The tolerant Catholic Church

[RDM]

Nothing about faith is easy, but I'd suggest a young person growing up in a homophobic household is more worthy of consideration.

A homophobic household such as one which is deeply Catholic? The attitidues of the Catholic church are homophobic (irritating word, but cest la vie) as evidence by the language used by the very Bishop this thread was originally about. Not to mention the rather disgusting attempt to try and tie in the sex abuse scandal to being a "homosexual" problem.

Only if you are one of the same bloggers

Not at all, again the pronouncements from the Bishop could well be deeply offensive to non evangelist homosexuals. Likening the acceptance of gay marriage to the acceptance of slavery for example.

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.

You would be suprised at how utterly useless an abstinence based sex educaiton policy actually is in the real world. Plenty of Catholic teenagers have sex and, like in Africa, it seems that only the "no contraception" part of the message gets through and so you get quite a few pregnant Catholic teens too.

 

[FoxEye]

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.

The teachings of Jesus (and the Bible) are that Christians should be non-political and - whilst obeying laws that do not conflict with their beliefs - not play a part in government decisions.

This is why I agree that it's a matter for the state to decide. I would also say that, it puzzles me that some "progressive" Catholics would choose to ignore large parts of Scripture as "not relevant" in today's society.

The idea that God would "modernise" his standards to fit with our modern lifestyle is quite amazing. If you decide not to follow some of the teachings, sure it's just as easy to not follow any of them?

Ie, make your own religion and stop calling yourself Christian?

The bitter pill (for some) to swallow is that the Bible condemns homosexual acts as offensive to God. I don't see how you can "revise" Christianity to overturn the bits you don't like, however un-PC adherence to Scripture would be.

 

[bam0]

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.

Yes, hilarious. Although it was perfectly clear that the above isn't what he was implying. Perhaps more amusing is you being unaware of, or choosing to ignore, other definitions.

 

[RDM]

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.

Though I think it was relatively clear in context that he wasn't using the academic definition of the term (especially as the poster he was replying to certainly wouldn't fit into that category) but the more widely used pejorative meaning.

If your best argument is "Well, other people do it too" then I would suggest you really need to stop, take stock of what you are defending, and possibly change your views. I know several Catholics that have had their faith very badly shaken by the attitudes the Catholic church had towards the child abuse scandal. To write it off as "just individuals" when the cover ups were at the very least at Bishop level is, I feel, a little dishonest.

 

[Castiel]

Yes, hilarious. Although it was perfectly clear that the above isn't what he was implying. Perhaps more amusing is you being unaware of, or choosing to ignore, other definitions.

I am aware that some seem to think it a valid insult and I am aware of what he was implying.

I merely disagree with the way in which it is used, to me it simply means a person who makes defence of an idea or belief...generally in a formal way, and with regard to the debate, being called an apologist seems rather pointless if the intent is negative.

If your best argument is "Well, other people do it too" then I would suggest you really need to stop, take stock of what you are defending, and possibly change your views. I know several Catholics that have had their faith very badly shaken by the attitudes the Catholic church had towards the child abuse scandal. To write it off as "just individuals" when the cover ups were at the very least at Bishop level is, I feel, a little dishonest.

You seem to have jumped to a seriously misinformed conclusion if you think that by questioning the use of Apologist as a pejorative is in anyway supportive or otherwise of the post being replied to. I think you need tom take a step back and think on what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

 

[Naffa]

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.

The definition of apologist is much wider than that, though. If someone is making excuses for the rape and torture of children, the person doing so is an 'apologist'. It's being used in the correct way, and rightfully has negative connotations.

 

[dodgem]

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.

Taking someone's life without their consent is wrong because you are inflicting your will on someone else and hurting them.

Committing paedophilia is wrong because you are inflicting your will on someone else and hurting them.

They are both wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. A society which deprives a paedophile of his life is wrong because they are taking his life. The paedophile is also wrong, and taking his life will not make what he did right.... Sheesh.

Homosexual acts are not inflicted on someone else without their consent and do not hurt anyone, therefore, they are not wrong.

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.

At least I have managed to explain why I believe something is wrong, which is more than can be said of anyone in this thread who has said homosexuality is wrong...

The notion of "proving" what is right and wrong is a little difficult, and a matter for philosophy, which is always based upon assumptions. To be honest I'm not sure that there is a base proof of what is right and wrong, since it will always be based on a basic assumed premise, such as "Doing something to someone else against their will is wrong."

Maybe there is someone who has studied philosophy in this thread that can expand on what i have said?

 

[RDM]

You seem to have jumped to a seriously misinformed conclusion if you think that by questioning the use of Apologist as a pejorative is in anyway supportive or otherwise of the post being replied to. I think you need tom take a step back and think on what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

You may want to edit your post as you seem to be replying to bam0 but it is something I posted.

My apologies if you thought that I was insinuating that your position was the one I outlined. I wasn't at all, I know full well that it is a view you do not hold. Sorry if I wasn't clear but that was describing the person being described as an apologist (in it's perjorative meaing).

 

[Fran]

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.

Which is part of the problem, I'm sure by 'intent' nobody imagined that it would be applied to same sex couples. The precedent of Ishmael was still morally wrong and covered by #2376

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.

Which is why I mentioned the current Pope, confronting this now will only entrench attitudes and provide a platform for others to further complicate the issue.

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.

Changing the definition of marriage changes it for all churches regardless of their acceptance, that situation is unavoidable.

I think, with the greatest respect, that is maybe your perception rather than everyone's...

I said it was a general perception rather than mine, I've already commented that my own sample is probably flawed.

Oh and thanks

 

[spudbynight]

At least I have managed to explain why I believe something is wrong, which is more than can be said of anyone in this thread who has said homosexuality is wrong...

The notion of "proving" what is right and wrong is a little difficult, and a matter for philosophy, which is always based upon assumptions. To be honest I'm not sure that there is a base proof of what is right and wrong, since it will always be based on a basic assumed premise, such as "Doing something to someone else against their will is wrong."

Maybe there is someone who has studied philosophy in this thread that can expand on what i have said?

I believe homosexual marriage is wrong because it undermines the fundamental fabric of society. I am sure I have made that point before. Apologies if I wasn't clear earlier.

As you have pointed out proving something is wrong is impossible empirically. What we can do is simply put forward our opinions. There is no base proof of right or wrong.

I am about to have dinner so can't post too much now but there is a school of thought in philosophy called logical positivism that you might want to research.

 

[Castiel]

The definition of apologist is much wider than that, though. If someone is making excuses for the rape and torture of children, the person doing so is an 'apologist'. It's being used in the correct way, and rightfully has negative connotations.

I don't think it is.....even in its wider context Apologist simply means a person who offers a defence with a counter-argument...it has no innate prejorative or negative connotations execpt that which some want to imply, in my opinion...wrongly.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I believe homosexual marriage is wrong because it undermines the fundamental fabric of society.

Why? In which ways does it undermine the fundamental fabric of society?

 

[Naffa]

I don't think it is.....even in its wider context Apologist simply means a person who offers a defence with a counter-argument...it has no innate prejorative or negative connotations execpt that which some want to imply, in my opinion...wrongly.

According to the Oxford dictionary, an apologist is:

a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial

Surely, by that definition, the use of the word would, de facto, be negative when using it to describe others.

 

[dodgem]

I believe homosexual marriage is wrong because it undermines the fundamental fabric of society.

Ok, look at it like this.

My base assumption in determining what is right and wrong, is that one should not cause another to suffer against their will. To discover whether something is right or wrong, one must work backwards to see whether this is fundementally the case.

In this way, I cannot see homosexuality as being wrong. Can you explain what the base assumption is that you are referencing when you say "homosexual marriage is wrong because it undermines the fundamental fabric of society"?

there is a school of thought in philosophy called logical positivism that you might want to research.

I'll look it up, thanks

edit: I didn't realise that logical positivism is the same as logical empiricism.... Yes, this does support your argument that it is impossible to prove something is morally wrong or not, but it also chucks your God and your religion, and all other religions out the window as baseless constructs that also cannot be proved....

 

[Castiel]

You may want to edit your post as you seem to be replying to bam0 but it is something I posted.

My apologies if you thought that I was insinuating that your position was the one I outlined. I wasn't at all, I know full well that it is a view you do not hold. Sorry if I wasn't clear but that was describing the person being described as an apologist (in it's perjorative meaing).

No worries....I am posting on a phone, in between listening to a very boring video lecture on, well I forget exactly, lingustics anyway, it's really that boring.

I appreciate the clarification and apology not necessary in that case


I still disagree with it's use prejoratively, I know it has found favour in that context, I simply think it is wrongly applied. That is not to say that the argument the 'Apologist' is putting forth is correct or valid however and to some extent if the argument has no evidenced rationale then the 'aplogist' is not really worthy of the name.

For example, I would have serious disagreements with your average Jehovah Witness Apologist...however that doesn't mean that the term Apologist should be used prejoratively, just that their argument is flawed. In other words the term Apologist is a neutral one.....at least in my humble opinion, hense my amusement.

 

[MortonF]

Same sex parents should nevr be allowed.

Its disgusting, and the kids always turn out as total freaks lol

No wonder though, how the **** would a kid explain 2 dads lol

I fhink its totally selfish of these gays to bring a child up into that, purely because they wish to have a child for themselves.

Well wake up gay people, thats a rite reserved by nature for normal peoples

 

[Castiel]

According to the Oxford dictionary, an apologist is:



Surely, by that definition, the use of the word would, de facto, be negative when using it to describe others.

Why is defending something controversial automatically negative?

I think there is some distinction between polemics and apologetics.

I think the subject matter maybe negative..such as a Nazi Apologist....the implication that the defence of/and the subject itself is negative rather than the term being inherrently so...in this thread for example we are discussing Catholicism so calling someone an apologist is largely pointless as Catholicism itself is not regarded as inherrently evil...at least by most reasonable people I would hope.

So like I said to RDM, the term apologist is misused, as in itself it holds no negative connotations...it is a neutral term being misapplied....again I reiterate this is my opinion only.

 

[Tunney]

The bitter pill (for some) to swallow is that the Bible condemns homosexual acts as offensive to God. I don't see how you can "revise" Christianity to overturn the bits you don't like, however un-PC adherence to Scripture would be.

The old testament certainly does condemn homosexual acts as offensive to God but, surprisingly, the new testament doesn't. There's one mention of homosexuality being a sin in the King James bible and it's based on a very tenuous translation from a Greek word.

Most of the old testament has been overturned by modern Christianity. In fact, most of it was overturned two thousand years ago by the teachings of Jesus.

The bible doesn't speak with one voice. It's very contradictory in places.

 

[RDM]

Same sex parents should never be allowed.

Its disgusting, and the kids always turn out as total freaks.

I am guessing you haven't actually read the thread where evidence was posted that this just isn't the case? Kids raised by homosexual parents tend to turn out, well, just like any other kid.

No wonder though, how the **** would a kid explain 2 dads for christ sake.

I think its totally selfish of these gays to bring a child up into that, purely because they wish to have a child for themselves.

I am guessing that you are now going to change your views now that you are aware that the actual evidence suggests that there is no damage to the kid at all?

No? Any reason?

Well wake up gay people, thats a right reserved by nature for normal people

Fortunately for those of us living in the 21st Century we are no longer restricted by what nature intended, hence we are able to do many, many things nature did not orginally allow us to do. Such as drive cars, fly in aeroplanes and post on the internet...

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Same sex parents should nevr be allowed.

Its disgusting, and the kids always turn out as total freaks lol

No wonder though, how the **** would a kid explain 2 dads lol

I fhink its totally selfish of these gays to bring a child up into that, purely because they wish to have a child for themselves.

Well wake up gay people, thats a rite reserved by nature for normal peoples

There we have it guys. A couple of hundred posts over 8 pages and MortonF here has all the answers. Let's pack up.