The church has a vested interest because it's against their beliefs. That's it, that's all the reasoning you need. It doesn't make them right, but it's what they choose to believe.
I addressed that in my third point. This is really no different from divorce. In Catholicism, divorce isn't just immoral - it's impossible. If you've already in a valid marriage, you cannot divorce yourself from them. You're married forever. (Annulments is when the Church rules that there really was no marriage from the start.)
Similarly, the Church doesn't believe that two homosexuals can get married. It's impossible for two men or two women to join together in holy matrimony. It's not just immoral, it's impossible.
Both divorce and homosexual marriage, to the Catholic Church, weaken the institution. And yet, the Catholic position is that we cannot impose our will, derived ultimately from faith and religion, on the entire people of a state -- because not everyone is catholic -- in the matter of divorce. They don't want to make divorce illegal from a civil perspective. And yet, for gay marriage, it's totally different.
The reasoning is ridiculous and contradictory.
Melkster on
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I guess all I meant was "Are you in favor of gay marriage?" would have been a much simpler question, and wouldn't lend itself to either side claiming they were fooled.
But that's not the same question. I can be against gay marriage but still recognize their rights to marriage, or I can think it's not my place to decide even if I'm still against gay marriage.
Damnit. :P
"Are you in favor of gays having the right to marry?"
My point was to make it a non-ambiguous, crystal-clear yes/no question.
Chanus on
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Both divorce and homosexual marriage, to the Catholic Church, weaken the institution. And yet, the Catholic position is that we cannot impose our will, derived ultimately from faith and religion, on the entire people of a state -- because not everyone is catholic -- in the matter of divorce. They don't want to make divorce illegal from a civil perspective. And yet, for gay marriage, it's totally different.
The reasoning is ridiculous and contradictory.
You're correct... but they did try to stamp out divorce for a couple hundred years before giving up the fight... so it's not entirely hypocritical of them.
I'm sure you'll find plenty of Catholics who still believe divorce is wrong.
Both divorce and homosexual marriage, to the Catholic Church, weaken the institution. And yet, the Catholic position is that we cannot impose our will, derived ultimately from faith and religion, on the entire people of a state -- because not everyone is catholic -- in the matter of divorce. They don't want to make divorce illegal from a civil perspective. And yet, for gay marriage, it's totally different.
The reasoning is ridiculous and contradictory.
You're correct... but they did try to stamp out divorce for a couple hundred years before giving up the fight... so it's not entirely hypocritical of them.
I'm sure you'll find plenty of Catholics who still believe divorce is wrong.
Lots of Catholics certainly believe divorce is wrong. I'd say among regular Catholic church-goers, it's along the same levels as anti-gay marriage sentiment.
And yeah, it really is entirely hypocritical of them. Because they don't say "It would be impossible to make divorce illegal, however, that is still our official position." They say, "It is not appropriate for the Church to impose it's will on marriage on the entire people of a state because not all people are Catholic." They changed their theology. They changed their reasoning. They changed their position. It's not just a matter of "giving up" on cause they believe in, they stopped believing in the cause. Why can't they apply that same exact reason to marriage generally? What makes gay marriage special?
The more religious you are the more the presence of people who break the illusion hurts.
It's like if you are so committed to WoW that you can't stomach the cows not being bipedal.
What you have in Maine is people wanting to have the cows bipedal because it's "authentic" and they don't want the illusion to break just because they've logged out. If you don't want to play along, hold up the scenery and make them feel good about something their limbic systems tell them is hunky-dory, they'll abuse democracy and force you to play along somehow. It's just as sickening as exclusive water fountains, but it's "religious" and Christians have their own laws of political correctness and identity politics.
In a decent society no amount of xtians would have the democratic power to mess with that which has no relation to their big LARP. The special status of faith must be destroyed utterly, preferably by top-bottom, undemocratic decree and enforcing.
Both divorce and homosexual marriage, to the Catholic Church, weaken the institution. And yet, the Catholic position is that we cannot impose our will, derived ultimately from faith and religion, on the entire people of a state -- because not everyone is catholic -- in the matter of divorce. They don't want to make divorce illegal from a civil perspective. And yet, for gay marriage, it's totally different.
The reasoning is ridiculous and contradictory.
I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church would be in favor of a tightening of divorce laws. If there was a referendum to enact such laws, the Catholic Church would support it.
I don't see anything wrong with the Catholic Church lobbying a certain way on a political referendum. They have the same right to do so as any other organization in this country.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Actually, churches do not have the same political rights as other organizations. It's part of their tax-exempt status.
IIRC, they can't lobby pro or con on a certain candidate, but they can take sides on referenda and such. Basically, they can do anything other than endorse a particular candidate.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
They also don't do shit about red meat on Fridays anymore either, so what's your point? The church has decided to let a few things slide in the last 2000 years and not others? Big deal. Trying to figure out why the church is against gay marriage is like looking for the meaning of life. It's not the worth the effort and you probably won't like the answer.
Hold the phone! Whoa. When did they backtrack that one? Does this mean that for the many sins I'm going to be damned to hell for, a burger on Friday is now not among them, or did the pope issue a "LOL, just Kidding, meats cool now, k"?
Deebaser on
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Well, you see, the Catholic Church has a personal vested interest in this law because if it was passed, they would be required to marry homosexuals in their churches. Wait, no, no they wouldn't. Let me try again...
The Church can call it double Satan marriage it it makes them happy. Just so long as they don't try to influence public policy.
The church has a vested interest because it's against their beliefs. That's it, that's all the reasoning you need. It doesn't make them right, but it's what they choose to believe.
Now, the fact that they diverted what, 500k to this while closing down churches is the part that's deplorable.
What?
No, look at that. Look at that and look at all the things all of us do all the time that are against "Catholic Beliefs". There's more to this than not believing it's a good thing or a holy thing. There's hatred.
It's not like there's a big "No on Pork" campaign by Jewish people.
The church has a vested interest because it's against their beliefs. That's it, that's all the reasoning you need. It doesn't make them right, but it's what they choose to believe.
The church doesn't have a vested interest in making gay marriage illegal. Bitches need to shut the fuck up and render unto Caesar.
Both divorce and homosexual marriage, to the Catholic Church, weaken the institution. And yet, the Catholic position is that we cannot impose our will, derived ultimately from faith and religion, on the entire people of a state -- because not everyone is catholic -- in the matter of divorce. They don't want to make divorce illegal from a civil perspective. And yet, for gay marriage, it's totally different.
The reasoning is ridiculous and contradictory.
I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church would be in favor of a tightening of divorce laws. If there was a referendum to enact such laws, the Catholic Church would support it.
I don't see anything wrong with the Catholic Church lobbying a certain way on a political referendum. They have the same right to do so as any other organization in this country.
Tightening the law, perhaps. Making it illegal? With all the restrictions that the Catholic Church places on it's own marriage/annulment rules? I can't find a single document out of the Vatican or the Conference of Catholic Bishops expressing an ideal of making divorce illegal. With gay marriage, of course, it's totally different.
Same actors, same words. They switched up the teacher, but the teacher is also a crazy teabagger and member of the CWA.
"Think of the children!" is the rallying cry.
You know, "Think of the children!" should be the rallying cry of the No on 1 crowd. Because that's who really stands the most to gain from this - the next generation being raised in a world where being gay is actually okay, accepted, and normal. Where, you know, we don't have half the freaking population of the United States morally opposed to our families and relationships.
Protecting children is core to the gay rights movement too. It's just as important to us as well.
Same actors, same words. They switched up the teacher, but the teacher is also a crazy teabagger and member of the CWA.
"Think of the children!" is the rallying cry.
You know, "Think of the children!" should be the rallying cry of the No on 1 crowd. Because that's who really stands the most to gain from this - the next generation being raised in a world where being gay is actually okay, accepted, and normal. Where, you know, we don't have half the freaking population of the United States morally opposed to our families and relationships.
Protecting children is core to the gay rights movement too. It's just as important to us as well.
Gays being able to adopt is thinking of the children unless being an orphan is better than living with gay parents.
Couscous on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Same actors, same words. They switched up the teacher, but the teacher is also a crazy teabagger and member of the CWA.
"Think of the children!" is the rallying cry.
You know, "Think of the children!" should be the rallying cry of the No on 1 crowd. Because that's who really stands the most to gain from this - the next generation being raised in a world where being gay is actually okay, accepted, and normal. Where, you know, we don't have half the freaking population of the United States morally opposed to our families and relationships.
Protecting children is core to the gay rights movement too. It's just as important to us as well.
Gays being able to adopt is thinking of the children unless being an orphan is better than living with gay parents.
The church has a vested interest because it's against their beliefs. That's it, that's all the reasoning you need. It doesn't make them right, but it's what they choose to believe.
Now, the fact that they diverted what, 500k to this while closing down churches is the part that's deplorable.
It might make you question their tax exemption status. I disagree with a non-profit attempting to manipulate politics in any manner other than encouraging people to register and vote.
In this case, the opposition is motivating voters with misinformation and fear, and to think a non-profit is contributing to that is troubling.
"The bible tells me what is right or wrong! I am not a bigot! I use it as my moral compass!
Now excuse me while I pick and chose what to believe from it."
To be fair, the Catholics are the ones who don't pick and choose, right?
The proto-orthodox Christian Church (which Catholics claim as their own) picked and chose what went in the Bible and what didn't.
The Catholic Church continued to grow, picked and chose what parts of the Bible they would emphasize and what they wouldn't, and then made that part of it's established, inerrant teaching.
The Catholic Church continued to grow, and picked and chose what parts of it's established, inerrant teaching to emphasize and what to let die out.
The Catholic Church continues to grow, now, and individual Catholics pick and choose what parts of their Church to believe and what parts not to believe; the hierarchy similarly picks and chooses what issues to make a big deal of (gay marriage, abortion), and what issues to emphasize the truth of, but leave to individual Catholic's conscience (contraception in America), and what issues to just completely re-interpret, ignore or renounce (Latin masses, Limbo, the doctrine that "outside the Church there is no salvation," slavery, holy war, inquisitions, indulgences, etc).
The entire freaking institution is filled with rather arbitrary picking and choosing.
Both divorce and homosexual marriage, to the Catholic Church, weaken the institution. And yet, the Catholic position is that we cannot impose our will, derived ultimately from faith and religion, on the entire people of a state -- because not everyone is catholic -- in the matter of divorce. They don't want to make divorce illegal from a civil perspective. And yet, for gay marriage, it's totally different.
See, the thing is, it's easier to try to impose your will upon a group through the masses when the target amounts to roughly 10% of the population, instead of when they make up that 90% of the population (ignoring gays because, well, who cares what people who can't get married in the first place think).
:x
They're just picking the fights they think they can win.
Same actors, same words. They switched up the teacher, but the teacher is also a crazy teabagger and member of the CWA.
"Think of the children!" is the rallying cry.
You know, "Think of the children!" should be the rallying cry of the No on 1 crowd. Because that's who really stands the most to gain from this - the next generation being raised in a world where being gay is actually okay, accepted, and normal. Where, you know, we don't have half the freaking population of the United States morally opposed to our families and relationships.
Protecting children is core to the gay rights movement too. It's just as important to us as well.
Gays being able to adopt is thinking of the children unless being an orphan is better than living with gay parents.
Gay parents means no Batman.
Gay parents means Alfred marries a similarly awesome British fellow and makes Batman even more awesome.
As long as the bible exists, ideation involving the killing of men with long hair, slavery under certain circumstances and death penalties for bestiality exists. If Christians just agreed to purge the obviously dumb shit from the bible for good, problem solved. But it's lying there, unedited, like a softly humming entity ready to harm, kill or indoctrinate innocent people as long as the societal circumstances allow it. The only echelon between the theocracy and oppression the Abrahamic texts extol and people like me is Christians, followers of Judaism and Muslims. My concerns are understandably not allayed. Rather, I get a lot of whining about them being persecuted and treated meanly because I would stop them from letting their political power intrude on the sovereignty of others, like in Maine or California.
You can't deify and sugarcoat one passage (completely arbitrarily), say that you've put the worst behind you and then prance about saying that you have legitimate interests against your children being told the truth about homosexuals (Do you expect we want to tell them how gay people fuck or something? Get a grip.). That is dog shit.
Until the catholic church joins the real world and starts fighting sexuality-based prosecution the way it defended free religion and opposed racism, I'm not respecting it for even a micron. I have accomplished more, intellect-wise, than the entire Vatican. It's a dangerous organization with tenets just as bad and insane as racism.
Kastanj on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
Both divorce and homosexual marriage, to the Catholic Church, weaken the institution. And yet, the Catholic position is that we cannot impose our will, derived ultimately from faith and religion, on the entire people of a state -- because not everyone is catholic -- in the matter of divorce. They don't want to make divorce illegal from a civil perspective. And yet, for gay marriage, it's totally different.
The reasoning is ridiculous and contradictory.
You're correct... but they did try to stamp out divorce for a couple hundred years before giving up the fight... so it's not entirely hypocritical of them.
I'm sure you'll find plenty of Catholics who still believe divorce is wrong.
You'll also find plenty of Catholics who believe that gays should be allowed to marry. Unfortunately there aren't a whole lot of them, but probably more in Maine than in other parts of the country.
By all accounts, the new bishop is a real asshole. Maine had a huge French-Catholic community by way of Canada for the better part of a century, but in the last fifteen-or-so years those numbers have been spiraling down (no more gigantic immigrant families) and I guess the Cardinal wanted to bring in a real nutbuster thinking that the solution to all their problems lay in grabbing onto as many wedge issues as they could. Back when my mother worked for the Council of Churches (a liberal non-profit community organization) the diocese was a lot more reasonable and they often worked together on a lot of social justice issues, but these days it really seems like they're too busy finding things to hate.
The fact that every TV in the state gets EWTN doesn't help, either.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
They also don't do shit about red meat on Fridays anymore either, so what's your point? The church has decided to let a few things slide in the last 2000 years and not others? Big deal. Trying to figure out why the church is against gay marriage is like looking for the meaning of life. It's not the worth the effort and you probably won't like the answer.
Especially when you have the answer right in front of you.
Same actors, same words. They switched up the teacher, but the teacher is also a crazy teabagger and member of the CWA.
"Think of the children!" is the rallying cry.
You know, "Think of the children!" should be the rallying cry of the No on 1 crowd. Because that's who really stands the most to gain from this - the next generation being raised in a world where being gay is actually okay, accepted, and normal. Where, you know, we don't have half the freaking population of the United States morally opposed to our families and relationships.
Protecting children is core to the gay rights movement too. It's just as important to us as well.
Is it because we want our kids to fight for the right to marry robots?
Or is it because raising a kid to respect others is never a bad thing but teaching them to hate who you hate is horrible and many people think it should b child abuse?
I always assumed the church was against it because without the sense of shame about being gay, they would end up with less priests.
Seriously, what's the percentage of seminary students who are trying to become priests as a way to deal with their conflict over homosexual feelings? If we could get an accurate number I would bet it's pretty high.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I always assumed the church was against it because without the sense of shame about being gay, they would end up with less priests.
Seriously, what's the percentage of seminary students who are trying to become priests as a way to deal with their conflict over homosexual feelings? If we could get an accurate number I would bet it's pretty high.
High compared to what? It's a hell of a commitment just to avoid "being gay". Call me naive, but I imagine most people who enter the priesthood actually... you know... want to be priests.
I always assumed the church was against it because without the sense of shame about being gay, they would end up with less priests.
Seriously, what's the percentage of seminary students who are trying to become priests as a way to deal with their conflict over homosexual feelings? If we could get an accurate number I would bet it's pretty high.
High compared to what? It's a hell of a commitment just to avoid "being gay". Call me naive, but I imagine most people who enter the priesthood actually... you know... want to be priests.
All I know is I've met a staggering number of former seminary students who were gay, most of whom said there were a LOT of gay students there. I'll grant it's anecdotal.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I always assumed the church was against it because without the sense of shame about being gay, they would end up with less priests.
Seriously, what's the percentage of seminary students who are trying to become priests as a way to deal with their conflict over homosexual feelings? If we could get an accurate number I would bet it's pretty high.
High compared to what? It's a hell of a commitment just to avoid "being gay". Call me naive, but I imagine most people who enter the priesthood actually... you know... want to be priests.
You're naive. It used to be that if you came from a conservative Catholic family and you were gay, the priesthood was a way to explain why you never married a woman.
Hachface on
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I always assumed the church was against it because without the sense of shame about being gay, they would end up with less priests.
Seriously, what's the percentage of seminary students who are trying to become priests as a way to deal with their conflict over homosexual feelings? If we could get an accurate number I would bet it's pretty high.
High compared to what? It's a hell of a commitment just to avoid "being gay". Call me naive, but I imagine most people who enter the priesthood actually... you know... want to be priests.
You're naive. It used to be that if you came from a conservative Catholic family and you were gay, the priesthood was a way to explain why you never married a woman.
I'm aware of that, I'm disagreeing with the "pretty high" part of the statement.
Yeah, homosexuality is very, very common in the priesthood, and it makes absolute sense. If you're a young man and you have been raised to believe in Catholicism - and then you discover that you're exclusively attracted to other guys - what choice do you have? If you believe in the truth of your religion, there are two choices: a lay single life, or a religious vocation. Marriage is not an option, obviously. So what do you do? Live a life alone, without meaning, without purpose -- Or give your life purpose. Live of a life of meaning, with a specific mission: the priesthood.
It's extremely common. Hell, I wanted to be a priest. I lived in a "priest-in-training" house as an undergrad for a semester. I majored in Religious Studies.
I always assumed the church was against it because without the sense of shame about being gay, they would end up with less priests.
Seriously, what's the percentage of seminary students who are trying to become priests as a way to deal with their conflict over homosexual feelings? If we could get an accurate number I would bet it's pretty high.
High compared to what? It's a hell of a commitment just to avoid "being gay". Call me naive, but I imagine most people who enter the priesthood actually... you know... want to be priests.
You're naive. It used to be that if you came from a conservative Catholic family and you were gay, the priesthood was a way to explain why you never married a woman.
I'm aware of that, I'm disagreeing with the "pretty high" part of the statement.
A book by Donald Cozzens who runs a seminary and a graduate theology school, takes his personal experiences and empirical studies and makes a pretty convincing case that the rate of homosexuality in the priesthood is up near 50% in some dioceses. It's rampant, dude.
Posts
I addressed that in my third point. This is really no different from divorce. In Catholicism, divorce isn't just immoral - it's impossible. If you've already in a valid marriage, you cannot divorce yourself from them. You're married forever. (Annulments is when the Church rules that there really was no marriage from the start.)
Similarly, the Church doesn't believe that two homosexuals can get married. It's impossible for two men or two women to join together in holy matrimony. It's not just immoral, it's impossible.
Both divorce and homosexual marriage, to the Catholic Church, weaken the institution. And yet, the Catholic position is that we cannot impose our will, derived ultimately from faith and religion, on the entire people of a state -- because not everyone is catholic -- in the matter of divorce. They don't want to make divorce illegal from a civil perspective. And yet, for gay marriage, it's totally different.
The reasoning is ridiculous and contradictory.
Damnit. :P
"Are you in favor of gays having the right to marry?"
My point was to make it a non-ambiguous, crystal-clear yes/no question.
You're correct... but they did try to stamp out divorce for a couple hundred years before giving up the fight... so it's not entirely hypocritical of them.
I'm sure you'll find plenty of Catholics who still believe divorce is wrong.
Lots of Catholics certainly believe divorce is wrong. I'd say among regular Catholic church-goers, it's along the same levels as anti-gay marriage sentiment.
And yeah, it really is entirely hypocritical of them. Because they don't say "It would be impossible to make divorce illegal, however, that is still our official position." They say, "It is not appropriate for the Church to impose it's will on marriage on the entire people of a state because not all people are Catholic." They changed their theology. They changed their reasoning. They changed their position. It's not just a matter of "giving up" on cause they believe in, they stopped believing in the cause. Why can't they apply that same exact reason to marriage generally? What makes gay marriage special?
It's like if you are so committed to WoW that you can't stomach the cows not being bipedal.
What you have in Maine is people wanting to have the cows bipedal because it's "authentic" and they don't want the illusion to break just because they've logged out. If you don't want to play along, hold up the scenery and make them feel good about something their limbic systems tell them is hunky-dory, they'll abuse democracy and force you to play along somehow. It's just as sickening as exclusive water fountains, but it's "religious" and Christians have their own laws of political correctness and identity politics.
In a decent society no amount of xtians would have the democratic power to mess with that which has no relation to their big LARP. The special status of faith must be destroyed utterly, preferably by top-bottom, undemocratic decree and enforcing.
I don't see anything wrong with the Catholic Church lobbying a certain way on a political referendum. They have the same right to do so as any other organization in this country.
Rigorous Scholarship
Rigorous Scholarship
Hold the phone! Whoa. When did they backtrack that one? Does this mean that for the many sins I'm going to be damned to hell for, a burger on Friday is now not among them, or did the pope issue a "LOL, just Kidding, meats cool now, k"?
The Church can call it double Satan marriage it it makes them happy. Just so long as they don't try to influence public policy.
No, look at that. Look at that and look at all the things all of us do all the time that are against "Catholic Beliefs". There's more to this than not believing it's a good thing or a holy thing. There's hatred.
It's not like there's a big "No on Pork" campaign by Jewish people.
http://gay.americablog.com/2009/09/new-anti-gay-ad-in-maine-is-exact-copy.html
Same actors, same words. They switched up the teacher, but the teacher is also a crazy teabagger and member of the CWA.
"Think of the children!" is the rallying cry.
Tightening the law, perhaps. Making it illegal? With all the restrictions that the Catholic Church places on it's own marriage/annulment rules? I can't find a single document out of the Vatican or the Conference of Catholic Bishops expressing an ideal of making divorce illegal. With gay marriage, of course, it's totally different.
You know, "Think of the children!" should be the rallying cry of the No on 1 crowd. Because that's who really stands the most to gain from this - the next generation being raised in a world where being gay is actually okay, accepted, and normal. Where, you know, we don't have half the freaking population of the United States morally opposed to our families and relationships.
Protecting children is core to the gay rights movement too. It's just as important to us as well.
Gays being able to adopt is thinking of the children unless being an orphan is better than living with gay parents.
Gay parents means no Batman.
"The bible tells me what is right or wrong! I am not a bigot! I use it as my moral compass!
Now excuse me while I pick and chose what to believe from it."
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
To be fair, the Catholics are the ones who don't pick and choose, right?
It might make you question their tax exemption status. I disagree with a non-profit attempting to manipulate politics in any manner other than encouraging people to register and vote.
In this case, the opposition is motivating voters with misinformation and fear, and to think a non-profit is contributing to that is troubling.
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
The proto-orthodox Christian Church (which Catholics claim as their own) picked and chose what went in the Bible and what didn't.
The Catholic Church continued to grow, picked and chose what parts of the Bible they would emphasize and what they wouldn't, and then made that part of it's established, inerrant teaching.
The Catholic Church continued to grow, and picked and chose what parts of it's established, inerrant teaching to emphasize and what to let die out.
The Catholic Church continues to grow, now, and individual Catholics pick and choose what parts of their Church to believe and what parts not to believe; the hierarchy similarly picks and chooses what issues to make a big deal of (gay marriage, abortion), and what issues to emphasize the truth of, but leave to individual Catholic's conscience (contraception in America), and what issues to just completely re-interpret, ignore or renounce (Latin masses, Limbo, the doctrine that "outside the Church there is no salvation," slavery, holy war, inquisitions, indulgences, etc).
The entire freaking institution is filled with rather arbitrary picking and choosing.
Everybody picks and chooses.
I used to be a Catholic.
"Hey yeah don't take the old testament seriously because it just doesn't make any sense. But these parts here and here do. Not here. But here...."
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
See, the thing is, it's easier to try to impose your will upon a group through the masses when the target amounts to roughly 10% of the population, instead of when they make up that 90% of the population (ignoring gays because, well, who cares what people who can't get married in the first place think).
:x
They're just picking the fights they think they can win.
C'mon Maine, prove me wrong!
Edit: Damnit, beaten.
Gay parents means Alfred marries a similarly awesome British fellow and makes Batman even more awesome.
I am a Catholic... it was a joke... maybe not a good one...
Crap.
Gosh I can't tell sarcasm when it comes to religion.
Nor my religious affiliation through an internet forum... how weird :P
You can't deify and sugarcoat one passage (completely arbitrarily), say that you've put the worst behind you and then prance about saying that you have legitimate interests against your children being told the truth about homosexuals (Do you expect we want to tell them how gay people fuck or something? Get a grip.). That is dog shit.
Until the catholic church joins the real world and starts fighting sexuality-based prosecution the way it defended free religion and opposed racism, I'm not respecting it for even a micron. I have accomplished more, intellect-wise, than the entire Vatican. It's a dangerous organization with tenets just as bad and insane as racism.
You'll also find plenty of Catholics who believe that gays should be allowed to marry. Unfortunately there aren't a whole lot of them, but probably more in Maine than in other parts of the country.
By all accounts, the new bishop is a real asshole. Maine had a huge French-Catholic community by way of Canada for the better part of a century, but in the last fifteen-or-so years those numbers have been spiraling down (no more gigantic immigrant families) and I guess the Cardinal wanted to bring in a real nutbuster thinking that the solution to all their problems lay in grabbing onto as many wedge issues as they could. Back when my mother worked for the Council of Churches (a liberal non-profit community organization) the diocese was a lot more reasonable and they often worked together on a lot of social justice issues, but these days it really seems like they're too busy finding things to hate.
The fact that every TV in the state gets EWTN doesn't help, either.
Especially when you have the answer right in front of you.
Hint: It's Bigotry.
Is it because we want our kids to fight for the right to marry robots?
Or is it because raising a kid to respect others is never a bad thing but teaching them to hate who you hate is horrible and many people think it should b child abuse?
Seriously, what's the percentage of seminary students who are trying to become priests as a way to deal with their conflict over homosexual feelings? If we could get an accurate number I would bet it's pretty high.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
High compared to what? It's a hell of a commitment just to avoid "being gay". Call me naive, but I imagine most people who enter the priesthood actually... you know... want to be priests.
All I know is I've met a staggering number of former seminary students who were gay, most of whom said there were a LOT of gay students there. I'll grant it's anecdotal.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
You're naive. It used to be that if you came from a conservative Catholic family and you were gay, the priesthood was a way to explain why you never married a woman.
I'm aware of that, I'm disagreeing with the "pretty high" part of the statement.
It's extremely common. Hell, I wanted to be a priest. I lived in a "priest-in-training" house as an undergrad for a semester. I majored in Religious Studies.
A book by Donald Cozzens who runs a seminary and a graduate theology school, takes his personal experiences and empirical studies and makes a pretty convincing case that the rate of homosexuality in the priesthood is up near 50% in some dioceses. It's rampant, dude.