The tolerant Catholic Church

spudbynight said:
They have exactly the same rights. All men are free to marry the woman of their choice and vice versa. Who exactly is bring denied that right?

Seriously - I do need to go to bed now.

:D
Click to expand...

The men who want to marry men and women who want to marry women - you know the ones we are talking about!
 
spudbynight said:
You will be hard pushed to find a school in this country that teaches any children that they will burn in Hell for all eternity.
Click to expand...

But I never placed that into a school context it was a response to your assertion that parents have the right to inflict their beliefs on their children. Which I agree with to a point but I'd rather like to stop when it all gets a bit onerous.
 
Xordium said:
The men who want to marry men and women who want to marry women - you know the ones we are talking about!
Click to expand...

That is a different thing altogether.

I have made the point already that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman. Was I not clear?

To deny the right in your scenario we need to create something that does not exist.
 
Castiel said:
Do the vast majority of publicly funded faith schools do that?
Click to expand...

No they do not but we were not talking about that we were talking about your refutation of someone else's decree that schools should not be allowed to teach "mumbo-jumbo". Your refutation being they are members of the public body Catholics should have their views represented. To which I replied not if they are against fact and established theory. So we are talking about potentiality.
 
Castiel said:
Indeed...or even teaching such complex theologies as retribution, Venial Sin or Temporal Punishment.

The vast majority of it is all the fluffy stuff.
Click to expand...

Which is why I never even said that and the point was about the parental rights that he said existed and I contested. Nowhere did I say anything about that being taught by schools.
 
spudbynight said:
That is a different thing altogether.

I have made the point already that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman. Was I not clear?

To deny the right in your scenario we need to create something that does not exist.
Click to expand...

Yes you were very clear and very wrong and was supposed to be in bed over 20 minutes ago now. :D
 
Castiel said:
I think teaching 5-8 year olds critical thinking and scepticism is a bit far fetched as well......
Click to expand...

I don't know many 8 year olds... but I'd hope not.

Castiel said:
I doubt they are being routinely taught complex science or scriptural interpretation either.
Click to expand...

Basic evolution would be nice, over Adam and Eve. OR just not having us pray to the ceiling and then confess our sins to some guy in a dress would be nice.

I still remember that actually... I had nothing to confess so I lied (ironic) and said something along the lines of 'my mum told me to do something and I didn't do it' :D He then said some magic words and all was right with God. :rolleyes:

Looking back, I disliked it as much as I still do... only now I have much more knowledge and clarity than I did back then as a submissive child.

Castiel said:
I don't think that singing 'morning has broken' or saying a prayer for someone really damages a child.....in fact as regard to praying, in many cases saying to a child 'let us say a prayer for poor kids in Africa' or something like that, which is the normal kind of thing they do is actually giving the child an awareness that their are people less fortunate than themselves....
Click to expand...

That could be changed to let's raise money for Africa. Let us actually put ourselves out for someone else, rather than saying a few words and getting back to our days.

Castiel said:
If you are refering to teaching things like Creationism instead of Evolution, then neither CofE or Catholic Schools, which make up the vast majority of Faith Schools (and pretty all publicly funded faith schools) teach such things......their respective religions accept evolution and do not follow an interpretation of Literal Genesis Interpretation anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about evolution and creationism as I believe evolution is taught in religious schools already. I don't recall being taught evolution in high school, but then again I didn't attend the final year, so who knows, I might have just missed it.
 
semi-pro waster said:
You appear to be trying to pin it down to one specific point when there may be many reasons both related and unrelated as to why some religious schools are good.
Click to expand...

no... I was replying to just that, actually. I was saying just because religious schools get higher marks does not mean it's down to the religious studies aspect.
 
Xordium said:
No they do not but we were not talking about that we were talking about your refutation of someone else's decree that schools should not be allowed to teach "mumbo-jumbo". Your refutation being they are members of the public body Catholics should have their views represented. To which I replied not if they are against fact and established theory. So we are talking about potentiality.
Click to expand...

A potential that simply would not happen in regard to Catholicism.....Evolution is a stated 'fact' according the Catholic Church, it is pretty inconceivable that a Catholic School would be teaching Creationism as it would be contrary to established Church doctrine.

As for the Laws pf this country, then no school can teach contrary to that either, neither can a publicly funded school ignore the National Curriculum, even Free Schools have to justify their curriculum and cannot teach subject matter that is either illegal or contrary to established facts (or theories if you prefer).



If you are refering to the actual religion and sacrements etc. themselves then they are very real to a Catholic and who are we to say otherwise.
 
steve-h said:
I don't know many 8 year olds... but I'd hope not.
Click to expand...


"Hey little girl....of course Santa doesn't exist....think critically, how could he?"

Mmm, not a world I particularly want to encourage tbh......I think Childhood is about innocence, imagination, and exploring concepts through allegory and make-believe.....I think critical thinking and scepticism can wait just a little while at least....

steve-h said:
Basic evolution would be nice, over Adam and Eve. OR just not having us pray to the ceiling and then confess our sins to some guy in a dress would be nice.

I still remember that actually... I had nothing to confess so I lied (ironic) and said something along the lines of 'my mum told me to do something and I didn't do it' :D He then said some magic words and all was right with God. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

At what age were you called a 'sinner' exactly...if we accept what you say is true? You attended a Catholic School?

I remeber my son being taught about Dinosaurs and Cavemen and all kinds of stuff in Primary School....he also like singing the Noah's Ark song.......

steve-h said:
That could be changed to let's raise money for Africa. Let us actually put ourselves out for someone else, rather than saying a few words and getting back to our days.
Click to expand...

You will find that Faith Schools raise more money for local and world Charities than their equivalent secular Schools.


steve-h said:
I'm not talking about evolution and creationism as I believe evolution is taught in religious schools already. I don't recall being taught evolution in high school, but then again I didn't attend the final year, so who knows, I might have just missed it.
Click to expand...

Evolution is a very complex science, the basic concepts are taught in secondary school, but it is generally reserved for higher education.
 
Last edited:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/11/gay-couples-wedding-plans-catholic-sermons?newsfeed=true

"Let me not to the marriage of true minds/ Admit impediments," declared the bard of Stratford in his 116th sonnet. And at the Globe theatre in central London on Sunday – even as Catholics were being urged from thousands of pulpits across the country to oppose gay marriage – there was no shortage of same-sex couples ready to heed his encouragement.

At the Designer Civil Partnership show at Shakespeare's erstwhile theatre, excited couples discussed the colour scheme of invitations, whether wedding "favours" were a necessary part of the big day – and the decision of the Catholic church to wage war against government plans for gay marriage.

"I think it's disgusting. We are not second-class citizens and the idea that this archaic institution should dictate how we live our lives is appalling," said Matt Turrell, 37, a photographer specialising in civil partnerships. "At the end of the day, the union of two people should be about love. Why should we be denied the right to express that publicly?"

On Sunday a letter from two senior Catholic archbishops was read in 2,500 parish churches during mass, arguing that a change to the law would reduce the significance of marriage. Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, and Archbishop Peter Smith, the archbishop of Southwark, urged their flock to sign a petition against the move, telling them it was their "duty to do all we can to ensure that the true meaning of marriage is not lost for future generations".

This has a profound impact on people like Evelyn Len, 29, a practising Anglo-Catholic who is due to marry her partner next May. They will have a civil ceremony, but have found a priest who is willing to do a religious blessing. "I would like to get married in a church, and it's very frustrating because I think lots of priests would like to be able to," she said. She was "at peace" with both her religion and sexuality, she added. "I go by what I think Christ would say. I try and keep that in mind when people get angry about it – people have taken these stances, not God."

Her partner, Shelley Webster, 29, saw the debate in a positive light. "When I was a teenager, I never thought the stage when I would be able to have a civil partnership would come," she said. "We've got a long way to go, and the pace of change is slow, but at least it is happening, it is being discussed."

With a string quartet playing in the entrance hall, intense discussions on whether ushers should wear matching cufflinks, and stalls displaying everything from chocolate macaroons to crystal-encrusted table centre pieces, this was a wedding fair much like any other.

But gay couples are still made to feel excluded because they cannot marry in the same way as heterosexual couples, according to Chris Ford, 30, and his fiance Andrew Ogilvie, 32. The couple, both nurses, were told they could have no religious element to their service and described it as the first barrier they had faced as gay men.

"I was gobsmacked," said Ogilvie. "Automatically you feel second class, that your union is not valued in the same way. It's not like we are all going to be marching into Catholic churches in bridal dresses, but you just want to have the option. Civil partnerships are good, but they are not perfect."

The archbishops' decision to label the changing of the legal definition of marriage a "profoundly radical step", which would strip the union of its "distinctive nature", was hurtful to religious gay people, said Shaz Riley, 46, director of the Butch Clothing Company, who was giving advice to potential brides who wanted to avoid a big white dress.

"I have gay Catholic friends who will be no less than heartbroken at what is happening today," she said. Reacting to the archbishop's comments that "marriage is intended for the procreation and education of children" – and that this should exclude gay people – she said: "It's a very sad day. That the church can tell us we will go to hell, or that we can't have families in this day and age, is astonishing."

She and her partner Sue – who introduces herself as Mrs Sue Riley – had a civil partnership ceremony, but would have preferred to have married. "I refer to her as my wife, she is my wife and we are very happily married, no matter what the law might say."

While the new dean of St Paul's Cathedral the Very Rev Dr David Ison has called on the Church of England to embrace gay marriage, the archbishop of York, John Sentamu, joined the Catholic-led opposition. "I happen to believe that to change the law in the end would be forcing an unjustified change," he told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show. But the prime minister has made his support for gay marriage clear. "We believe people should have the option of civil marriage, irrespective of sexual orientation," a spokesman said this week.

Gino Meriano, 49, founder of the Designer Civil Partnership show, cringes at the term "civil marriage". Doling out fizz to anyone within striking distance ("Clare will see you right for Lambrini"), he is in the unusual position of campaigning for civil partnerships for straight people. "This is the 21st century: gays want marriage, straights want civil partnerships, there are single mothers, there are househusbands. You can't stop the progress of society," he said. "We are not hard done by, we have no chip on our shoulder – we just want equality."

Standing in the sunshine overlooking the Thames from a balcony at the Globe, Natasha Marshall, 31, and Debbie Cross, 38, tuck into the bubbles, chatting about the wedding rings they have just chosen for their civil partnership in September. The pair, who have been together for 13 years, would have liked the option of a civil wedding, but seem unconcerned about the fact that they will not yet be able to have a religious ceremony. "Church weddings are boring anyway," said Cross. "We're going to have a lot more fun than that."
Click to expand...

interesting that the couple found a Priest who will bless their Union.....which illustrates not all Catholic Clerics are in step with Church Doctrine.....
 
RomanNose said:
Spud to us non bible loving folk you are not giving any reasons to disallow gay marriage. Do you have a single non religious reason why gays can't marry?
Click to expand...

Assuming that he's gone to bed :confused: I might stick something in here before I go to bed too (and I do mean that) :D

The question of gay marriage, and indeed divorce and other related issues, is contentious fundamentally because of the issue of children. Looking at it from a purely biologically natural point of view, the sexual act's single function is to procreate. As an act, nature (if you want) has gone to the trouble to make it pleasurable in order to encourage animals to produce offspring in order to maintain and further the existence of the species. The fact that we are capable of reason and of emotion (to keep it secular) means that humans have given the sexual act further meaning: that of expressing an intimate love. But this does not and cannot (biologically, naturally) detract from the primary function of the sexual act. On the contrary, human experience generally has led to the recognition that the raising and careful fostering of children by their natural parents is something fundamentally good: for the spouses themselves, because it cements and deepens their relationship by requiring a coincidence of mutual effort and self-sacrifice -another fundamental way of expressing love- for the child; for the child, because it provides them with the love and support that come most spontaneously from its natural parents; for society, because it's future is provided for with a child that understands the values of love, respect and self-sacrifice (all of which I mean as the ideal).

One can therefore understand the interest of and to a society, in creating an institution whose sole purpose is to promote, safeguard, and encourage the necessary bond and commitment between a man and a woman to raise and foster children in a stable and loving environment, because ultimately it is beneficial to the society itself. Such an ideal necessarily (and ideally) excludes the concept of divorce, single parenting, etc.

Yes, it is an ideal, but is it not a reasonable ideal? Marriages fail and so on, but to introduce gay marriage fundamentally undermines the principle of raising and fostering one's own children, let alone in the ideal manner.
 
Castiel said:
"Hey little girl....of course Santa doesn't exist....think critically, how could he?"

Mmm, not a world I particularly want to encourage tbh......I think Childhood is about innocence, imagination, and exploring concepts through allegory and make-believe.....I think critical thinking and scepticism can wait just a little while at least....
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it wouldn't we'd have to ruin all their fun... we could just not teach them that the Christian god is real.

Castiel said:
At what age were you called a 'sinner' exactly...if we accept what you say is true?
Click to expand...

It wasn't a negative thing, we weren't made to feel bad (because we would say some magic words and all would be well, I guess). We just had some form of mass and then we were made to go to the corner away from everyone else to 'confess our sins to god' by telling them to the local priest, who would then say a prayer or a hail mary... I remember being made to repeat something, but I can't remember what it was. We were between year 3 and 6 I think, I can't remember specifically.

Castiel said:
You will find that Faith Schools raise more money for local and world Charities than their equivalent secular Schools.
Click to expand...

But I can't see that changing should the faith element be removed.
 
steve-h said:
Perhaps, but it wouldn't we'd have to ruin all their fun... we could just not teach them that the Christian god is real.
Click to expand...

I think the "Santa" example is illustrative here as to the relative innocence of a Child who believes in Jesus and a teenager who has the faculty to decide for themselves......They will come to their own conclusions when they are ready anyway.....

steve-h said:
It wasn't a negative thing, we weren't made to feel bad (because we would say some magic words and all would be well, I guess). We just had some form of mass and then we were made to go to the corner away from everyone else to 'confess our sins to god' by telling them to the local priest, who would then say a prayer or a hail mary... I remember being made to repeat something, but I can't remember what it was. We were between year 3 and 6 I think, I can't remember specifically.
Click to expand...

I do not know what year 3-6 equates to as I went to Schools that did not follow the modern numbering system (and I still can't get to grips with my sons)....but as far as I am aware teaching a child Confession is quite a serious thing and not taken lightly and is not done until the Child is thought to be morally responsible...the Canon says 8 years old, but the reality is it is more like 11 or 12, one of the Catholic members should correct me if I am wide of the mark.....I think I am right in saying that even at that age, within those criteria confession is an annual thing, rather than something that you should be doing informally in school....

The point being that you need to be old enough and morally aware enough to understand it for it to be taught.....that doesn't sound like that happened in your case.

Did you attend a Catholic School?

steve-h said:
But I can't see that changing should the faith element be removed.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, although many of the supported programs are run or invested in by the respective Churches......I think the issue with many secular schools is not their intent, but their exposure to opportunity through their relationships outside of the school system, something that Faith Schools have "built in".....

Equally I see no reason to remove the Faith element from Faith Schools....what should be the case is that there should be ample provision in the local school system for both Faith and Secular schools....
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
Did you attend a Catholic School?
Click to expand...

Yeah, both primary and secondary. Also year 6 is age 10/11 and I'm fairly sure it was before that year...

Castiel said:
Equally I see no reason to remove the Faith element from Faith Schools....what should be the case is that there should be ample provision in the local school system for both Faith and Secular schools....
Click to expand...

I believe there were options for me at primary school level, but the others weren't as nice according to my mum, so she opted for getting me christened so I could go to that one. As far as secondary went... of course I chose the same school as my friends were going to.

Surveyor said:
Public schools are fee paying.

State funded schools are publicly funded.
Click to expand...

Are public schools not state schools?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom