Today the Labour Party, tomorrow...

wolfsbane

I couldn't help smiling when I read this. New Labour - New Rome. Is there no limit to this man's talent? :rolleyes:

Tony Blair criticizes Vatican attitude toward gays
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdxKZ_a15d9ulz1mFPg5DkCFRQgwD97E5DIG0

toiletduck

"Roman Catholic leaders are out of step with ordinary believers in their attitude toward homosexuals"

I don't think that's anything new or shocking. From the vast majority of Catholics I know, it would seem to be the case.

Húrin

If Tony Blair is criticising them, it is surely evidence that they may not be the rich and powerful people we imagine them to be.

GAAwebsite

I think it's disgraceful what Blair has come out with. Who exactly does he think he is to try to get the Pope to say that homosexuality is right and for him to let it be okay in the Church. It is wrong and against nature. It's against the Church. Does anyone honestly think that God would condone such behaviour. God made man and God made woman. Also from the vast amount of Catholics - actually all Catholics I've ever talked to about this - they are totally against homosexuality.

Fanny Cradock

Well such an attitude could very well ostracise people from God.

Nodin

GAAwebsite wrote: »

It is wrong and against nature.

Bit strange people are born that way then. Anyway, what odds is it to you what people do in their own time?

Fanny Cradock

Folks, this is absolutely NOT the thread to be having the nature/ nurture debate.

Try going here or using the search function. I'm really not in the mood for the drama that follows such a topic.

Zillah

I think it's extremely hypocritical of Tony Blair to convert to Catholicism and then start announcing the changes that should be made to the religion. (Just to establish where I'm coming from, not to provoke a debate) I think homosexuality is a sexual variation that is neither immoral nor unnatural, and I think it would be great if the Catholic Church stopped preaching the immorality of such a lifestyle, but I don't think it's his place to criticise a religion he just recently chose to join.

Now, maybe he's not a real believer and chose to join for other reasons (placate the wife?), and is now simply using his position as a well known international VIP to make the world a better place, in which case more power to him.

Finally, I think he's dead on about the majority of Catholics not agreeing with the Church's stance on homosexuality. The vast majority of Catholics I've spoken to disagree with a great deal of Catholic doctrine.

studiorat

The British ex-prime minister is quite right to attempt change from within the Catholic Church. It would be hypocritical of him to criticize if he wasn't a Catholic.

The fact that he converted at a late stage in life rather than being born as such is a moot point. To suggest that, is like saying only a life-long Catholic has any right to comment on doctrine. Maybe there's a probation period I don't know about.

CDfm

studiorat wrote: »

The British ex-prime minister is quite right to attempt change from within the Catholic Church. It would be hypocritical of him to criticize if he wasn't a Catholic.

The fact that he converted at a late stage in life rather than being born as such is a moot point. To suggest that, is like saying only a life-long Catholic has any right to comment on doctrine. Maybe there's a probation period I don't know about.

Wow - the guy has only been Baptised 5 minutes and he wants to be Pope.He should forget he is no longer British PM & is just an ordinary punter.

I note that there was no mention on the sexed up dossier on WOMD & Iraq and TBs first confession in the piece.That sacrament could take a while.

studiorat

No, he doesn't want to be pope and the interview doesn't mention anything about "New Rome" either. The Associated Press article doesn't give any mention to the context in which the statements were made and as such is a poor link to provide to this non-story.

Blair's been described in the past as being part of the Anglican "high church" so his becoming catholic is not a huge step in that regard. He did get the red carpet treatment from the Vatican when he did properly convert.
In 1996, he was reprimanded by Cardinal Basil Hume for receiving Communion at Mass despite not being a Roman Catholic, a contravention of Canon Law. Cardinal Hume reprimanding non-Catholic's for taking Communion is a interesting irony I think, but it does show that Blair is not "just in the door" so to speak.

The report is from an interview with a magazine called Attitude. He suggested that Catholics are more liberal minded that their religious leaders and that they...

(we), need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith.

The "Criticism" element of this news scoop, is the fact that he was asked to comment on the pope calling homosexuality "an objective disorder" in 1986. Asked about that comment, Blair said "there is a huge generation difference here.''

He was rebuked for the statements on "re-thinking" and "evolving" in the interview by the incoming Archbishop of Westminister saying, " I am afraid the way the Catholic church thinks is rather different to that..."

* even though he's not the British PM anymore as Middle East envoy and contender for the European Presidency he is sadly, not "your average punter"

glaston

studiorat wrote: »

It would be hypocritical of him to criticize if he wasn't a Catholic.

Eh?
Now I'm really confused.

Anyway as a catholic he should know better. The pope is infallible and condoms spread aids.

Fanny Cradock

Stop trolling. I'm going to be really strict on this thread, folks. Any trolling, nasty sentiments or failure to laugh at my jokes won't be tolerated. You have been warned!

O'Coonassa

GAAwebsite wrote: »

Does anyone honestly think that God would condone such behaviour.

If not then how comes he made gay elephants etc? They and all the many other mammals that exhibit gay behaviour don't have free will and yet they're as gay as can be. This being so I fail to understand how you think a loving God could NOT condone such behaviour. Your thinking makes God seem a hypocrite. Therefore it cannot be correct.

Fanny Cradock

O'Coonassa wrote: »

If not then how comes he made gay elephants etc? They and all the many other mammals that exhibit gay behaviour don't have free will and yet they're as gay as can be. This being so I fail to understand how you think a loving God could NOT condone such behaviour. Your thinking makes God seem a hypocrite. Therefore it cannot be correct.

Did you not see my previous post?

The "gay" discussion is not happening in this thread. End of story.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Folks, this is absolutely NOT the thread to be having the nature/ nurture debate.

Try going here or using the search function. I'm really not in the mood for the drama that follows such a topic.

O'Coonassa

Sorry about that I was so vexed I just replied without reading any further.

Slav

toiletduck wrote: »

"Roman Catholic leaders are out of step with ordinary believers in their attitude toward homosexuals"

I don't think that's anything new or shocking. From the vast majority of Catholics I know, it would seem to be the case.

It does not make any real difference since the church is not a democracy and it's not supposed to be a democracy.

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI

What I don't understand is, why would Tony Blair join the Catholic church in the first place? I mean, clearly he doesn't believe in some of the rather silly and out of date doctrine of the church "condoms are evil and don't work, gays are evil and don't work, Cptn. Pope is infallible, etc." So what exactly did he expect to gain from joining the Catholic church? Was it a political decision?

robindch

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote: »

So what exactly did he expect to gain from joining the Catholic church?

I'm out on a limb here, but perhaps he believes what the catholic church says about itself?

Fanny Cradock

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote: »

What I don't understand is, why would Tony Blair join the Catholic church in the first place? I mean, clearly he doesn't believe in some of the rather silly and out of date doctrine of the church "condoms are evil and don't work, gays are evil and don't work, Cptn. Pope is infallible, etc." So what exactly did he expect to gain from joining the Catholic church? Was it a political decision?

It certainly wasn't a political decision. He actually waited until leaving office before converting, which is interesting in itself.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

I'm out on a limb here, but perhaps he believes what the catholic church says about itself?

I can't imagine what you mean.

GAAwebsite & Zillah hit the spot:

I think it's disgraceful what Blair has come out with. Who exactly does he think he is to try to get the Pope to say that homosexuality is right and for him to let it be okay in the Church. It is wrong and against nature. It's against the Church.

I think it's extremely hypocritical of Tony Blair to convert to Catholicism and then start announcing the changes that should be made to the religion.

It would be a different matter if Tony had joined a church that was open to challenging its leaders - but Rome is very specific about that. He must have known about Papal Infallibility and the obligation of Catholics to it.

It is possible he is just speaking as many ordinary Catholics do, and has forgotten his public profile will make it a big issue; or he is making a play for influence in the church, representing the 'enlightenment' section.

Nodin

wolfsbane wrote: »

It would be a different matter if Tony had joined a church that was open to challenging its leaders - but Rome is very specific about that. He must have known about Papal Infallibility and the obligation of Catholics to it.

Given his track record, he presumably thought that just all applied to ordinary people.

wolfsbane

Nodin wrote: »

Given his track record, he presumably thought that just all applied to ordinary people.

Splendour

Tony Blairs comments would be akin to me joining the Catholic Church and saying I think transubstansiation is out of date with what most Catholics believe.

If ya ain't willing to wear the boots then don't join the army!

CDfm

Splendour wrote: »

If ya ain't willing to wear the boots then don't join the army!

Thats one take on what the Pope says and is a splendid metaphor.

Then again - its was an obvious choice for Tony to become Catholic. Under him Labour didnt get to elect a new Leader (very catholic) Gordon Brown was chosen and thats not democratic - but then neither is Labour:D

studiorat

CDfm wrote: »

Then again - its was an obvious choice for Tony to become Catholic. Under him Labour didnt get to elect a new Leader (very catholic) Gordon Brown was chosen and thats not democratic - but then neither is Labour:D

Not unlike Brian Cowan so.

CDfm

studiorat wrote: »

Not unlike Brian Cowan so.

Could you imagine Brian Cowan making a statement like TBs - ROFL:D

Unlike you to miss the metaphor on condoms

mewso

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote: »

What I don't understand is, why would Tony Blair join the Catholic church in the first place? I mean, clearly he doesn't believe in some of the rather silly and out of date doctrine of the church "condoms are evil and don't work, gays are evil and don't work, Cptn. Pope is infallible, etc." So what exactly did he expect to gain from joining the Catholic church? Was it a political decision?

This is the crux for me. It's so common now it's ridiculous. Either you accept a religion for what it is and what it preaches or you don't. If you don't then what are you doing as a member?

I have certain beliefs that differ wildly from Catholicism (the fact I don't believe in God being a major stumbling block) and so despite having being baptised a Catholic I no longer consider myself part of the church. I refuse to be a hypocrite.

Before asking the Pope to change his attitude to Homosexuality perhaps Blair should ask them to add some small print to the First Commandment so he can reconcile himself with going to war on bogus reasons resulting in thousands of innocent deaths. But then so many in this world chose to believe in non-existent small print on the laws of their Church.

studiorat

CDfm wrote: »

Could you imagine Brian Cowan making a statement like TBs - ROFL:D

You're missing the point, both attained leadership through their previous party leaders success, neither was party leader when that party won. Contrary to popular belief, G. Brown was actually elected party leader although both Cowan and Brown's rise to leadership has been described as a coronation btw.

So is any Catholic who criticizes the Catholic Church a hypocrite. Mary MacAleese has done it in the past. Liz O'Donnell has done it in the past too.
Some more: Catholic women call for change in the church

Petition to call for Catholic church reform

Or is it just the fact that's it's Tony Blair that seems to get peoples wind up. The "who the hell does he think he is?" factor seems quite large on this one.
Oh-oh! I get it, It's because he was talking about queers isn't it. Ah-ha!

BTW I must have missed the metaphor cause it was crap.

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

You're missing the point, both attained leadership through their previous party leaders success, neither was party leader when that party won. Contrary to popular belief, G. Brown was actually elected party leader although both Cowan and Brown's rise to leadership has been described as a coronation btw.

So is any Catholic who criticizes the Catholic Church a hypocrite. Mary MacAleese has done it in the past. Liz O'Donnell has done it in the past too.
Some more: Catholic women call for change in the church

Petition to call for Catholic church reform

Or is it just the fact that's it's Tony Blair that seems to get peoples wind up. The "who the hell does he think he is?" factor seems quite large on this one.
Oh-oh! I get it, It's because he was talking about queers isn't it. Ah-ha!

BTW I must have missed the metaphor cause it was crap.

Yes, any Catholic who claims to be a faithful Catholic and yet denies the teaching of the church is a hypocrite. If they want to deny the teaching, let them openly say the Church is wrong about the Pope's authority and they want to reform it. That means they are not faithful Catholics, but neo-Catholics.

And, No, it's not because Tony was talking about queers. He could have been questioning anything the Pope has defined.

If I joined FF and then said it was a mistake to break the Union with Britain, some might think me hypocritical, since I knew it was a republican party. How much more so in matters where absolute truth and authority is supposedly involved?

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

If they want to deny the teaching, let them openly say the Church is wrong about the Pope's authority and they want to reform it. That means they are not faithful Catholics, but neo-Catholics.

Yet they are still members of the church, how strange. The Catholic church changes, slowly but it does change. Not all the discussion from the top down.

Was Pope Urban a hypocrite for asking Galileo to present arguments for his theories before he was pope?

Was Mons Georges LeMaitre a hypocrite?

It's really a very blinkered view to think that someone can't comment on the church and still be a member.

BTW your description is Neo-Catholic is wrong. Someone's beat you to that one already.

they hold that it is against Catholic teaching, or, more moderately, "UnCatholic" to criticize the Pope even with regard to his personal opinions or public actions.

This is neo-catholicism.

CDfm

studiorat wrote: »

It's really a very blinkered view to think that someone can't comment on the church and still be a member.

Too right.

Thanks for posting that.

wolfsbane

studiorat said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If they want to deny the teaching, let them openly say the Church is wrong about the Pope's authority and they want to reform it. That means they are not faithful Catholics, but neo-Catholics.
Yet they are still members of the church, how strange.

Discipline in the RC Church is up to the pope. He decides when to publically excommunicate. But the canon Law of their church makes it clear that the individual cathloic automatically excommunicates himself when he denies any of the dogmas of the Church. He is also in breach of its rules and communion when he openly disputes the pope's rulings. That's are far as I can gather from reading their Catechism. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The Catholic church changes, slowly but it does change. Not all the discussion from the top down.

Agreed. But discussion is not the same as decision.

Was Pope Urban a hypocrite for asking Galileo to present arguments for his theories before he was pope?

Was Mons Georges LeMaitre a hypocrite?

It's really a very blinkered view to think that someone can't comment on the church and still be a member.

Comment is permitted, within bounds.

BTW your description is Neo-Catholic is wrong. Someone's beat you to that one already.

Quote:
they hold that it is against Catholic teaching, or, more moderately, "UnCatholic" to criticize the Pope even with regard to his personal opinions or public actions.

This is neo-catholicism.

Looks like traditional-catholicism to me. Ever heard of Trent? Or Vatican 1?