The tolerant Catholic Church

[Castiel]

Parish priest, I've never been party to such a discussion so I can't say for sure.

Which leads me back to anachronistic doctrine not in keeping with what the original Doctors of the Church, namely St Augustine intended.

Well they wouldn't frown on birth control if children were optional

Children are entirely optional...it is not a Catholic requirement that you MUST have children for a marriage to be binding and valid under Natural Law.

It's not a result of their union though, marriage is a celebration of a man and a women, not two girls and their IVF doctor.

It was a widely accepted process within Catholicism, mainly among the Nobility that the use of surrogates (both for procreation and for Childbirth) was not contrary to Natural Law. It was quite a common practice to allow the Wife's Handmaiden to bear the Children and not always only for infertility reasons. Ishmael in Genesis was a product of one such surrogacy.

Not a primary, but expected and grounds for annulment if otherwise.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM
Can. 1055 §1

"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptised."

The lack of Children is not grounds for annulment...the lack of consummation used to be. And the quote doesn't support your statement that Marriage with the intent of Children is not permitted and as the following illustrates...

Can. 1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.

...the essential parts of a marriage are the love and commitment implied by the unity and life-long commitment therein, not actually having offspring.

Neither does Canon law stipulate...

Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

...that Children are required to make to make the marriage lawful...only that the marriage is consummated and suitable for the creation of offspring.....so this would obviously be an issue for a homosexual couple, but then we are discussing your statement that Marriage is forbidden unless Children are the intent...which is not actually the case.

As I raised earlier the Church, in this specifically the Catholic Church has some very outdated and anachronistic views on Homosexuality that do not relate to the modern morality in the majority of the societies in which Christianity holds sway....and St Augustine would probably be horrified to realise that what he warned the Church about has come to pass, just maybe not quite in the manner in which he intended.

Of course all this also ignores the very real fact that the Catholic Church has no actual authority over Marriage in the United Kingdom.

 

[stockhausen]

Who cares? Really, who gives a flying fish?

I find it utterly bizarre that this is such an issue. Dear God, how trivial can one get

I genuinely couldn't care less whether or not a homosexual couple are married in the local church by some Catholic paedophile priest or if the Pope makes a special trip to marry them in Westminster Cathedral or the local public convenience.

Can't Catholics and homosexuals think of anything more important to get worked up about?

PATHETIC, PATHETIC, PATHETIC

 

[koolpc]

I find it utterly bizarre that this is such an issue. Dear God, how trivial can one get

I genuinely couldn't care less whether or not a homosexual couple are married in the local church by some Catholic paedophile priest or if the Pope makes a special trip to marry them in Westminster Cathedral or the local public convenience.

Can't Catholics and homosexuals think of anything more important to get worked up about?

PATHETIC, PATHETIC, PATHETIC

Only a minority of the catholic priests have been proven to be paedophiles and i believe that to want to get married in a church one should have a belief in its teachings. And as for the pope he doesnt qualify for a free bus pass so couldnt make the journey!!

 

[Fran]

If you have enough integrity to stand behind that statement and how you claim to apply it to marriage, I'll bother to read the rest of your post.

In order to be consistent with your own stated view, you will have to state that you think that nobody who is infertile should be allowed to marry.

Already commented on this I think, I said I didn't really see the point in such a marriage, although most people don't realise this until they try so the point is moot. Essentially it would be marrying for the sake of it. As with the menopause the act isn't inhibiting procreation even though nothing would happen, but the disassociation between the two is a negative thing I think.

As Castiel made a similar point about my motives I'll continue this on my reply to him.

 

[steve-h]

i believe that to want to get married in a church one should have a belief in its teachings.

I agree, surely if this stays the case there should be no problem?

 

[Fran]

Which leads me back to anachronistic doctrine not in keeping with what the original Doctors of the Church, namely St Augustine intended.

A reasonable point, but what is doctrine and what happens in people's lives don't always tally, I think I commented on specifics elsewhere.

Children are entirely optional...it is not a Catholic requirement that you MUST have children for a marriage to be binding and valid under Natural Law.

True, but that wasn't the point made.

It was a widely accepted process within Catholicism, mainly among the Nobility that the use of surrogates (both for procreation and for Childbirth) was not contrary to Natural Law. It was quite a common practice to allow the Wife's Handmaiden to bear the Children and not always only for infertility reasons. Ishmael in Genesis was a product of one such surrogacy.

Also true

The lack of Children is not grounds for annulment...the lack of consummation used to be. And the quote doesn't support your statement that Marriage with the intent of Children is not permitted and as the following illustrates...

I didn't say the lack of children was the grounds for annulment, but that children were expected and to enter into a marriage having lied about intent was grounds.

Before you get married this topic would be explored, if you tell the priest that you have no intention of having children then at his discretion he can refuse to marry you.

but then we are discussing your statement that Marriage is forbidden unless Children are the intent...

You are using ever more negative terms when as above that wasn't what I said

As I raised earlier the Church, in this specifically the Catholic Church has some very outdated and anachronistic views on Homosexuality that do not relate to the modern morality in the majority of the societies in which Christianity holds sway....and St Augustine would probably be horrified to realise that what he warned the Church about has come to pass, just maybe not quite in the manner in which he intended.

Do you not imagine it shows a staggering lack of political intelligence to force this issue with the current Pope in residence ?

I'd comment that the gay community has an obvious desire to feel normal within society, but that bashing society on the head isn't the best way forward. As it is, people's perception of homosexual life is one of multiple partners and an emphasis on sex at the determinedly risqué end of the spectrum. Do you not think that people having seen only a casual satiation of desire then doubt their integrity when it comes to marriage ? I only know two male couples but to comment on their relationship would be very unfair to other couples, lesbian partnerships seem more likely to want to include children but their relationships have quite a failure rate, statistics don't really give a detailed picture of this issue.

actually you are ignoring the fact that I was admittedly intentionally extreme to prove a point...one which you ignored to make a largely irrelevant and erroneous statement.

Equally you erroneously stated that "The truth is... you are opposed to Homosexuality"

You know nothing about me or what my personal feelings are, so when you retract that unpleasant statement then I might feel more inclined to talk to you

 

[Naffa]

I'd comment that the gay community has an obvious desire to feel normal within society, but that bashing society on the head isn't the best way forward. As it is, people's perception of homosexual life is one of multiple partners and an emphasis on sex at the determinedly risqué end of the spectrum. Do you not think that people doubt their integrity when it comes to marriage ? I only know two male couples but to comment on their relationship would be very unfair to other couples, lesbian partnerships seem more likely to want to include children but their relationships have quite a failure rate, statistics don't really give a detailed picture of this issue.

Are you joking? Do you consciously ignore the fact that everything you said can equally apply to heterosexual couples? Why do you speak of 'people's perception', why not 'Fran's perception'? After all, that's all it is.

You even concede that you believe 'statistics don't give a detailed picture on this issue', and if you do believe that, I would love to know where you're gaining your insight from.

You know nothing about me or what my personal feelings are, so when you retract that unpleasant statement then I might feel more inclined to talk to you

What you posted above seems to have merely confirmed Castiel's assertion.

 

[spudbynight]

Can I just say that anyone who starts bringing up paedophilia or sexual abuse as some sort of stick to bash the Catholic Church with automatically loses any credibility.

 

[spudbynight]

Children are entirely optional...it is not a Catholic requirement that you MUST have children for a marriage to be binding and valid under Natural Law.

That is correct however you must be open to having children.

Blessed Pope John Paul II was actually instrumental in changing the focus of marriage.

 

[Fran]

Are you joking? Do you consciously ignore the fact that everything you said can equally apply to heterosexual couples?

Maybe you are unaware of popular homosexual activities ? I suggest talking to a few if you are not of a prudish disposition

You even concede that you believe 'statistics don't give a detailed picture on this issue', and if you do believe that, I would love to know where you're gaining your insight from.

Contact with various LGBT groups, informal counselling etc. Where do you get your insight from, the lesbian confessions page from Loaded ?
What do you think we do all day, count beads ?

What you posted above seems to have merely confirmed Castiel's assertion.

I wouldn't bother making such a fuss if I didn't strongly object. Personally I'd have expected more than to see his comment prefaced with "Truth" when normally he is quite diligent in having the correct source.

 

[Naffa]

Maybe you are unaware of popular homosexual activities ? I suggest talking to a few if you are not of a prudish disposition

Perhaps you are unaware of popular heterosexual activities. I suggest... Well, never mind.

Contact with various LGBT groups, informal counselling etc. Where do you get your insight from, the lesbian confessions page from Loaded ?
What do you think we do all day, count beads ?

Oh, so you are the member of a clergy? And yes, I did think you sat around counting beads all day. In what capacity do you have contact with said groups? Gathering info to come and fight people searching for equality?

Also, a nice ironic slander RE the lesbian confessions comment. Almost as bad as William Lane Craig basing his assertion that being homosexual makes one physically more likely to commit suicide on the work of Paul Cameron. Paul having collected said research by reading the obituaries in various gay magazines, and other such nonsense.

I wouldn't bother making such a fuss if I didn't strongly object. Personally I'd have expected more than to see his comment prefaced with "Truth" when normally he is quite diligent in having the correct source.

Well, just because you didn't come out of the closet and declare your homophobia (which is possibly the most stupid English word) doesn't mean others can't work it out. But if you wish to prove that it's not true, go ahead... Why shouldn't gay people have the right to be married?

Can I just say that anyone who starts bringing up paedophilia or sexual abuse as some sort of stick to bash the Catholic Church with automatically loses any credibility.

Wow, you're sounding more and more like Bill Donohue. You don't think the wide spread rape and torture of children, plus the mass coverup, in addition to the emphasis to protect the rapists rather than the children, can be used as a stick to bash the institution that effectively sanctioned it? Outstanding.

 

[spudbynight]

Why is it actually MORALLY WRONG for two people who love each other to get married?

This question hasn't actually been answered yet. As Castiel is willing to engage in open discussion I think it is fair to try and answer is. I am conscious of not over-thinking this point though - we could easily spend the rest of our lives discussing it.

First of all I think it is important that people understand that morality is not scientific. You can't stick a probe from your moralitymeter into something and see how many moral units it scores on a scale.

We need to understand where as a western society our morals are derived from. The source of them is Judeo-Christian. In fact the earliest solid source is the Torah. Now regardless of whether you believe God revealed the 10 commandments to Moses or Moses was an elaborate fraud - that is the earliest source of what we base our morality on. The five books of the Torah - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy in English - are where we source our society's moral compass. Islam draws from the same source - meaning over the half the world has started from the same point.

Now I know that there are cultures around the world that have developed different approaches to morality. For every isolated south pacific community that embraced homosexuality there is another that embraced cannibalism. I don't liken homosexuality to cannibalism - I just want to point out that we shouldn't try and impose alien morality on ourselves.

So, we currently live in a society that bases its laws and sense of morality on a Judeo-Christian belief system. Within our culture - which is shared with other nations - it is understood that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Can I prove that homosexuality is wrong were I to believe that? Of course I can't and neither can anyone else. I also can't prove that murder is wrong but it doesn't change the fact that it is. If we start trying to rip up the moral law we as a society exist by we run the risk of undermining it all. I believe that is the fundamental bone of contention for many.

This isn't an issue about rights. It is purely political.

I personally believe we are all equal. Being equal doesn't mean we have to be the same.

Are my rights impinged because I can't call myself a happily married wife? I really don't believe they are. For the same reason I can't see how a civil partnership in the eyes of the law is in some way greater or lesser than a marriage. The fact is we live in a world of differences. A male-male couple is different to a male-female couple to a female-female couple. That is different - not inferior.

I am personally opposed to gay marriage but fully in support of civil partnerships. That doesn't mean I hate gay people. I live in Brighton (the gay capital of the UK) and as such I think I have more gay friends than straight friends. I think an sexually active gay lifestyle is wrong. I also don't think I am the one who is fit to judge anyone else. I also think sex between people who are not married in the church is wrong. I personally think each of them is equally wrong. It doesn't prevent my best friends including a couple, one of whom is still married to another.

My reason for opposing gay marriage is that in my opinion it undermines our society. Now, I can't prove that empirically - but neither can anyone prove the opposite.

 

[Naffa]

snip

I disagree with every word of your first few paragraphs, but it's not the point of the thread, so moving on...

I personally believe we are all equal. Being equal doesn't mean we have to be the same.

Are my rights impinged because I can't call myself a happily married wife? I really don't believe they are. For the same reason I can't see how a civil partnership in the eyes of the law is in some way greater or lesser than a marriage. The fact is we live in a world of differences. A male-male couple is different to a male-female couple to a female-female couple. That is different - not inferior.

Claiming that me having the right to be married to another man is analogous to you wanting to be a wife is just a trick with words, it's meaningless. And you're right, it is 'different - not inferior'. And if it's not 'inferior' to be in a same sex relationship, then...

I am personally opposed to gay marriage but fully in support of civil partnerships. That doesn't mean I hate gay people. I live in Brighton (the gay capital of the UK) and as such I think I have more gay friends than straight friends. I think an sexually active gay lifestyle is wrong. I also don't think I am the one who is fit to judge anyone else. I also think sex between people who are not married in the church is wrong. I personally think each of them is equally wrong. It doesn't prevent my best friends including a couple, one of whom is still married to another.

If you don't think you are the one who is fit to judge anyone else, why are you opposed to gay marriage? If you believe what you have written, you would support the right for anyone to be married, and allow the individual to decide what they deem 'moral' or 'right'.

I'm really trying not to turn this into a slur against religion, but the simple fact is that you would not believe anything so petty as 'sex between two people who are not married in the church is wrong' if you didn't believe that it was the will of the creator of the universe.

My reason for opposing gay marriage is that in my opinion it undermines our society. Now, I can't prove that empirically - but neither can anyone prove the opposite.

If there is no evidence that it undermines our society, why do we need to 'prove the opposite'? Perhaps it genuinely makes no difference to you whatsoever, and it is nothing to do with you. Perhaps it doesn't even change 'our society' beyond allowing two people that love each other to show a commitment through being married?

 

[spudbynight]

Wow, you're sounding more and more like Bill Donohue. You don't think the wide spread rape and torture of children, plus the mass coverup, in addition to the emphasis to protect the rapists rather than the children, can be used as a stick to bash the institution that effectively sanctioned it? Outstanding.

The Church as an entity didn't abuse anyone. Individuals did.
The Church as an entity didn't cover anything up. Individuals did.
The Church wasn't alone. Governments and other faiths have also been implicated.

Unfortunately many, including many posters on here, shout out paedophile at the mere mention of the word Catholic. It reminds me of the actions of a disturbed child.

Now, if somebody wants to start a thread discussing abuse within the Catholic Church I am more than happy to discuss it. Bringing it up every time the Catholic Church is mentioned is not an intelligent or reasonable road to take. If you want to debate with yourself then fine. Remember that Catholics were as shocked and probably more so than the rest of the world at the abuses perpetrated.

The NHS has also covered up abuses perpetrated under its auspices.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view...NHS-in-cover-up-over-cruel-abuse-of-patients-

The BBC have also been accused of cover ups

http://order-order.com/2012/02/09/d...questions-for-director-general-mark-thompson/

So have the boy scouts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ring-abuse-paedophile-leader-Rick-Turley.html

Funnily enough the Church of England has also been accused

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-14143721

Those are just from a quick 30 second google.

The Catholic Church is not alone in having abuse committed within it. However the amount of people involved is very much in the minority. It is unfair to tar all with the same brush.

 

[spudbynight]

Snip

If I can have some sort of retraction of your comments on paedophilia then I am happy to engage with you.

Until then you will have to wait for any further direct response from me.

 

[Naffa]

I'm not going to get into this debate... I assume you are a Catholic and have to do what's necessary to defend the honour of your church, but simply saying 'other institutions have been responsible for raping children' is just not good enough.

But one micro point, you're right when you say individuals covered it up, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, when he was head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith, was one of the most involved, for example. There's the slight institutional problem in that he is now the Pope. Does that not matter either? No, I don't suppose it does.

Ok, sorry. I got into the debate.

If I can have some sort of retraction of your comments on paedophilia then I am happy to engage with you.

Until then you will have to wait for any further direct response from me.

You can post what, and when you want. But I'm not going to retract comments condemning the rape and torture of children, just because doing so forces someone making excuses for it to feel awkward.

 

[elmarko]

The Church as an entity didn't abuse anyone. Individuals did.
The Church as an entity didn't cover anything up. Individuals did.
The Church wasn't alone. Governments and other faiths have also been implicated.

Unfortunately many, including many posters on here, shout out paedophile at the mere mention of the word Catholic. It reminds me of the actions of a disturbed child.

Now, if somebody wants to start a thread discussing abuse within the Catholic Church I am more than happy to discuss it. Bringing it up every time the Catholic Church is mentioned is not an intelligent or reasonable road to take. If you want to debate with yourself then fine. Remember that Catholics were as shocked and probably more so than the rest of the world at the abuses perpetrated.

The NHS has also covered up abuses perpetrated under its auspices.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view...NHS-in-cover-up-over-cruel-abuse-of-patients-

The BBC have also been accused of cover ups

http://order-order.com/2012/02/09/d...questions-for-director-general-mark-thompson/

So have the boy scouts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ring-abuse-paedophile-leader-Rick-Turley.html

Funnily enough the Church of England has also been accused

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-14143721

Those are just from a quick 30 second google.

The Catholic Church is not alone in having abuse committed within it. However the amount of people involved is very much in the minority. It is unfair to tar all with the same brush.

Apologist.

The actual organisation all the way up-to the top level has had a hand in covering up paedophilia, yes the acts were committed by individuals, but the organisation did cover them up.

The BBC/NHS are don't claim to be the moral voice of god & I don't think much better of the church of England either, but at least they are not partly responsible for exasperating the aids epidemic in Africa with frankly absurd notion that contraception is evil.

Trying to divert attention away is also a pretty pathetic debating method - on a final note, congratulations on having one of the dumbest signatures I've ever seen.

I'm not going to get into this debate... I assume you are a Catholic and have to do what's necessary to defend the honour of your church, but simply saying 'other institutions have been responsible for raping children' is just not good enough.

But one micro point, you're right when you say individuals covered it up, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, when he was head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith, was one of the most involved, for example. There's the slight institutional problem in that he is now the Pope. Does that not matter either? No, I don't suppose it does.

Ok, sorry. I got into the debate.

+1.

 

[Xordium]

Personally I'd have expected more than to see his comment prefaced with "Truth" when normally he is quite diligent in having the correct source.

Castiel must have made a good impression on you for you to notice his diligence in 185 posts!

 

[Fran]

In what capacity do you have contact with said groups?

As a person ?
The suicide rate for gays is above average, sometimes people just need someone to listen to them or even just somewhere to feel accepted.

Not sure why you can't accept that having a belief that prohibits something doesn't mean you hate the people in that situation.
The closest I get is thinking that Cameron is a two faced opportunist.

Castiel must have made a good impression on you for you to notice his diligence in 185 posts!

Oh I've lurked for ages, but only signed up to play Minecraft, I didn't really want to post before because it's pretty right wing in here

 

[Naffa]

As a person ?
The suicide rate for gays is above average, sometimes people just need someone to listen to them or even just somewhere to feel accepted.

Not sure why you can't accept that having a belief that prohibits something doesn't mean you hate the people in that situation.
The closest I get is thinking that Cameron is a two faced opportunist.

I didn't say that you hated them, but you certainly consider them to be 'immoral', possibly going to hell or something.

You're right with what you said in your first paragraph, and perhaps that place for them to feel accepted could be society? Rather than having people think they are immoral for no reason other than they were told it was so, by other people, perhaps we could just accept them?

If you want to know the reason for the higher suicide rate amoungst gays, you should read the article, 'A systemic review of mental disorder, suicide and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people' in BMC Psychiatry if you want to know why that is. It's nothing to do with genetics, by the way.