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
Not really it's both ways but as in all aspects of life it is the extremes that are more visible and vocal.
The tolerant Catholic Church
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Not really it's both ways but as in all aspects of life it is the extremes that are more visible and vocal.
I would be very careful attributing that to the gay lifestyle rather than something somewhat more obvious such as some attitdues towards homosexuality. Suicide rates are going to be higher if you continually being told that you are abnormal, unnatural etc, etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 4,249
- Location
- Inverkip
Well said sir, I applaud you.
It is inaccurate though.
The Chruch, as an institution, is made up of individuals. It, as an institution, covered up instances of child abuse for no other reason than to avoid embarrasment to the Church. It was media and legal attention that led to a change of behaviour within the Church not any moral obligation. Roman Catholics should be justifiably furious with the Chruch for it's actions rather than trying to excuse it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,837
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Well, you are factually incorrect about Pope Benedict XVI. There have been unproven allegations made against him. Allegations which I contend are not only untrue but the complete opposite of his actions. Pope Benedict XVI has in fact been at the vanguard of rooting out this evil within the Church.
Don't let facts get in the way of your prejudices though.
I haven't asked you to retract comments condemning the rape and torture of children. What I have asked you to do is retract comments slandering the entire Catholic Church.
Anyway you seem to be close minded and unwilling to discuss things in a mature manner. Welcome to my rapidly growing ignore list.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,837
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,837
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Castiel has substantially more than 185 posts hasn't he? Closer to 185 posts per day I think?
Pretty easy to form an impression of him?
The immorality of it I've wavered on for years, pragmatically I believe that people deserve to be loved and if the only way that need can be addressed is in a committed relationship with someone of the same gender, then OK. Most have more immediate problems than considerations of damnation, it's not my job to tell people what to believe, but to help if I can.
So no, I don't spend a lot of time wondering if something somebody else does is immoral or not, it isn't that relevant to me.
Inventing a motive and then suggesting a succession of related dilemmas based on that fancy, is not that productive
Maybe if they didn't have parades dressed in gimp outfits then questions of morality would never have occurred
Homosexual identity is willing over-sexualised, and lesbian identity is over-sexualised by society itself. So I think you may be pointing the finger in the wrong direction if you think we invented this situation.Thank you for the link
I've struggled in the past to get my head around issues of self harm, it often comes at the tail end of a very complex story which isn't immediately confessed. I'm not attributing it to lifestyle, issues usually revolves around personal identity confusion rather than any external influence (well, excluding parents perhaps).
Really, the topic of marriage is way down the list of concerns, and I think only exists in the heads of disaffected gay bloggers who imagine they are Gandalf fighting evil Catholic Orcs. The cringe-worthy self righteous nature of some of them makes Evangelists look like festival hippies, and they are not about censuring anyone even mildly disagreeing with their opinions.
If society actually wants to improve the lives of gays then they should ignore such self publicising rage monkeys and sort out the woeful sexual education in schools. Teens spending the first ten years of their adult life trying to work out who they are and ending up mentally ill as a result is a shocking failure.
Last edited:
Wow!!! Are you seriously saying that you cannot show murder to be wrong?
Your argument is that you cannot show homosexuality to be wrong, and you also cannot show murder to be wrong. Since I accept that murder is wrong, then I must also accept that homosexuality is wrong, on the basis that you don't have the nouse to prove either.....
How about this; Murder deprives another person of their life. Therefore it is wrong.
If i murder someone then I have taken away their life without their consent.
If i engage in homosexual acts with them, then who has been wronged?
I am beginning to lose the will to point out the ridiculous inadequacies in some of these anti-gay arguments!
Simply laughable. I wonder, do you actually believe this warped reality you appear to be living in? How about the letter from Father Murphy to Ratzinger himself, which followed the pleas made by the school in Wisconsin to his office begging them to do something about this serial pederast. And of course nothing was done, bar forgive the rapist himself. There are so, so, so, so, so many other cases and examples one could cite.
The difference is that I don't take the Church's word for it on these things.
Hmmm...
Doesn't look that way to me.
It feels silly defending against such a pitiful attack, but needless to say I am not closed minded, I simply go where the facts lead. As for mature... Well, you can decide, but I get rather het up when reading or hearing people making excuses for child rape. As for the ignore thing... You're free to listen to or ignore whoever you want.
Umm, I think you are missing his point ? One could imagine a society in which depriving a paedophile of life is morally right (such as the microcosm that OCUK inhabits
). In this society it isn't. So how do you show that murder is wrong without first referencing your moral code.Hopefully that sounds about right
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,837
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
I said I couldn't prove murder was wrong. You haven't proved it is wrong. What you have done is simply explained why you believe it is wrong.
Not Castiel with the posts the other person ... nevermind.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,837
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
I know. I was playing.
I was pointing out that the number of posts that Fran had made was irrelevant in ascertaining anything about Castiel.
How many posts Castiel has made however is relevant.
Umm, I think you are missing his point ? One could imagine a society in which depriving a paedophile of life is morally right (such as the microcosm that OCUK inhabits
Hopefully that sounds about right
Actually it is very easy to prove that murder is wrong as murder, by its very definition, is unlawful killing. Your above example would be state sanctioned execution and therefore legal. If that is morally wrong is another argument entirely.
So you feel that pronouncements of abnormal, unnatural and sinful will have little impact on self esteem? Imagine for a moment you were a young Catholic coming to terms with being gay, do you think the church attitude to homosexuality will be a positive or negative effect on your mental attitudes?
You do realise that the same could easily be said about the Catholic Church?
Unfortunately Catholic schools aren't exactly being helpful there either. The end result of the talk regading sexual education from out daughter's school to parents was that we were going to have to deal with sexual education ourselves due to the school taking a well thought out education programme and butchering it to something more palatible for the sensibilities of the local diocese. The local priest (who is a pretty down to earth bloke) was quite embarrased about it.
The point I was making was that a homosexual couple can certainly enter into a 'marriage' with the intent of having Children...there are several options open to them to do so and not all are proscribed by the Catholic Church.
In the case of the Catholic Church the notion itself is academic until they address their general attitude toward homosexuality, at least within the Magisterium and Holy See, if not the Congregations.
Another point I was making generally was that no-one is actually suggesting that homosexual marriage be forced upon an religious institution...it would, and rightly so, be the choice of the particular Church to decide for themselves whether they would permit it or not.
The call for homosexuals to be permitted to marry is, as far as I understand it, purely a State one....I see no reason why Gay Weddings cannot be permitted in the same way as non-religious weddings are, as I said most religions do not have the legal authority over weddings in the UK anyway.
I think that what I have said above largely negates this line of argument because firstly, homosexual couples are able to profess an intent to have children, and from a purely Catholic perspective, Homosexual couples couldn't marry anyway regardless of whether they met all the other criteria as they are currently excluded purely on their orientation.
You are using ever more negative terms when as above that wasn't what I said
To be fair, I was only following your lead...you began with saying certain things relating to this debate are 'not permitted', it is not my intent to be unnecessarily negative.
I don't think anyone is forcing the issue on the Catholic Church, least of all on the Pope himself so I don't understand the context of reference.
I think, with the greatest respect, that is maybe your perception rather than everyone's...it certainly is not mine and I understand that the hedonistic lifestyle of many young homosexuals is equally, if not more so, followed by young heterosexuals....
I think that is really a question for society in general rather than simply one section of it.
The 'Truth' is entirely subjective, and up until this point I feel that you do follow to some degree the opposition to homosexuality that your Church infers.....that is not to say you are prejudiced against homosexuals as people or act in a negative way toward them simply because of their orientation...I mentioned earlier my own prejudices in this regard and also made it clear that they are my own and insofar that they are my issue to deal with. It doesn't affect my relationships with my gay friends so it is of little import.
In short I was not being offensive or negative toward you, and I will gladly retract the statement if you still feel that way in light of my clarification.
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
Like I said, being unpleasant was not my intention.
Nothing about faith is easy, but I'd suggest a young person growing up in a homophobic household is more worthy of consideration.
Only if you are one of the same bloggers
Well they don't particularly approve of the states ideas about of sexual education when the parents are the ones ultimately responsible for such matters, I'm assuming anyone who opts for a Catholic school is capable of covering the matter themselves. I doubt Catholics are responsible for that many teenage pregnancies anyway.
This use of the word Apologist in this way always amuses me....it is not actually negative or insulting to a Christian or even to someone like myself who has an academic interest in Christianity (or any other religion for that matter).
Christian Apologetics is a rational and valid field of Theology, it is at it's most simplest a rational presentation of evidence to counter misrepresentation and/or erroneous argument against the religion in question.