Why don't people consider the Catholic Church a hate group?

[whorfin]

@ITR_champion

I never said any such thing. I said and meant that the law in DC might force Catholic charities to treat same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples.
And again, I never said I wanted any special treatment for the law. I pointed out that DC was almost certain to pass this law, and that it may lead to government force to boss around many people, including churches but also photographers and the like. I only mentioned the Catholic Church because they’re the subject of this thread.

So, to be clear, the fear is “these marriages are invalid as a matter of catholic doctrine–but the church would be forced to realize them if same-sex marriage is legalized”

Doesn’t it seem that the Catholic Church is being a little disingenuous?

There are lots of legal, heterosexual marriages that the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize as valid–but that are unquestionably valid under DC law.

For example, marriages between two unbaptized individuals. Second marriages (absent annulment). Marriages where the husband is a Catholic Priest (which is, IIRC, grounds for automatic excommunication).

All of those marriages violate catholic doctrine. Some of those marriages are fundamentally opposed to catholic doctrine.

And I would contend that (1) there is no law that forces the Catholic Church to celebrate such marriages, or recognize them religiously–you just can’t force St. Matthew’s cathedral to hold a wedding mass for one of its priests.

If there is no law that makes the Catholic Church celebrate a marriage that is legal NOW, but invalid doctrinally, what does same-sex marriage change?

Nothing. It increases the set of “legal civil marriages that are invalid under Catholic Doctrine”–but I don’t see how it forces the Catholic church to recognize any invalid marriage from a religious standpoint. (the first amendment, presumably, forbids any such rule)

Further, (2) I contend that now, to the extent the catholic church must recognize legal civil marriages regardless of doctrinal validity for secular purposes (for example, for employee benefits), it is now obliged to recognize marriages fundamentally inconsistent with its doctrine— for example, the marriage of a Catholic priest to the organist. Where is the outrage about that?

Or, if there is some exception for the church not to recognize those civil marriages for secular purposes, why wouldn’t it also apply to same-sex marriages?

Same-sex marriage just doesn’t change the fact that, to the extent the Catholic Church must recognize legal marriages for secular purposes, some of those marriages will be invalid under Catholic doctrine–and in some cases, because they go against fundamental Catholic Doctrine. It just isn’t the start of an obligation for the church to recognize invalid marriages–nor will same-sex marriages be the first, or the most common kind of doctrinally invalid marriages the church is compelled to recognize under such a law.

So, is there something special about these doctrinally invalid marriages that is worse than any of the other doctrinally invalid marriages that are now unquestionably legal and valid, or anything about same-sex marriage that suddenly changes the rules on when the Catholic Church can refuse, or is compelled to recognize doctrinally invalid marriages? I think not.

[shy_guy]

@Chessic_Sense

1. It’s no different than their stance on unwed college students. They have desires but the church demands that they don’t act on them.

It is fundamentally different. The obvious reason being that those unwed college students not only have a sin-free outlet for their desires awaiting them (sex within marriage), that activity and the fruits of it will be celebrated by the church.

That is quite a bit different than promoting lives of loneliness and celibacy for no good reason.

“You just don’t understand” is a position frequently employed by those putting forth religious arguments as both a shield against criticism and a convenient way to avoid addressing the frequently nonsensical and baseless aspects of those arguments. It is especially inappropriate in this case. It isn’t as if we’re dealing with complex doctrine or history, here; “Hate the sin; love the sinner” is simple to understand. It even provides a useful way of thinking, in religious terms, about issues like drug addiction or crime.

But it stops being useful when the activity in question is an innate part of a person, fundamental to his happiness, and causes no objective harm to anybody. Applied to homosexuality, the phrase is at least nonsensical. In practice, it’s actually harmful and I agree with Der Trihs that probably it’s a lie most of the time anyway. As he points out, the defense of “Well, we just don’t like that gays are constantly fucking multiple partners in bathhouses,” or whatever, crumbles in light of the fact that they also want to eliminate incentives for gays to be monogamous and in fact encourage the demonization of homosexuality, which is the reason for those illicit gay affairs they disliked so much in the first place.

At any rate, “The Catholic Church doesn’t hate gay people that much” is the worst argument for it not being a hate group. I’d argue that it isn’t sufficiently proactive in its hate and doesn’t make it a prominent enough concern.

[Mapache]

@ITR_champion

So the Church has “death camps” in your imagination. You would surely agree that this is somewhat different from the Nazi death camps that exist in reality, would you not?

Try Googling Jasenovic. (WELCOME TO THE REFORMATION ONLINE—THE MOST TIMELY, TRUTHFUL, AND NUMERICAL SITE ON THE INTERNET!). A genuine Nazi death camp, founded and managed and staffed by Franciscan monks and priests. (FRANCISCAN!!Named after the loving and peaceful St Franciis of Asisi!) and overseen by Archbishop/Cardinal Stepanek, whom Wojtyla wanted to make a saint until protests by human rights groups made him give up the idea. This place was so utterly evil that German officers took the unprecedented step of writing official letters of protest to Himmler and Goering (which were ignored). Among other charming acts, these good pious godfearing Catholic priests and monks locked eight thousand children under fourteen in an abandoned warehouse and left them to starve to death. They were also fond of saving energy by pushing the women and children- the men apparently fought back too succesfully- into the crematoria alive rather than gassing them first.
And the RCC is still defending their role in helping the Ustashi hide their loot.(Americans: Look What Happened at Jasenovic Concentration Camp)

[Miller]

@Chessic_Sense

1. it’s the same for unmarried people and priests. No double-standard there. And yeah, I know you can argue that an unmarried person can get married and thus escape the sexual sin, but which is worse - demanding that gays be celibate or demanding that, um, “free-roamers” get married? If the former, can you at least acknowledge that others might disagree with you? Can you see that it’s at least a close call?

There is absolutely and unequivocally a double standard. If you are straight, and Catholic, and want to have sex, you can get married. If you are gay, and Catholic, and want to have sex, you can never, ever, under any circumstances, do it.

I don’t get your point about “free roamers.” I’m not a big fan of the Catholic attitude towards sex in general, but if they allowed gays the same exemption from sexual sin that they offered straights, then at least they would be treating both groups equally, which is a huge step up from placing a gigantic and unfair burden on one group because of something that’s entirely beyond their control. That’s not even remotely a “close call.” It’s a very stark and obvious example of right and wrong.

[smiling_bandit]

@Miller

There is absolutely and unequivocally a double standard. If you are straight, and Catholic, and want to have sex, you can get married. If you are gay, and Catholic, and want to have sex, you can never, ever, under any circumstances, do it.

I don’t get your point about “free roamers.” I’m not a big fan of the Catholic attitude towards sex in general, but if they allowed gays the same exemption from sexual sin that they offered straights, then at least they would be treating both groups equally, which is a huge step up from placing a gigantic and unfair burden on one group because of something that’s entirely beyond their control. That’s not even remotely a “close call.” It’s a very stark and obvious example of right and wrong.

You are hilarious. What you fail to see is that you have different moral assumptions about the universe; this would be less funny except it’s so blatantly obviously clear to everyone else. Well, not everyone on this board. But everyone with a noggin.

[begbert2]

@shy_guy

At any rate, “The Catholic Church doesn’t hate gay people that much” is the worst argument for it not being a hate group. I’d argue that it isn’t sufficiently proactive in its hate and doesn’t make it a prominent enough concern.

I think it’s plenty proactive in its hate against homosexuals - but that that’s only a small part of its set of going concerns. Clearly they have a lot of other things on their plate too that have nothing to do with homosexuals at all.

It would be extraordinarily simple and straightforward to argue that the Catholic Church is not exclusively or even primarily a hate group - which certainly does distinguish it from various groups that pretty much exist for the sole reason of pushing their vitriol. However, I’m not sure you can make the argument that a failure to be exclusively a hate group mean that you’re not a hate group at all.

[Chessic_Sense]

@Miller

There is absolutely and unequivocally a double standard. If you are straight, and Catholic, and want to have sex, you can get married. If you are gay, and Catholic, and want to have sex, you can never, ever, under any circumstances, do it.

I think you’re underestimating how much certain people want to avoid marriage and monogamy.

One man doesn’t want to marry a woman because he’s gay.
One man doesn’t want to marry a woman because he hates the idea of marriage.

Now for some reason, you think that the first is a valid, immutable reason for sex to be sinless but you’d don’t see it that way for the second man. You don’t seem to understand that the objection to marriage, for many reasons, is equally strong as the objection to sex with women. In the statement “marry a woman”, some people object to the first word, some object to the last word. You have no right/authority to claim that one objection is more valid than the other.

In the eyes of the CC, both men commit the same sin. Now where is the hate there?

[Miller]

@smiling_bandit

You are hilarious. What you fail to see is that you have different moral assumptions about the universe; this would be less funny except it’s so blatantly obviously clear to everyone else. Well, not everyone on this board. But everyone with a noggin.

Wait, Catholics have a different idea of morality than I do? Damn, I never realized! Hey, I bet that’s why they keep doing things that I consider immoral! Jeez, I wish you’d been around to point this out to me sooner!

[Miller]

@Chessic_Sense

I think you’re underestimating how much certain people want to avoid marriage and monogamy.

One man doesn’t want to marry a woman because he’s gay.
One man doesn’t want to marry a woman because he hates the idea of marriage.

Now for some reason, you think that the first is a valid, immutable reason for sex to be sinless but you’d don’t see it that way for the second man. You don’t seem to understand that the objection to marriage, for many reasons, is equally strong as the objection to sex with women. In the statement “marry a woman”, some people object to the first word, some object to the last word. You have no right/authority to claim that one objection is more valid than the other.

In the eyes of the CC, both men commit the same sin. Now where is the hate there?

The hate exists because the Catholic church puts a different burden on gay people then it does on straight people, and is indifferent to the suffering this burden causes. This doesn’t mean that I think the idea of forcing people to wait until marriage to have sex is a good idea. It just means that I think it’s far less stupid and destructive then insisting that gay people never, ever have sex under any circumstances, and then castigating them for being unable to maintain a standard that the vast majority of straight Catholics would be unable to maintain themselves.

[Miller]

“Hate” isn’t exactly the right word, there. Not sure what is. “Evil,” maybe.

[Chessic_Sense]

@Miller

The hate exists because the Catholic church puts a different burden on gay people then it does on straight people

:smack: Same…burden…

[begbert2]

@Chessic_Sense

:smack: Same…burden…

Straight people are told that it’s a sin to marry and have sex with people of their preffered gender?

Wow. The church is more restrictive than I thought.

[Miller]

@Chessic_Sense

:smack: Same…burden…

No, it’s not. I don’t even see how you can say that.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Chessic_Sense

:smack: Same…burden…

No, it isn’t. Certainly there may well be people who don’t wish to get married, for whatever reason. But there is, at least, for straight people the possibility of sinless sex. But there is no such possibility at all for gay people. You might argue that it is the same burden, but applied to a larger group, or with additional criteria applied.

Beyond that, there is the possibility that a person who doesn’t wish to get married may change their mind; or, that they are willing to accept what they consider to be a bad thing, in order to avoid the greater bad of sin. A person can’t change their sexuality, on the other hand, and there are no compromises to be made for a gay person.

[smiling_bandit]

@Miller

Wait, Catholics have a different idea of morality than I do? Damn, I never realized! Hey, I bet that’s why they keep doing things that I consider immoral! Jeez, I wish you’d been around to point this out to me sooner!

Except you show no cognizance of this. You say you know, which is not at all the same thing as actually knowing it. You condemn them with long, convlouted reasoning based wholly on your own set of ethics, and then loudly whine about how you can’t understand why they do “X”, etc.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@smiling_bandit

Except you show no cognizance of this. You say you know, which is not at all the same thing as actually knowing it. You condemn them with long, convlouted reasoning based wholly on your own set of ethics, and then loudly whine about how you can’t understand why they do “X”, etc.

Everybody knows that. Jesus Christ. I guess I can speak for a few others when I say that it doesn’t matter that they can find some religious reasoning to defend their morals - I don’t care if they would claim it’s for some greater good or that they just like to see people suffer - it’s their actions are hurting innocent people.

I will also note that the church has changed its dogma on a lot of stuff in the past. It could also change its dogma on contraceptives and homosexuals.

[Miller]

@smiling_bandit

Except you show no cognizance of this. You say you know, which is not at all the same thing as actually knowing it. You condemn them with long, convlouted reasoning based wholly on your own set of ethics, and then loudly whine about how you can’t understand why they do “X”, etc.

Where do I “whine” about not understanding Catholic dogma? And what manner do you suggest one come to a decision on any moral issue, except through reasoning based on one’s own ethics? How is it different from what the Catholic Church has done on exactly this same issue, aside from the fact that we’ve come to different conclusions?

[StusBlues]

@Mapache

Try Googling Jasenovic. (WELCOME TO THE REFORMATION ONLINE—THE MOST TIMELY, TRUTHFUL, AND NUMERICAL SITE ON THE INTERNET!). A genuine Nazi death camp, founded and managed and staffed by Franciscan monks and priests. (FRANCISCAN!!Named after the loving and peaceful St Franciis of Asisi!) and overseen by Archbishop/Cardinal Stepanek, whom Wojtyla wanted to make a saint until protests by human rights groups made him give up the idea. This place was so utterly evil that German officers took the unprecedented step of writing official letters of protest to Himmler and Goering (which were ignored). Among other charming acts, these good pious godfearing Catholic priests and monks locked eight thousand children under fourteen in an abandoned warehouse and left them to starve to death. They were also fond of saving energy by pushing the women and children- the men apparently fought back too succesfully- into the crematoria alive rather than gassing them first.
And the RCC is still defending their role in helping the Ustashi hide their loot.(Americans: Look What Happened at Jasenovic Concentration Camp)

1. Stepinac did not “run” Jasenovac. Though he did condone the Ustashe, he also condemned them periodically, and he spoke against Jasenovac specifically. I’m not a fan of Stepinac by any means–he was far too chummy with genocidal fascists for my tastes–but saying he “ran” Jasenovac is ludicrous.

2. The site you quote is utter crap. One of its prime sources is Alberto Rivera, known to us here on the dope for his work with one Jack T. Chick. Enough said about that.

[cwthree]

@Superfluous_Parentheses

Everybody knows that. Jesus Christ. I guess I can speak for a few others when I say that it doesn’t matter that they can find some religious reasoning to defend their morals - I don’t care if they would claim it’s for some greater good or that they just like to see people suffer - it’s their actions are hurting innocent people.

It also wouldn’t matter if the Catholic Church sought to impose its morals only on Catholic believers. I have no problem with the Church saying, “If you want to be a good Catholic, you must not have homosexual sex (use contraception / eat meat on Friday / worship Satan / chew the Host / etc.).”

I have a huge problem with the Church’s attempts to impose these morals on people who are not Catholic, and that’s exactly what the Church does when it becomes involved in politics.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@cwthree

It also wouldn’t matter if the Catholic Church sought to impose its morals only on Catholic believers. I have no problem with the Church saying, “If you want to be a good Catholic, you must not have homosexual sex (use contraception / eat meat on Friday / worship Satan / chew the Host / etc.).”

I have a huge problem with the Church’s attempts to impose these morals on people who are not Catholic, and that’s exactly what the Church does when it becomes involved in politics.

Even if they want to impose things you agree with?