The tolerant Catholic Church

Castiel said:
without doubt Christianity has shaped our culture, but it is a two way street...the Cultures of Western Europe have equally influenced the Church and by association various interpretations of Christianity. You only need to consider Calvinism and Lutherism for simple examples.

I think that the argument on gay marriage is one about how the State deals with its population...not one of how the Church deals with its congregation and so I think that the issue of allowing gay weddings is a secular one as it is the nominally the 'secular state' that is considering it....no-one is suggesting that any religion is forced to compromise their stance on their definitions of marriage.
Click to expand...

We may be going off on a little but of a tangent here. Would you agree that culturally in this country it is understood that a marriage is between a man and a woman? Let's leave the ethics of that aside for a moment.

Castiel said:
The Anglican Church is part of the State...so it is difficult to remove it's legal association with an instrument of that State without openong the issue of the larger establishment of the Church. It does raise questions about the necessity that any civil gay marriage instument is implicit in it's secularity.....
Click to expand...

Yes, the Church of England (as distinct from the entire Anglican Communion I think?) is an integral part of the State. I fear we may be stirring up a bit of trouble on this line but if the Church of England formally came out in opposition to this wouldn't it present something of a constitutional issue?
 
spudbynight said:
We may be going off on a little but of a tangent here. Would you agree that culturally in this country it is understood that a marriage is between a man and a woman? Let's leave the ethics of that aside for a moment.
Click to expand...

I think that has been the general position....but then that doesn't justify keeping it. It was an accepted position that homosexuality was illegal until 1967...so as the society becomes more accepting of equal positions regardless of an individuals sexual orientation then it follows that society will also seek to redefine it's institutions accordingly and in keeping with that increased equality of position. This is true historically, as at one time homosexuality was widely accepted and as attitudes changed so did the institutions, secular and otherwise...mainly for social and political reasons, what we are seeing is a reversal of these attitudes and the subsequent changes in society and the institutions therein.

Don't get me wrong, I am generally a supporter of Tradition with regard our Christian Culture...just ask RDM or elmarko.....I don't necessarily agree with the disestablishment of the church or the removal of tradition simply in the name of secularity.

I simply think that in this case the unfairness is inherently wrong, simply because it is based purely on the orientation of the individual and it serves no purpose. As I said I cannot agree that allowing Civil gay weddings impacts on the religious convictions of the individual or the way in which the Church defines religious marriage ceremonies or how it applies them.

I would defend their right to enshrine their definition as being between Man and Woman as strongly as I defend the right for Homosexuals to have access to State licensed civil marriage. I would also hope that the Churches in question begin to consider the way they interpret Scripture and the application of the moral lessons and message that it implies.....



spudbynight said:
Yes, the Church of England (as distinct from the entire Anglican Communion I think?) is an integral part of the State. I fear we may be stirring up a bit of trouble on this line but if the Church of England formally came out in opposition to this wouldn't it present something of a constitutional issue?
Click to expand...

The Church of England is considered the mother church and the Archbishop of Canterbury the head of both the Church and the wider communion...but I was using the term Anglican Church rather than Communion so the implication should be clear as to what I was referring to.

Constitutionally the Church can oppose any act of Govt.....they are part of the legislature with regard the House of Lords, however as a democratic process they have limited ability (they only make up 3% of the house) to block anything without overwhelming temporal support......the main question is in the definition and application of the law in regard to the protections the religious institutions would have to define marriage within their institutions without interference from the State.....without details it is difficult to give an objective opinion on it.
 
Last edited:
MortonF said:
a lot of waffle on the last few pages with people tryin to look clever but failing tbh
Click to expand...

I think that the issue is in your failure to understand the topics being discussed rather than any failure on the part of the posters themselves. When you are in your group session next, you may wish to discuss why you hold the particular prejudices that you do and how you justify them objectively, or even if they can be justified objectively.
 
Castiel said:
I think that the issue is in your failure to understand the topics being discussed rather than any failure on the part of the posters themselves. When you are in your group session next, you may wish to discuss why you hold the particular prejudices that you do and how you justify them objectively, or even if they can be justified objectively.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised they haven't banned him yet. Obvious troll and not even remotely good at it.
 
Castiel said:
I think that the issue is in your failure to understand the topics being discussed rather than any failure on the part of the posters themselves. When you are in your group session next, you may wish to discuss why you hold the particular prejudices that you do and how you justify them objectively, or even if they can be justified objectively.
Click to expand...

*Awaits "Whatever, bro." response*
 
spudbynight said:
Roughly 200 years?
Click to expand...

Even less than that tbh that the state explicitly abdicated responsibility for marriage to the church, and that only in England. Scotland had their own civic rules for a lot longer without church involvement.
I'm not denying that the church has helped shape some cultural perceptions of marriage, particularly with media from the US. But the church did not create the notion, nor does it have a right to dictate a definition to society in general.
 
Castiel said:
The Church of England is considered the mother church and the Archbishop of Canterbury the head of both the Church and the wider communion...but I was using the term Anglican Church rather than Communion so the implication should be clear as to what I was referring to.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood me. I wasn't correcting you just unsure of whether I was accurate or not.


Castiel said:
Constitutionally the Church can oppose any act of Govt.....they are part of the legislature with regard the House of Lords, however as a democratic process they have limited ability (they only make up 3% of the house) to block anything without overwhelming temporal support......the main question is in the definition and application of the law in regard to the protections the religious institutions would have to define marriage within their institutions without interference from the State.....without details it is difficult to give an objective opinion on it.
Click to expand...

I wasn't looking for a cut and dried answer. I agree without more detail it is hard to reach an objective position. I just wanted to pop it into the discussion as a potential fly in any ointment.
 
bam0 said:
Even less than that tbh that the state explicitly abdicated responsibility for marriage to the church, and that only in England. Scotland had their own civic rules for a lot longer without church involvement.
I'm not denying that the church has helped shape some cultural perceptions of marriage, particularly with media from the US. But the church did not create the notion, nor does it have a right to dictate a definition to society in general.
Click to expand...

I was confused how you got c200 years from an introduction of the Church into proceedings in the 15th century to the introduction of civil weddings in the 19th century.
 
OK - 833 posts on this.

A lot of going around in circles I think. I think most people have managed to make their views fairly clear on this. Is it time to put it to bed?
 
Castiel said:
I think calling people homophobic because they are of the opinon that Marriage is between a Man and Woman is a bit wide of the mark tbh......it doesn't imply they hate homosexuals, only they have a specific idea of what marriage is.

Disagree with that by all means, I do....but calling people homophobes is just rhetoric and is not constructive.
Click to expand...

It is homophobia

Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people who are identified or perceived as being homosexual. Although the suffix -phobia normally refers to irrational fear, definitions of homophobia have expanded to refer also to antipathy, prejudice, contempt, and aversion, as well as irrational fear.
Click to expand...

OK, its not, "burn teh fagg0t!!" homophobia, but its homophobia is all the same, just like "get rid of all black people from this country to reduce crime" is full on racism and "I like black people, I have black friends, but black people are really really loud and they smell funny!" is not full on racism, but its still racist.

And we as a society must strive to combat all forms of prejudice that weaken society as a whole and cause such issues that we are presented with today from minority social groups.
 
spudbynight said:
OK - 833 posts on this.

A lot of going around in circles I think. I think most people have managed to make their views fairly clear on this. Is it time to put it to bed?
Click to expand...

No, we must combat intolerance and hatred where ever we see it. Just because you are getting schooled and have been shown up to be a horrible bigot doesn't mean you get to say "oh well, everyone's got an opinion, lets stop talking about it!"
 
hurfdurf said:
It is homophobia



OK, its not, "burn teh fagg0t!!" homophobia, but its homophobia is all the same, just like "get rid of all black people from this country to reduce crime" is full on racism and "I like black people, I have black friends, but black people are really really loud and they smell funny!" is not full on racism, but its still racist.

And we as a society must strive to combat all forms of prejudice that weaken society as a whole and cause such issues that we are presented with today from minority social groups.
Click to expand...


Then I must be homophobic as well, as I find public displays of homosexuality uncomfortable....so by that definition I have an aversion to homosexuality...which implies that I am homophobic.

Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people who are identified or perceived as being homosexual. Although the suffix -phobia normally refers to irrational fear, definitions of homophobia have expanded to refer also to antipathy, prejudice, contempt, and aversion, as well as irrational fear.
Click to expand...


Well, what do you know.

seriously though, I think we are in danger of making the definitions of homophobia so broad that they become largely meaningless and that is hardly constructive. I would rather the discussion is conducted without the need to call people homophobic for holding the opinion that marriage has a specific definition (there are plenty of attitudes that do warrant the accusation, I just don't think this is one of them).....I would rather attempt to change their mind objectively.
 
Last edited:
hurfdurf said:
Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people who are identified or perceived as being homosexual. Although the suffix -phobia normally refers to irrational fear, definitions of homophobia have expanded to refer also to antipathy, prejudice, contempt, and aversion, as well as irrational fear.

OK, its not, "burn teh fagg0t!!" homophobia, but its homophobia is all the same, just like "get rid of all black people from this country to reduce crime" is full on racism and "I like black people, I have black friends, but black people are really really loud and they smell funny!" is not full on racism, but its still racist.
Click to expand...

Accepting the definition of homophobia that you gave above (which is still rather broad) should demonstrate to you the irrationality of your subsequent statement. Saying that black people are really loud and smelly has nothing to do with it whatsoever - that's called an unfounded generalisation, and in itself doesn't even demonstrate a dislike for black people. In fact, neither does the first example, strictly speaking. Saying that black people shouldn't get married could certainly class as racism, because the implication is that you do not want to encourage black families or to support them and so to make it difficult for black people to settle and increase in your community. That, however, still has nothing to do with homophobia. Someone who believes that marriage is founded on the partnership between a man and a woman, whether simply because the sexual act is biologically designed to function in its purpose of reproduction only between a man and a woman and therefore the biologically natural parents of a child are only a man and a woman, or because they believe the same plus the fact that God created the universe with its natural order but that He has also instituted that partnership as an image of His love, is not by definition homophobic. It doesn't mean that they dislike or even are prejudiced towards homosexuals; it means that they see the place for children as within the environment that they would naturally be begotten in, and that they should be the fruit of a love that is somehow sacred. Such a person could also be "prejudiced" (as you would have it) against heterosexuals couples have intercourse without of marriage. It doesn't mean however, that they dislike said couples. In fact, they might even know several such couples :eek:
 
Castiel said:
Then I must be homophobic as well, as I find public displays of homosexuality uncomfortable....so by that definition I have an aversion to homosexuality...which implies that I am homophobic.
Click to expand...

I don't who has been accused of being homophobic but I have seen little of it on this thread. I don't know you but I really can't get my head around any rational definition of homophobia that you would fall under.

Some anti-Catholic bigotry has been pretty evident though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom