The tolerant Catholic Church

[semi-pro waster]

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

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).

People do lots of things sexually which are not designed for the procreation of children - there is no real reason why it must be an absolute defining goal for every sexual encounter.

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.

Why wouldn´t it be possible for couples of the same sex to create a loving bond with each other or to provide a stable and loving environment for children? I´m sure we could each point to examples of people who don´t seem suitable to raise children regardless of their sexual orientation but there is nothing inherent (as far as I am aware) to prove that anyones sexual orientation has the slightest bearing on their ability to provide a stable and loving environment for children.

If you want to posit the view that marriage as a whole isn´t valued as highly as it might be then I may even agree with you but if the institution is fundamentally so weak that it could be brought down by couples of the same sex marrying then frankly I´m not sure it is something we, as a society, should be all that bothered about saving anyway.

Are public schools not state schools?

It´s one of the oddities in English that public schools are fee paying schools such as Eton, you might equally call them private schools but traditionally it has been the custom to call them public schools. To save confusion I´d try to use the distinction that you did and use state and fee-paying if there is doubt about it.

 

[Surveyor]

Are public schools not state schools?

No, they're independent schools.

The term public school has a particular meaning as stated above.

 

[spudbynight]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/11/gay-couples-wedding-plans-catholic-sermons?newsfeed=true



interesting that the couple found a Priest who will bless their Union.....which illustrates not all Catholic Clerics are in step with Church Doctrine.....

They are Anglican. Anglo Catholic is CofE

 

[spudbynight]

People do lots of things sexually which are not designed for the procreation of children - there is no real reason why it must be an absolute defining goal for every sexual encounter.

I don't think anyone said that every sexual encounter must be with the defining goal of procreation. The Church position is that all married couples must be open to having children. Funnily enough this is also one of the big reasons why they are opposed to sex before marriage.

A homosexual couple are physically unable to have children together.

Why wouldn´t it be possible for couples of the same sex to create a loving bond with each other or to provide a stable and loving environment for children? I´m sure we could each point to examples of people who don´t seem suitable to raise children regardless of their sexual orientation but there is nothing inherent (as far as I am aware) to prove that anyones sexual orientation has the slightest bearing on their ability to provide a stable and loving environment for children.

If you want to posit the view that marriage as a whole isn´t valued as highly as it might be then I may even agree with you but if the institution is fundamentally so weak that it could be brought down by couples of the same sex marrying then frankly I´m not sure it is something we, as a society, should be all that bothered about saving anyway.

The Church isn't saying that homosexuals are unable to create a loving bond with each other. I don't believe they have even said they are unable to create a loving environment for children.

The position is that the ideal is a marriage between a husband and wife. A loving mother and father is the best environment for children.

By allowing gay marriage we undermine this fundamental natural law. We say that a gay marriage is in every way as good as a marriage between a man and a woman. I fail to see how anyone could argue that a child isn't best off having both a loving father and a loving mother.

That doesn't infer that gay people are in some way inferior to straight people.

It´s one of the oddities in English that public schools are fee paying schools such as Eton, you might equally call them private schools but traditionally it has been the custom to call them public schools. To save confusion I´d try to use the distinction that you did and use state and fee-paying if there is doubt about it.

Well actually there is a bit more to it than that. Not all fee paying schools are public schools. Public schools include a limited number of fee paying schools who are members of the Headmasters Conference. In fact the majority of fee paying schools are not public schools. The correct term to refer to all of them is "independent schools"

As an aside I went to a public school with a strong Christian ethos. It was primarily CofE so I went with a different faith. They had separate religious ceremonies for all the major faiths. My Sikh chums would go one way, we Catholics went another - everyone was catered for. I wouldn't imagine it to be a feasible solution though for most schools. There is a cost implication.

 

[Xordium]

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.

Which is all well and good Castiel and means you have just expanded on what I said in response to you:

Are not religious taxpayers entitled to be represented in the publicly funded education system?

Not if they wish their dogma to be placed above fact (what this countries laws say) or established theory (eg evolution).

I fail to see what your problem is with that statement.

 

[Castiel]

They are Anglican. Anglo Catholic is CofE

Quite....that will teach me to skim read an article......

Still it does illustrate that not all clergy are as dogmatic as their Institution.

 

[Castiel]

Which is all well and good Castiel and means you have just expanded on what I said in response to you:

I fail to see what your problem is with that statement.

It would depend on what you are implying or your reason for stating it. Which is not clear...I was pointing out that these 'potentialities' you refered to are not really possible within Catholicism or the Church of England who support the vast majority, if not all State Faith Schools......

 

[Xordium]

It would depend on what you are implying or your reason for stating it. Which is not clear...I was pointing out that these 'potentialities' you refered to are not really possible within Catholicism or the Church of England who support the vast majority, if not all State Faith Schools......

It is clear if you follow the threads let me find them:

They're there to learn facts, not to be fed religious mumbo jumbo as if it were true.

Are not religious taxpayers entitled to be represented in the publicly funded education system?

Not if they wish their dogma to be placed above fact (what this countries laws say) or established theory (eg evolution).

That second post quoted there seems to be advocating the right to teach "mumbo-jumbo".

And I don't think schools need to spend much time on religious education I fail to see why it needs to have its own little slot and can't be incorporated into a broader social awareness and morality type module. You could tag religion onto such issues as gay rights, sexual discrimination, racism, cultural observations, morality and ethics etc. Morality and ethics whilst explored in religion does not require it and both need religion about as much as the universe needs a creator ie not a lot.

 

[spudbynight]

Quite....that will teach me to skim read an article......

Still it does illustrate that not all clergy are as dogmatic as their Institution.

That would be a criticism you could lay against the clergy in question.

I am of the opinion that if you are a member of an organised religion you should try and follow the rules. Clergy within that religion should most definitely follow the rules.

 

[Xordium]

That would be a criticism you could lay against the clergy in question.

I am of the opinion that if you are a member of an organised religion you should try and follow the rules. Clergy within that religion should most definitely follow the rules.

Applying thinking like that is how you end up with genocides and inquisitions.

 

[spudbynight]

Applying thinking like that is how you end up with genocides and inquisitions.

What a silly statement to make. I expected better of you.

 

[Xordium]

What a silly statement to make. I expected better of you.

No-one should expect better from me.

And it is far from silly when you say "Clergy within that religion should most definitely follow the rules" you are then saying they should follow all rules whether they are just/moral/ethical of not. If that is not what you intend then you are arguing they should follow only the rules which are just/moral/ethical from the perspective. You either allow them freedom of choice or you do not. And considering the practices of the catholic church throughout history then its demands from time to time have often failed quite heavily at being just or ethically/morally right.

 

[spudbynight]

That second post quoted there seems to be advocating the right to teach "mumbo-jumbo".

And I don't think schools need to spend much time on religious education I fail to see why it needs to have its own little slot and can't be incorporated into a broader social awareness and morality type module. You could tag religion onto such issues as gay rights, sexual discrimination, racism, cultural observations, morality and ethics etc. Morality and ethics whilst explored in religion does not require it and both need religion about as much as the universe needs a creator ie not a lot.

Parents are free to have their children brought up and taught the tenets of their faith. This is something which even in faith schools is not compulsory.

Now as things stand at the moment there are lots of things which the Catholic Church teaches a moral position on that are accepted within society. Let us take the example of divorce. The Catholic Church teaches that divorce is morally wrong and that marriage is a bond which cannot be broken. We don't have people campaigning against that line of teaching.

Unfortunately there is a nasty militant gay movement in this country. I am not calling all gay people nasty or militant just highlighting a particular group. Should this legislation be changed I am sure on the very first day it has come into law there will be a gay person in this country trying to book a wedding in a Catholic Church and crying that his rights are being violated when he is turned down.

 

[spudbynight]

No-one should expect better from me.

And it is far from silly when you say "Clergy within that religion should most definitely follow the rules" you are then saying they should follow all rules whether they are just/moral/ethical of not. If that is not what you intend then you are arguing they should follow only the rules which are just/moral/ethical from the perspective. You either allow them freedom of choice or you do not. And considering the practices of the catholic church throughout history then its demands from time to time have often failed quite heavily at being just or ethically/morally right.

If you are preaching a religion then you should follow that religion not make changes to suit your own viewpoint. As soon as you start doing that you are doing something else.

I don't for one second believe that people can't make decisions in line with their own conscience. I do think though that going against the teachings of your religion as a preacher is a fundamental incompatibility.

As to the inquisition, well that wasn't a teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[Xordium]

Now as things stand at the moment there are lots of things which the Catholic Church teaches a moral position on that are accepted within society. Let us take the example of divorce. The Catholic Church teaches that divorce is morally wrong and that marriage is a bond which cannot be broken. We don't have people campaigning against that line of teaching.

Unfortunately there is a nasty militant gay movement in this country. I am not calling all gay people nasty or militant just highlighting a particular group. Should this legislation be changed I am sure on the very first day it has come into law there will be a gay person in this country trying to book a wedding in a Catholic Church and crying that his rights are being violated when he is turned down.

You think society thinks divorce is morally wrong?!? I would disagree with you there and that is the kind of assertion that I think needs evidence to demonstrate that it is true. I think people would say it is an undesirable outcome but that such an outcome is better than two or more people living in an unhappy household.

I am also sure there are some nasty militant gays as gay people tend to be human and will naturally have all the variations in that are found in humans. I am sure hurfdurf would be saying that you have some undercurrents of homophobia in that last paragraph.

 

[Xordium]

As to the inquisition, well that wasn't a teaching of the Catholic Church.

But it was instigated at the behest of the Catholic Church? So my guess is you are saying if it is at the behest of the Church but not a direct teaching then you do not have to follow it but if it is a direct teaching then you do. Correct?

 

[spudbynight]

You think society thinks divorce is morally wrong?!? I would disagree with you there and that is the kind of assertion that I think needs evidence to demonstrate that it is true. I think people would say it is an undesirable outcome but that such an outcome is better than two or more people living in an unhappy household.

That isn't what I said. I said that the Catholic Church teaches that divorce is morally wrong.

I am also sure there are some nasty militant gays as gay people tend to be human and will naturally have all the variations in that are found in humans. I am sure hurfdurf would be saying that you have some undercurrents of homophobia in that last paragraph.

I have hurfdurf on ignore so thankfully I am spared his bigoted witterings.

Are you saying that there are undercurrents of homophobia in what I wrote?

 

[Xordium]

That isn't what I said. I said that the Catholic Church teaches that divorce is morally wrong.

But surely (from below) you are saying that the Catholic Church teaches a moral position about divorce that is accepted by society?

Now as things stand at the moment there are lots of things which the Catholic Church teaches a moral position on that are accepted within society. Let us take the example of divorce. The Catholic Church teaches that divorce is morally wrong and that marriage is a bond which cannot be broken.

Are you saying that there are undercurrents of homophobia in what I wrote?

No, I was quite explicit in who I said might make that statement.

Anyways, I'll come back to this later need to finish ME3.

 

[spudbynight]

But it was instigated at the behest of the Catholic Church? So my guess is you are saying if it is at the behest of the Church but not a direct teaching then you do not have to follow it but if it is a direct teaching then you do. Correct?

What I am saying is that a Catholic Priest shouldn't be acting in some way that is contrary to the teachings of the Church. I would also hold the view that any cleric of any faith shouldn't be acting contrary to the teachings of that faith.

The inquisition was not a teaching of the Catholic Church. Funnily enough only a small number of clergy were involved. So involvement certainly wasn't mandatory. There are lots of things that are done by the Church which are not mandatory, bake sales as an example at the other end of the spectrum.

You seem bright enough to understand the difference? You don't have to believe any direct teachings of the faith - but teaching otherwise is incompatible.

 

[spudbynight]

But surely (from below) you are saying that the Catholic Church teaches a moral position about divorce that is accepted by society?

Maybe what I posted wasn't clear.

The Catholic Church teaches a position on divorce. That position is that it is morally wrong.

Divorce is accepted by society.

Anyway - I am working at the moment so I need to get back to things.