler

Especially with Benedict in charge. He is not what one would call progressive.

I’m gonna go out on a limb and speculate Benedict’s Papacy won’t last 50 years.

[panache45]

I’ve never understood why religious opinions seem to get a pass, and are untouchable by criticism. People are responsible for the beliefs they choose to embrace, and religious beliefs are no exception. If you believe in stupid things, you shouldn’t be surprised when people consider you stupid, and act accordingly.

[Bricker]

@Condescending_Robot

The idea that religions don’t change their fundamental doctrines in order to remain socially viable, and then pretend the new beliefs of convenience were what they really believed all along, is so contrary to every bit of evidence about how the world actually works as to belong in the ever-expanding category of pure fantasy items that conservatives believe.

Catholics will be doing same-sex weddings in cathedrals within fifty years, shaking their fingers at anyone who has a problem with it, and yelling claims of “bias” and atheism at anyone who disputes the claim that they have been doing so since first century Rome.

Can you give an example of another change in fundamental doctrine Catholics have made?

[Inner_Stickler]

@Simplicio

I’m gonna go out on a limb and speculate Benedict’s Papacy won’t last 50 years.

He seems like the kind of guy who’ll hang on from sheer force of will. However, his election to the papacy tells me that the college of cardinals is moving away from the ecumenical reforms of John Paul II and I would not be surprised if the next several popes are as conservative and traditional as he is.

[Horatio_Hellpop]

@Inner_Stickler

Especially with Benedict in charge. He is not what one would call progressive.

He was one of the architects of Vatican II (maybe the most sweeping reform in Church history), long before he was John Paul II’s leg-breaker. I’m not a fan in general, but he deserves a little more credit than he gets.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Krokodil

He was one of the architects of Vatican II (maybe the most sweeping reform in Church history)

Even more than the Reformation? Wow.

[Inner_Stickler]

@Bricker

Can you give an example of another change in fundamental doctrine Catholics have made?

Pope Eugene IV
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

vs.

The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God’s word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize.

[Inner_Stickler]

@Krokodil

He was one of the architects of Vatican II (maybe the most sweeping reform in Church history), long before he was John Paul II’s leg-breaker. I’m not a fan in general, but he deserves a little more credit than he gets.

I don’t really care what he did 40+ years ago. Now that he’s pope, he’s basically a hatemonger.

[Guinastasia]

@panache45

I’ve never understood why religious opinions seem to get a pass, and are untouchable by criticism. People are responsible for the beliefs they choose to embrace, and religious beliefs are no exception. If you believe in stupid things, you shouldn’t be surprised when people consider you stupid, and act accordingly.

Who here said they get a pass? Of course they shouldn’t. If you’re arguing that by law, they should be forced to perform SSM, that’s a different ball game. (Of course, it’s late and I’m half-asleep, so I could just be totally misreading you)

[sqweels]

@Bricker

Can you give an example of another change in fundamental doctrine Catholics have made?

MrWhatsit provided one: Marriage annulment, which is an obvious bullshit work-around to avoid the prohibition on divorce.

[2sense]

The thing that struck me was the blogger’s view of his relationship with his teacher. He asked his teacher for an opinion and then is affronted when the opinion is given without emotion and despite the fact that the teacher knew he would disagree with it. His confidence in the teacher was shaken.

WTF? Should a teacher be respected for telling students what they want to hear? Or for sugarcoating things for adult students? What does this guy expect?

[sqweels]

A question just occurred to me: If a man marries a woman who turns out to be infertile, it’s a safe bet he’ll be granted an annulment by the RCC if he doesn’t want to stay married to her.

The question is, would the clergy be happy or unhappy about it? Would they encourage him to stay with her in the name of the sanctity of marriage, not to mention compassion for his poor wife? Or would they encourage him to leave her and find someone he can have children with? After all, being married to an infertile spouse is anti-procreation. You’re not creating new life, which the Church maintains is all-important. You might as well be using contraceptives, or indeed, you might as well be gay.

[Guinastasia]

@sqweels

MrWhatsit provided one: Marriage annulment, which is an obvious bullshit work-around to avoid the prohibition on divorce.

Annulment has always been a practice by the church - it’s not a recent one.

[Miller]

@Bricker

Can you give an example of another change in fundamental doctrine Catholics have made?

Y’all stopped burning protestants at the stake, didn’t you?

[flodnak]

@Bryan_Ekers

Even more than the Reformation? Wow.

Possible Nitpick Alert: The Reformation is generally understood to refer to the Protestant Reformation, which can’t be said to have been a major change in Roman Catholic Church history. On the other hand, it led directly to the Counter-Reformation, which was indeed an RCC internal matter. The Counter-Reformation as a whole led to more changes than Vatican II, but with one crucial caveat: the C-R was a series of ecumenical councils and decrees during a period that lasted for over a century. Vatican II lasted three years.

As to the original post: people who write these things seem to assume that the US would be entering completely unexplored territory if it had marriage equality laws, as if no one had ever done it before. But there are already ten countries that have full marriage equality, and around twenty more that have some form of legal partnership for same-sex couples. Rather than fret about what might happen, why not look at the reality of what has happened in those countries?

[Der_Trihs]

@flodnak

But there are already ten countries that have full marriage equality, and around twenty more that have some form of legal partnership for same-sex couples. Rather than fret about what might happen, why not look at the reality of what has happened in those countries?

Because then the anti-SSM crowd has to face the terrible, horrible truth that the answer is…not much.

[panache45]

@Guinastasia

Who here said they get a pass? Of course they shouldn’t. **If you’re arguing that by law, they should be forced to perform SSM, **that’s a different ball game. (Of course, it’s late and I’m half-asleep, so I could just be totally misreading you)

No, I’m not arguing for any kind of force. How did you infer that, from what I said?

[John_Mace]

@flodnak

As to the original post: people who write these things seem to assume that the US would be entering completely unexplored territory if it had marriage equality laws, as if no one had ever done it before. But there are already ten countries that have full marriage equality, and around twenty more that have some form of legal partnership for same-sex couples. Rather than fret about what might happen, why not look at the reality of what has happened in those countries?

No need to look to other countries. There are several states where SSM is legal in the US already.

And the first state to legalize it, MA, is heavily Catholic.