Pope reaches out to Catholic divorcees - but no progress on gay rights

Cabaal

Not at all surprised, will likely be another 20-30 years before the church cops on and finally see's gay people as equal

POPE FRANCIS HAS opted for no change in the Catholic approach to homosexuality but signalled a more open stance on cohabiting and divorced believers under new Church guidelines on family life.

In his 260-page ‘Apostolic Exhortation’, a long-awaited document which is likely to disappoint advocates of more radical change, Francis strongly reiterates the Church’s opposition to the legal recognition of gay relationships.

In the absence of any new language on gay believers, official Church teaching defaults to the controversial formula that same-sex relationships are “intrinsically disordered”.

The area in which the missive arguably signals the biggest change to the Church’s 1.2 billion followers around the world is in its recognition of the values embodied in the relationships of people once routinely and often severely condemned as “living in sin”.

It acknowledges that there are many reasons why they were not able to marry before a priest.

“The choice of a civil marriage or, in many cases, of simple cohabitation, is often not motivated by prejudice or resistance to a sacramental union, but by cultural or contingent situations,” the text states.

In such cases, respect also can be shown for those signs of love which in some way reflect God’s own love.

The text also notes that some couples do not marry because of the expense involved: “Material poverty drives people into de facto unions,” it states.

In light of such circumstances, “these couples need to be welcomed and guided patiently and discreetly”.

On believers who have divorced and remarried, the texts says it is important they are made to feel part of the Church and encouraged to participate in parish life.

“They are not excommunicated and they should not be treated as such,” it states while sidestepping the deeply divisive issue of whether they should be allowed to receive communion.

Although the text stresses that the situations of divorced and remarried believers “require careful discernment” it does not appear to authorise local bishops to grant access to communion on a case by case basis, as some had hoped it would.

Conservatives in the Church are fiercely opposed to divorced and remarried Catholics receiving communion as they see such a step as a threat to the principle that marriages are indissoluble.

Entitled ‘Amoris Laetitia’ (“The Joy of Love”), the document presented at the Vatican today was also being unveiled in dioceses around the world, where bishops have been sent guidelines on how to explain the changes to their congregations.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35994408

What the document says about...

Divorcees remarrying: "Language or conduct that might lead them to feel discriminated against should be avoided, and they should be encouraged to participate in the life of the community. The Christian community's care of such persons is not to be considered a weakening of its faith and testimony to the indissolubility of marriage..."

Contraception: "The use of methods based on the 'laws of nature and the incidence of fertility' are to be promoted, since 'these methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them and favour the education of an authentic freedom'

Women: "The verbal, physical, and sexual violence that women endure in some marriages contradicts the very nature of the conjugal union. I think of the reprehensible genital mutilation of women practiced in some cultures, but also of their lack of equal access to dignified work and roles of decision-making"

Sex education: "Frequently, sex education deals primarily with 'protection' through the practice of 'safe sex'. Such expressions convey a negative attitude towards the natural procreative finality of sexuality, as if an eventual child were an enemy to be protected against.... It is always irresponsible to invite adolescents to toy with their bodies and their desires, as if they possessed the maturity, values, mutual commitment and goals proper to marriage. They end up being blithely encouraged to use other persons as a means of fulfilling their needs or limitations"

Gay people: "Every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while 'every sign of unjust discrimination' is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence... As for proposals to place unions between homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family"

Does that mean I can eat the body of Jesus again even though I'm not married to the woman I live with?

Class.

actuallylike

It's unbelievable how it will work really. Everyone will progress, as they already are, and eventually when he/church catches up, they'll be heralded as the progressive ones.

Cabaal

I find the comments about sex education deeply worrying

Sex education: "Frequently, sex education deals primarily with 'protection' through the practice of 'safe sex'. Such expressions convey a negative attitude towards the natural procreative finality of sexuality, as if an eventual child were an enemy to be protected against.... It is always irresponsible to invite adolescents to toy with their bodies and their desires, as if they possessed the maturity, values, mutual commitment and goals proper to marriage. They end up being blithely encouraged to use other persons as a means of fulfilling their needs or limitations"

Teaching safe sex is not negative at all! Its teaching responsibility for one's health.

Teaching teenagers about their bodies is also very much a good thing, otherwise you end up with totally clueless adults when it comes to sex

robindch

Deleted User wrote: »

Does that mean I can eat the body of Jesus again even though I'm not married to the woman I live with?

Depends on whether you're a woman yourself.

frag420

What happens when we have our first Catholic gay divorce in Ireland......oh wait!

Custardpi

Why is anyone expecting progress on gay rights from the Catholic Church? The idea that because secular society has moved on in this regard we should automatically see the same from any religion is illogical in my opinion. The Vatican isn't making these judgements on the basis of opinion polls of the laity but rather on their interpretation, backed up by centuries of scholarship, of what they regard as holy scripture. That's what's important to them, not silly common sense arguments about people's health. No amount of rational advocacy that non believers or à la carte believers can present in favour of LGBT rights is going to trump Leviticus.

recedite

Custardpi wrote: »

No amount of rational advocacy that non believers or à la carte believers can present in favour of LGBT rights is going to trump Leviticus.

It seems to me that this Pope is recommending a ramping up of RCC hypocrisy in order to combat defections from the church.
It's realpolitik at its finest.

Leviticus will continue to be applied fully in regions where it can be, for example in African countries. But in more liberal countries, which supply the vast bulk of financial remittances to the Vatican, a more "flexible" approach should be implemented.

Sheep Lover

I always found some atheists obsession with the Catholic Church a bit odd. You don't live your life as a Catholic so why care what the CC does?

smash

Cabaal wrote: »

I find the comments about sex education deeply worrying

Don't take sex advice from pie old that don't ride!

frag420

Sheep Lover wrote: »

I always found some atheists obsession with the Catholic Church a bit odd. You don't live your life as a Catholic so why care what the CC does?

Well if the Catholic church kept to themselves then all wood be fine but when they try to influence every part of society then there is a problem........

Liberosis

Sheep Lover wrote: »

I always found some atheists obsession with the Catholic Church a bit odd. You don't live your life as a Catholic so why care what the CC does?

I always found the pope's views on sex as odd. He's not supposed to be riding anyone so why the obsession. The dirtbird :P

Sheep Lover

frag420 wrote: »

Well if the Catholic church kept to themselves then all wood be fine but when they try to influence every part of society then there is a problem........

Just strikes me as strange, as a forum the majority of the threads on the front page are Catholic oriented. Kinda like how some Celtic supporters really just hate Rangers and don't follow Celtic at all.

wokingvoter

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Just strikes me as strange, as a forum the majority of the threads on the front page are Catholic oriented. Kinda like how some Celtic supporters really just hate Rangers and don't follow Celtic at all.

No. What it compares with to me of is if The National Guild of Home Brewers has an AGM and makes a statement which reinforces all their rules re subscriptions etc and membership and The Association of Retired Postmen feels an overwhelming desire to respond to this statement!
If you don't want to be a Catholic, (drum roll...) don't be one!

jimd2

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Just strikes me as strange, as a forum the majority of the threads on the front page are Catholic oriented. Kinda like how some Celtic supporters really just hate Rangers and don't follow Celtic at all.

I have noticed exactly the same Sheep Lover. I would openly admit to not being the best of catholics myself but some of the bitterness, cynicism etc on this forum seems a bit ott to me.

Have you seen the sitcky titled "ongoing religuous scandals"? Essentially a forum for discussing only sex abuse perpetrated by someone to do with the catholic church. No effort in any way to mention the many many other atrocities and abuse carried out by others. Of course much of the abuse was and is horrendous and many people were pushed into the religious orders against their will and this resulted in a lot of this abuse. But a sticky on just this is wrong in my opinion.

My own opinion on the topic is that Pope Francis has made some great efforts to bring some of the doctrine into the 21st century while working withing very tight ethos constraints and he is to be commended on this. Hopefully this is the beginning not the end of his development of the church's teachings. I really like Pope Francis, I think he is a very good man and much much better than John Paul the second who seems to have allowed the church to become way more conservative while building up an ivory tower for those in the Vatican.

And in case anyone wonders then why I am browsing this forum, I happened to see this thread on the front page. had hoped that some on here would take his efforts in the spirit (I think) they were made and hopefully some on here will see it for that. Maybe there are some in the athiest forum that see some positive in this or are people so disillusioned /dismissive/ distrust / dislike the church/ Pope that nothing he says bar disbandment would be welcome.

fisgon

jimd2 wrote: »

My own opinion on the topic is that Pope Francis has made some great efforts to bring some of the doctrine into the 21st century .

You mean the 20th century....... If the church is only a century behind the rest of us it is doing well. His ideas are still absolutely part of a past that most of us have long left behind.

fisgon

Cabaal wrote: »

Not at all surprised, will likely be another 20-30 years before the church cops on and finally see's gay people as equal

Why do we care what he says or doesn't say? The majority of those 1.2 billion catholics don't. Let him waffle on, he represents a force in society that is intrinsically incapable of dealing head on with reality, and is insistent that it and only it knows the truth.

OP, are you really expecting "progress" from the Catholic Church? Because you are going to be disappointed. They are homophobic, they always have been, and if anyone is "intrinsically disordered" it is the catholic attitude to sexuality. This is not going to change. Just write them off, let them waffle on and say what they want, they are only doing themselves damage.

We should not take their positions on sexuality, marriage and fertility in any way seriously and really should pay them no attention at all.

wokingvoter

fisgon wrote: »

Why do we care what he says or doesn't say? The majority of those 1.2 billion catholics don't. Let him waffle on, he represents a force in society that is intrinsically incapable of dealing head on with reality, and is insistent that it and only it knows the truth.

OP, are you really expecting "progress" from the Catholic Church? Because you are going to be disappointed. They are homophobic, they always have been, and if anyone is "intrinsically disordered" it is the catholic attitude to sexuality. This is not going to change. Just write them off, let them waffle on and say what they want, they are only doing themselves damage.

We should not take their positions on sexuality, marriage and fertility in any way seriously and really should pay them no attention at all.

Absolutely. Nobody is asking you or inviting you and certainly nobody is forcing you to take any notice of the Pope anymore then your being forced invited or asked to take any notice of any other story in the news today.

Canadel

wokingvoter wrote: »

Absolutely. Nobody is asking you or inviting you and certainly nobody is forcing you to take any notice of the Pope anymore then your being forced invited or asked to take any notice of any other story in the news today.

That is a terribly poor argument. And could be applied to any news story anywhere in the same stupid way.

But as you're baiting for a reply. The Pope is a highly influential world figure. The story is all over the news. Hence the interest. In an atheist forum. Which is concerned with the control the Church has in this country. And it's control of small things like state schools and so on. And would like to see Ireland move towards a more secular society etc. Atheist forum etc. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing etc. Now it's time for you to take another angle in your attempts to portray the Atheists as the big bad bullies who have nothing better to do than discuss and critically analyse religion in an entirely non-aggressive manner on a an Atheist forum etc.

The Randy Riverbeast

Must remember this thread if I ever want an example of hypocrisy. Multiple people taking part in the very thing they are complaining about.

recedite

jimd2 wrote: »

Have you seen the sitcky titled "ongoing religuous scandals"? Essentially a forum for discussing only sex abuse perpetrated by someone to do with the catholic church. No effort in any way to mention the many many other atrocities and abuse carried out by others.

Except that's just not true, is it?
If you read through the thread, there are lots of other religions in it.
Probably most of the posts refer to the RCC, but whose fault is that?

Canadel

recedite wrote: »

Except that's just not true, is it?
If you read through the thread, there are lots of other religions in it.
Probably most of the posts refer to the RCC, but whose fault is that?

Atheists presumably.

Sheep Lover

Still haven't got an explanation for the amount of religious based threads (mainly bashing the RCC) in an atheist forum. One would think that the objective of being an atheist is to ridicule religious faiths, going by what is in this forum.

The Randy Riverbeast

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Still haven't got an explanation for the amount of religious based threads (mainly bashing the RCC) in an atheist forum. One would think that the objective of being an atheist is to ridicule religious faiths, going by what is in this forum.

Instead the objective is to explain themselves to people who just show up to bash atheists.

You do realise you are as bad as what you complain about right?

Sheep Lover

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Instead the objective is to explain themselves to people who just show up to bash atheists.

You do realise you are as bad as what you complain about right?

Who's bashing atheists? Was a simple enough question. For my faith, I am unsure. I wouldn't connect myself to any organised religion in particular, but I do think there is some sort of God or higher being if you will.

Canadel

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Still haven't got an explanation for the amount of religious based threads (mainly bashing the RCC) in an atheist forum.

The clue is in the name of the forum, and the web address. Boards.ie

One would think that the objective of being an atheist is to ridicule religious faiths, going by what is in this forum.

I wouldn't simply call it an objective of being an atheist so much as it being necessary for a progressive society.

Cabaal

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Still haven't got an explanation for the amount of religious based threads (mainly bashing the RCC) in an atheist forum. One would think that the objective of being an atheist is to ridicule religious faiths, going by what is in this forum.

One would think the objective of being a catholic was to **** children, based on the sheer amount of sex abuse cases carried out by catholics.

If you want to base your assumptions around an entire group of people based on some stuff you've read then I guess it we could do the same with catholics?
:rolleyes:

While you're at incorrect assumptions are you also going to claim the objective of muslims is to kill other people?

wokingvoter

Cabaal wrote: »

One would think the objective of being a catholic was to **** children, based on the sheer amount of sex abuse cases carried out by catholics.

If you want to base your assumptions around an entire group of people based on some stuff you've read then I guess it we could do the same with catholics?
:rolleyes:

While you're at incorrect assumptions are you also going to claim the objective of muslims is to kill other people?

Based on this forum, the main objective of atheists is to, unsuccessfully so far, damn the RCC.
There's no escaping that fact if you just give even a rudimentary glance around here that it's not atheism but anti-theism that's the overriding theme.
This post of yours demonstrates that perfectly

Sheep Lover

Canadel wrote: »

I wouldn't simply call it an objective of being an atheist so much as it being necessary for a progressive society.

What happened to letting people believe in what they believe, whatever floats your boat type of thing? Instead of trying to ridicule everyone who doesn't do what you do.

Sheep Lover

Cabaal wrote: »

One would think the objective of being a catholic was to **** children, based on the sheer amount of sex abuse cases carried out by catholics.

If you want to base your assumptions around an entire group of people based on some stuff you've read then I guess it we could do the same with catholics?
:rolleyes:

While you're at incorrect assumptions are you also going to claim the objective of muslims is to kill other people?

Ridiculous comment really. Any figures or sources of these "sheer amount of Catholics" who are sexual predators?

silverharp

Sheep Lover wrote: »

What happened to letting people believe in what they believe, whatever floats your boat type of thing? Instead of trying to ridicule everyone who doesn't do what you do.

what is wrong with a battle of ideas? given that the Catholic church wants to exert pressure on society it would be remiss not to attack the institution especially when its not an institution built on facts or reason.

Sheep Lover

silverharp wrote: »

what is wrong with a battle of ideas? given that the Catholic church wants to exert pressure on society it would be remiss not to attack the institution especially when its not an institution built on facts or reason.

That's fine. But out and out ridicule is very different. As can be seen above a catholic now equals a pedophile in one posters eyes.

Charles Babbage

Why should the Church "move on" in relation to sin?

robindch

Sheep Lover wrote: »

As can be seen above a catholic now equals a pedophile in one posters eyes.

Quite apart from the eye-roll icon, it's quite clear from context that this is not the view of the the poster who made that comment.

silverharp

Sheep Lover wrote: »

That's fine. But out and out ridicule is very different. As can be seen above a catholic now equals a pedophile in one posters eyes.

but attack their point. As such the poster was just using your own "One would think..." point against you ie don't generalise.

eviltwin

Sheep Lover wrote: »

That's fine. But out and out ridicule is very different. As can be seen above a catholic now equals a pedophile in one posters eyes.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to ridicule the ridiculous.

Custardpi

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Why should the Church "move on" in relation to sin?

They're perfectly free not to do so, despite what non believers or even some wavering members of the flock might think - the Church is not a democracy after all, but one which draws it's authority from the spiritual successor to St Peter. However, if society as a whole moves on regarding homosexuality & other matters (& in the West at least that's increasingly the case) then the Church will over time find itself increasingly isolated & irrelevant to most people's lives.

If the Church cannot square this theological circle & find interpretations of scripture which align with the way the secular world is going then their power as an institution will inevitably decline even further than it already has. Whether that's a price worth paying in order to remain true to their beliefs is another matter of course.

Cabaal

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Ridiculous comment really. Any figures or sources of these "sheer amount of Catholics" who are sexual predators?

Ok, lets look at for example the Boston archdiocese, 271 priests abused in that area alone. I honestly don't think I need to list all the abuses that happened in every country do I? They've been well covered in the media.

Now, lets look at the Vatican, they had rules and guidelines for covering up abuse and this allowed priests to continue to abuse.

If you so wished you could use these guidelines and rules to come to the conclusion that abuse was ok in the church and they wanted it to carry on.

After all, surely if the Vatican did not like abuse they would have removed abusing priests from positions entirely and stripped them of their titles.

Despite the Vatican's twisted and rather f*cked up rules and guidelines I can still come to the conclusion that it is not one of the objectives for catholics to abuse children. My post was merely to show how silly your post was, it seems you've completely missed the point though.
:rolleyes:

But yet based on posts in this forum you have decided to decide that an objective of being an atheist is to ridicule religious faiths. An utterly ridiculous conclusion to come to.

Sheep Lover wrote: »

As can be seen above a catholic now equals a pedophile in one posters eyes.

Now you know rightly that you are misrepresenting my post which is seriously poor form.

The point of my post was to show how silly your assumption about atheist was, but that seems to have gone over your head.

Sheep Lover

Cabaal wrote: »

Ok, lets look at for example the Boston archdiocese, 271 priests abused in that area alone. I honestly don't think I need to list all the abuses that happened in every country do I? They've been well covered in the media.

So 271 out of the how many thousands of RCC priests there are in the world? "Sheer amount" would suggest majority. What about your regular mass goer of the RCC are they pedophiles too?

Cabaal

Sheep Lover wrote: »

So 271 out of the how many thousands of RCC priests there are in the world? "Sheer amount" would suggest majority. What about your regular mass goer of the RCC are they pedophiles too?

Sheer amount refers to a large number of, not sure where you get majority from. Once again I must remind you that my post was simply to show how silly your conclusion about atheist was.

Once again this seems to have gone wayyyy over that head of yours.
:rolleyes:

So you are standing by the silly assumption you've come to about atheists eh?

But yet you'd take issue with somebody if they made an equally silly assumption about Catholics. Funny that.. :pac:

MrPudding

wokingvoter wrote: »

No. What it compares with to me of is if The National Guild of Home Brewers has an AGM and makes a statement which reinforces all their rules re subscriptions etc and membership and The Association of Retired Postmen feels an overwhelming desire to respond to this statement!
If you don't want to be a Catholic, (drum roll...) don't be one!

Well, to take your analogy and expand on it slightly. If all the Home Brewers did was as you say above, then I don't think the postmen really have any grounds to complain. If, however, they go slightly further, and decide at their AGM to lobby the government, through their extensive connections to try to bring in laws that dictated who postmen could and could not have sex with, or where their children could or could not go to school, then perhaps they might want to respond.

jimd2 wrote: »

Have you seen the sitcky titled "ongoing religuous scandals"? Essentially a forum for discussing only sex abuse perpetrated by someone to do with the catholic church. No effort in any way to mention the many many other atrocities and abuse carried out by others. Of course much of the abuse was and is horrendous and many people were pushed into the religious orders against their will and this resulted in a lot of this abuse. But a sticky on just this is wrong in my opinion.

Come now. We can hardly be blamed because the RCC appear to be a more prolific sexual abuser than other religions? Added to this, the RCC is simply more relevant to the majority of posters on this board. There are plenty of stories in that thread about abuses carried out by members of other religions, but the simple fact is they currently pale into insignificance when compared to the abuse, and subsequent cover-ups carried out by that utterly despicable and morally bankrupt organisation known as the RCC.

MrP

wokingvoter

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Why should the Church "move on" in relation to sin?

Absolutely no reason whatsoever.

wokingvoter

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, to take your analogy and expand on it slightly. If all the Home Brewers did was as you say above, then I don't think the postmen really have any grounds to complain. If, however, they go slightly further, and decide at their AGM to lobby the government, through their extensive connections to try to bring in laws that dictated who postmen could and could not have sex with, or where their children could or could not go to school, then perhaps they might want to respond.



MrP

So Mr. P what groups/assocations/clubs do you think should be allowed to lobby the government then? Considering that in the last census over 80 % of the people declared themselves to be in the National Association of Catholic People,(so to speak) do you not think that they somehow qualify as a Club who have a mandate to lobby? If not, why?

robindch

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Why should the Church "move on" in relation to sin?

The church's primary products are a problem (guilt) and the means of solving it (confession, absolution, redemption).

As with any supplier, it's unlikely ever to abandon its best sellers - though one can certainly hope for a Kodak-style shift in customer requirements.

MrPudding

wokingvoter wrote: »

So Mr. P what groups/assocations/clubs do you think should be allowed to lobby the government then? Considering that in the last census over 80 % of the people declared themselves to be in the National Association of Catholic People,(so to speak) do you not think that they somehow qualify as a Club who have a mandate to lobby? If not, why?

I don't have a problem with a group lobbying the government, and I don't think I have said that I do. My point was simply that when an organisation is lobbying for either 1) the curtailment of rights or, 2) the imposition of particular laws based on the rules of that organisation, of or upon people outside that organisation, then those people outside that organisation are perfectly entitled to discuss and protest against that lobbying.

What was being questioned on this thread, and what I was responding to, was an oft made, poor argument that we should ignore the actions of the religious as we are not religious. We aren't in the club, so we should keep quiet. I was responding to the extremely poor straw man argument, in the form of an analogy, that was hastily thrown up to show how silly we atheist are.

MrP

wokingvoter

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't have a problem with a group lobbying the government, and I don't think I have said that I do. My point was simply that when an organisation is lobbying for either 1) the curtailment of rights or, 2) the imposition of particular laws based on the rules of that organisation, of or upon people outside that organisation, then those people outside that organisation are perfectly entitled to discuss and protest against that lobbying.

What was being questioned on this thread, and what I was responding to, was an oft made, poor argument that we should ignore the actions of the religious as we are not religious. We aren't in the club, so we should keep quiet. I was responding to the extremely poor straw man argument, in the form of an analogy, that was hastily thrown up to show how silly we atheist are.

MrP

So, they can lobby but not on issues you disagree with?
I don't see how its a strawman argument. You don't have to obey any of the rules of the RCC if you don't want to.
Nobody does.
Its oft quoted here that the RCC has no business interfering with what people get up to in their own bedrooms.
No they don't.
But that works both ways.
Why don't you just let the RCC have its rules, stick to its rules, change its rules, whatever way it sees fit?

Cabaal

wokingvoter wrote: »

Why don't you just let the RCC have its rules, stick to its rules, change its rules, whatever way it sees fit?

because those rules unfairly affect people who want nothing to do with the church,

Look at how much lobbying the church has done against marriage equality, it has zip to do with them, it changes nothing about a religious marriage and yet still they want to stop it. Even though it doesn't affect them.

By comparison if the Irish Catholic church wanted to follow Germany and introduce a so called "church tax" that catholics needed to pay to avail of services such as mass, communions, religious funerals I wouldn't give a monkeys. Why? Because it wouldn't affect non-catholics.

On the other hand if the RCC wants to use my tax money toe discriminate against 5 year olds then I very much care about it and I will condemn the church for its actions and miss use of my money

MrPudding

wokingvoter wrote: »

So, they can lobby but not on issues you disagree with?
I don't see how its a strawman argument. You don't have to obey any of the rules of the RCC if you don't want to.
Nobody does.
Its oft quoted here that the RCC has no business interfering with what people get up to in their own bedrooms.
No they don't.
But that works both ways.
Why don't you just let the RCC have its rules, stick to its rules, change its rules, whatever way it sees fit?

Wow. You guys are amazing. Can you please point out where I said they could only lobby on things I agreed with?

It is a straw man because I never said groups should not be allowed to lobby. Similarly, this is a straw man because I also never said they should only be allowed to lobby on things I agree with.

I don't care what groups lobby the government, and I further don't care what they lobby the government about. What I do care about is everyone else's right to criticise that lobbying, and I mean criticise in the sense that they should be allowed to say "no, we don't like that."

I am happy for the RCC to have its own rules. For example, I am more than happy for them to never hold a marriage ceremony in their churches or chapels where the celebrants are of the same sex. I do, however, take exception to them lobbying the government to have their rules enforce by civil law. Note, I do not think they shouldn't be allowed to do this, but I do think I and any one else is perfectly entitle to call them up for it, because like their rules in their house is none of my business, the rules around who can put their penis where is none of their business.

So, by all means, have you own rules, and change them as you see fit, but when you try to force your medieval, bigoted and discriminatory rules on people that aren't in your club, then expect push back.

I hope that is clear enough for you. I appreciate that you are having issue with comprehension, but I am approaching the limits of breaking this down into simpler terms.

MrP

Canadel

Sheep Lover wrote: »

What happened to letting people believe in what they believe, whatever floats your boat type of thing? Instead of trying to ridicule everyone who doesn't do what you do.

Nothing. They are entitled to exercise that right. Just as I am entitled to exercise my right to ridicule their beliefs, ridiculous or not.

I don't think you'll find much ridicule of Catholics in this forum, or even of the Pope. But rather criticism of their religious beliefs, and of what the Pope says. Hence this thread. There's a critical difference between ridiculing the belief and ridiculing the believer.

Again, I have no problem with people having the right to believe in God and the Bible. Everyone should have the right to freedom of expression. But respecting the right does not necessarily mean you should respect what is expressed.

Qs

wokingvoter wrote: »

No. What it compares with to me of is if The National Guild of Home Brewers has an AGM and makes a statement which reinforces all their rules re subscriptions etc and membership and The Association of Retired Postmen feels an overwhelming desire to respond to this statement!
If you don't want to be a Catholic, (drum roll...) don't be one!

Its more akin to Home Brewers responding to statements made by the temperance movement.