Ratzinger on homosexuality

Yoda

From 1986: On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder....

It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.

To chose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent....

It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

damien

Oh no, I shouldn't have voted for him then !

Gurgle

Pope Benedict XVI wrote:

when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

Dogma dogma dogma....

"when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right"
So this guy's idea of leadership is to allow specific rights, rather than to outlaw specific wrongs ?

Yet another ultra-conservative Catholic emporer, with one foot in the grave and the other in his mouth.

Though at least he's not condoning burning them at the stake. Plus he's 78 so he's not likely to be around quite so long as the last one. Maybe the next pope will be aware that the 20th century has happened.

Zulu

He's a pope FFS. What do you want him to say? Did you expect him to say it was alright? Did you expect his blessing?

damien

One thing about this guy as compared to JPII is he is very black and white. He actually will be less with the dogma and more with the theology. Less of the wishy washy stuff. You'll definitely know where you stand with him.

bopper

I think he looks like a child molester

damien

bopper wrote:

I think he looks like a child molester

That really contributes to the debate.

uberwolf

back in 1986 it was eveil, but it's cool in the gang now. At least thats my understanding of the scenario.

Homosexuality does run contrary to R.C teaching. Maybe it's not an all or nothing concept (R.C) but because I use contraception I'm also running the gauntlet. Just ignore an irrelevant, unresponsive relic TBH

bopper

damien.m wrote:

That really contributes to the debate.

Sorry. I agree he's an asshole. There.

Hmm_Messiah

He's a pope FFS. What do you want him to say? Did you expect him to say it was alright? Did you expect his blessing?


There is no rational reason not to hope a pontiff would say it was alright.

the Pontiff is the representative of Christ on Earth , there to preach and protect and serve christs church

Where in the bible does Christ himself make a single reference to homosexuality ?

There is no intrinsic reason for it to be wrong, Benedict's teachng is flawed.


References in the Old Testament refer to cultural norms, rules held by a community at a particular time. And it refers to a deliberate peversion of one's sexuality, which to me would seem immoral even outside of a xian context.

Benedict speaks of the dignity of humanity; it is his/ jp2's saving grace; they truly did hate the sin/offence as they saw it yet could embrace to personhood of every individual.

Both popes teaching is flawed as it is contradictary.

If you accept people are born with a sexual orientation (the Church is obliged to embrace the truth of science ) then to talk of any disorder or perversion is to say "the image of god" is disordered or perverted, it is infact a heresy and insult to the Divinity.

If you argue that orientation is learned /choosen then the argument gets more difficult but allowing humans have free will and informed minds then NO action can be inherently evil, there is a subjective morality about the choices and actions of each person that is between them and their conscience, or God if applicable. However, other than in circumstances when a persons sexuality and identity is disordered in a pyschiatric context, sexuality is not choosen.

What I find difficult about all this dogma bull**** from the Church hierarchy is the motivation. WHy emphasis an area of morally so removed from christs message : that each human is precious, your neighbour is equal to urself , and that men are redeeemed and united with their creator. Outside of that Chtrists message , where it can be agreed the words are most likely accurately his was one of social justice, of prayer, and compassion. He never chastised any ersosn sexual behaviour; seems to me the guy had a better understanding of sexuality's place in the overall picture.

I do find it very sad that the vicar of christ, a man who endured pain and death and betrayal for his love of man , that the vicar of the barefoot nazarene can remove himself so far from the Gospel as to condemn ny of Gods people, and not to condemn their actions but to condemn somethign intrinisc to their personality and identity as human.

Pax

passive

You're all homos

10 points for originality -_-

(and excellent post, messiah)

utopian

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

If you argue that orientation is learned /choosen then the argument gets more difficult but allowing humans have free will and informed minds then NO action can be inherently evil, there is a subjective morality about the choices and actions of each person that is between them and their conscience, or God if applicable.

You really believe that no action can be inherently evil?

Zillah

There is no rational reason not to hope a pontiff would say it was alright.

Two words: Papal Infallibility

By definition no pope can ever say homosexuality is alright, because other popes have said otherwise. They have a entourage of people making sure no pope contradicts another, as that would make a mockery of papal infallibilty.

utopian wrote:

You really believe that no action can be inherently evil?

Do you really believe that morals and concepts such as good and evil have anything other than an utterly subjective basis?

Today Christians say homosexual acts are inherently evil.
In ancient Greece homosexuality as a healthy and normal activity.

Modern Christians say suicide is a direct ticket to hell.
Medieval Japanese people saw suicide as a completely viable, reasonable and honourable recourse.

Modern Christians say murder is wrong.
Dozens of societies throughout the ages have practiced massive amounts of human sacrifice in the name of their communities.

Modern Christians say murder is wrong.
Christians once burned thousands of innocent women at the stake.

Modern Christians say murder is wrong.
In many american states Christians regularily kill people in a chair with electricity.

Modern Christians say murder is wrong.
The man in charge of the assault on Fallujah said that in there was "the devil", refering to the "insurgents". His men then killed hundreds of them.

Need I go on? Morality is as fickle the wind, it just takes longer to change.

FranknFurter

Dogma / amgod

Typical xtian ranting, what else is he going to say?
The church is was and always will be homophobic.
Its as black an white as the bible, the church does not acknowledge "grey".

Yes im gay, no i'm not christian, I was made pretend I was as a child.

The church never has accecpted me or my beliefs, but I, however, accecpt them and their right to believe what they will.

I simply stick to the Rede, which states, "those of the craft be free to do what ever they want to, as long as it does not harm themselves or anyone else. Harm is normally considered to include manipulation, domination, attempts to control, physically injure, emotionally harm, or hurt another person or group in any way."

"The Pentateuch -- the first five books in the Hebrew Scriptures -- lists 613 behaviors that the ancient Hebrews were expected to either adopt because they are not sinful, or avoid because they are wicked. These laws are referred to as the Mosaic Law. About two dozen of these behaviors are grouped into the "10 Commandments".

In contrast to the 613 specific injunctions, the Rede consists of only one general rule which is intended to govern all behaviors." Including homosexuality. "The Eight words of the Rede fulfill, A'in it harm none, do what ye will."

[EDIT] Zillah basically said all else i was going to [/EDIT]


"A'in it harm none, do what thou wilt"

shoegirl

"But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase."

This is the bit that I actually have the biggest problem with. What Benedict seems to be implying here is that violence and irrationality is the "natural" reaction to higher visibility (as its the visibility that increases, not the practice, which was always there) of homosexuality. This to me does suggest that the church is not so much condoning violence and hatred of homosexuals, but seeing it as following as a matter of course.

The simplest way to knock down this argument is with an analogy. For example, immigration (in general). It is broadly argued that increased levels of immigration lead to increased levels of racism and a sense of resentment towards immigrants. However as, the British Tory party are slowly and painfully discovering, that this is not at all the natural response to higher levels of "different" people around you. A minority may indeed react in such a way, but since it is only a minority it can hardly be called a "natural" reaction. The irony is, as was recently noticed in Ireland with the notorious Nigerian deportations, that a significant number of people do see diversity as enriching enough to strongly deplore the apparent victimisation of minority groups such as Nigerian asylum seekers. Likewise homosexuality.

I do think Ratzingers entire pamphlet is deeply flawed, largely because it depends so heavily on the concept of natural law. Natural Law has tended to be discredited in recent years, partially because many of its tenents are based on old taboos rather than rational arguments. Most societies in recent times have had taboos against homosexuality, especially orthodox Judaism, the mother of Christianity. Naturally the Christian churches on the whole will maintain that taboo. Catholic thought tends to impose rational arguments on these taboos, and as a result some are deeply flawed.

Having said that I think it will be at least 40 or 50 years before the church starts to revisit its approach to homosexuality, and I think the trigger will be growing numbers of gay clerics who invariably will find themselves in positions of power. (Even now it was suggested in the Guardian last week that as many as half of all US seminarians are gay). See http://us.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/2000-11/essay.html

"But the Kansas City Star series mentioned above notes that, of 26 novices who entered the Missouri Province of the Jesuit order in 1967 and 1968, only seven were eventually ordained priests. Of these seven, three have (to date) died of AIDS, and a fourth is an openly gay priest now working as an artist in New York."

utopian

Zillah wrote:

Do you really believe that morals and concepts such as good and evil have anything other than an utterly subjective basis?

I'm not sure.

However, you originally said

Zillah wrote:

NO action can be inherently evil, there is a subjective morality about the choices and actions of each person that is between them and their conscience, or God if applicable.

Which, I would characterise as an extreme relativistic argument.

The examples you have given, however, illustrate that different societies have different morals (which is not the same thing).

In fairness, all of the examples about murder are question-begging - no society equates killing of people with murder. All societies accept certain justifiable killings. That does not mean that all societies accept murder as right.

Your statement about suicide is not correct. The Cathecism of the Catholic Church says "We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives." .

sarahn11

Zillah wrote:

Two words: Papal Infallibility

By definition no pope can ever say homosexuality is alright, because other popes have said otherwise. They have a entourage of people making sure no pope contradicts another, as that would make a mockery of papal infallibilty.

Yeah i get what your saying, but was'nt eating meat on a friday once a mortal sin which u were doomed to hell for?? and im sure the popes in those days had something to say about that....

but now everyone eats meat on fridays, and nothing is said about it

i know its not the same, however i think that eventually people will just start accpeting other people for who they are......Well i hope so anyway.

Hmm_Messiah

One thing that annoys me about some posts in this forum is the amount of presumption. People seem to make presumptions about other indivdual posters, let alone about specific roles such as priest, pope etc .

I thought I gave an alternative argument, and maybe even a hope, regarding the ability of the head of the largest xian institution to say something positive about homosexuality.

QUOTE: "Typical xtian ranting, what else is he going to say?
The church is was and always will be homophobic.
Its as black an white as the bible, the church does not acknowledge "grey"."

RESPONSE:
The Pilgrim Church the Pastoral Church, the Church as local community is VERY grey, there are whole communities of married catholic priests and bishops for example.

The Church as an institution centralised in a ROman Hierachy is a different thing, and is just that, an institution. THe true, simple meaning of christ, as Christs Body, is every individual, so is not so much black/white or grey but every variant of every colour.

QUOTE:
"I simply stick to the Rede, which states, "those of the craft be free to do what ever they want to, as long as it does not harm themselves or anyone else. Harm is normally considered to include manipulation, domination, attempts to control, physically injure, emotionally harm, or hurt another person or group in any way"

RESPONSE:
I like the Rede too, though short as it is it is still open to interpretation itself, because of the use of the word "will".

Any declaration of a Truth is flawed by language. The Rede originates from a less charitble declaration of "Do as thou Will" with no tag ons. This could mean do as you wish (which I believe WAS the original meaning) or Do as your WIll dictates (suggesting rationale and conscience and so making it a very suitable Guide to live a "good life"


However Xianity can be reduced to "Love your neighbor as yourself", not too far removed, and not all that sophisticated or dogmatic.

QUOTE:
From Zillah "Two words: Papal Infallibility
By definition no pope can ever say homosexuality is alright, because other popes have said otherwise. They have a entourage of people making sure no pope contradicts another, as that would make a mockery of papal infallibilty."

RESPONSE:
No pope has EVER spoke "infalliably" about homosexuality or anything else! To speak infallibly, or claim to, there are a who set of conditions set down, he mush for example speak Ex Cathedra, from the Chair , and declare what he says to be an ex cathedra, infallible statement.

I understand there is a suggestion the Pope may have wished to speak infalliably , but ONLY about the incarnate ascension of Mary to Heaven, but most theologians/Canon Lawyers reject that this ever happened. Many Lay People and illadvised priests also thought Human Vitea (where abortion/contraception is deemed evil) was an infallible statement but it wasn't.

No pope will EVER make a claim to infallibly declaring any truth on sexual morality because it would cause a schism by the many many many enlighened prisest, and bishops. It can further be argued that truths can only be declared by the Collegaite, the body of Bishops of the Church. Pope's constantly contradict eachother. John Paul also reversed many of John the 23rd wishes regarding opening and renewing the Church.

I don't think the pope still considers Gallileo a heretic for example.

QUOTE: UTOPIAN asked if I really thought nothign was inherently evil.

RESPONSE:
Yes I do. Its my opinion. But it is also the Xian one as all things were created by God, so how could they in theselves contain evil, or God would. Its a contra diction in terms. The difficulty here is language and subjective v. objective morality.

EG Killing some one is Evil . Is it ? Murder is? freely choosing to end anothers life without consent is. But is allowing some one to die who wishes it , without mdical intervention etc etc. I don't beleive Actions are evil, I believe Motives /Causes are. THere was a Four Font principle where a deed was immoral if it was an evil action with evil intent and evil consequence etc etc
I believe each human has the capacity to divinity; and so nothing is inherently evil; how we use things, why we do things, there lies evil (if you believe in it)..


All the examples given are flawed, though I get your point. For Example to say Christians believe homosexuality is inherently evil is , well that is just tooooo broad a statement; it would imply every gay christian person sees themselves as evil . etc etc.

Evil in the context of sexuality can only have real significantce in if it harms some one. Other than that it's just societal norms, or needs to maintain stability.
So the evil in sexual activity would include if it was not consentual,
or with a person not able to make real choices, or even if it subtle affected your mental health etc.
A "possible" evil in sleeping around etc would be that it lessens YOUR OWN full dignity as a human etc


So endeth the lesson

Pax Vobiscum
Blessed Be
Namaste

damien

Hmmmm_messiah, use the Quote button to quote people will ya ?

or suround the quotes with [ quote ] [/ quote ] (minus the spaces)

I find it really difficult to differentiate what you are saying and what you are quoting.

Hmm_Messiah

I tried using them fancy buttons once and it went all crazy.
will do my best
(or just respond less maybe )

Hmmmm_messiah, use the Quote button to quote people will ya ?

fozzle

Re Papal infallibility, in case ye don't realise, that wasn't a stipluation of Christ's doing, that was a modern day pope deciding that it was the easiest way to stave off arguments. Afaik popes have only been considered infallible for a couple of hundred years, maybe less.

And being as the pope is God's agent on Earth, and taken to be the highest authority on theology and understanding the bible available to us, then he can turn around anyday he likes and say, "actually, homosexuals/contraception/divorce/woman priests are perfectly acceptable after all, silly us" anytime he likes, and the Church will just have to deal with it.

But I can't see anything of the kind happening with Benedict XVI unfortuneatly, he's seriously old-fashioned.

In short, we're screwed for another while yet, so no returning to the Church for me, and I guess I'll have to tell the parents now, since another 10 years of pretending to my Catholic family will probably kill me. :rolleyes:

Zillah

Utopian please try to stay awake. The following...

NO action can be inherently evil, there is a subjective morality about the choices and actions of each person that is between them and their conscience, or God if applicable.

...was said by hmm messiah, not me. Please do not assume that everyone that disagrees with you are all one entity. I would never make any sort of argument with the word God in it.

Also

Your statement about suicide is not correct. The Cathecism of the Catholic Church says "We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives."

Why is it that Catholic suicides cannot be buried on church grounds or is that a myth?

Hmm_Messiah

Previously peopl who committed suicide could not be buried in tne graverd proper, or consecrated ground, as murder is a moratl sin and they were taken to be "in mortalsin" so would nogt be in communion with god and an offence to god/ sacred soil to be buried there. the compromise was to bury them in the hedgerow etc.

AllPAST tense; the church has moved on, and at very least realised that no human can decide another people's sanctity, leaving judgement to God, who me thinks would be more judging of the societies that make many people feel so isolated and useless etc.

utopian

Zillah wrote:

Utopian please try to stay awake. The following...

...was said by hmm messiah, not me. Please do not assume that everyone that disagrees with you are all one entity. I would never make any sort of argument with the word God in it.

My apologies. I don't feel anyone disagrees with me on this, as I'm not sure what I believe.

I do think your examples were a bit specious though.

Zillah

Zillah wrote:

Why is it that Catholic suicides cannot be buried on church grounds or is that a myth?

It used be the case but not any more.

As regards Rat zinger,pay only as much attention to him as you want to.
His homily or speech the other day mentioned that the church must stay the same and not be governed by societies changes,otherwise it would die out,just like society or words to that effect.
Seriously he's in zingerland and well I wouldnt begrudge the old man staying there, it doesnt mean everyone else must go there too.

I know loads of people who are very sucessfull and havent an ounce of religion in them.Some of them believe in God alright others don't but it hasnt affected their sucess.
Discussing that with someone recently, they simply said, thats because they are good people.
And you know what they are dead right,if you are a good person,that good will eventually come back to you.
Call that kharma if you don't believe in a higher power or if you do believe in a higher power, then take it as read that following dogma from a church some of which you find objectionable isnt necessary.

And given what happened in Spain today it's highly irrelevant and increasingly ignored dogma anyway

De Rebel

One persons view, something of a counterpoint to much of what's been said in this thread, and a lot more hopeful.

By Joan Chittister, OSB
NCR Rome 20 April 2005

We’ve been living in an ecclesiastical tsunami this week. The election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the position of Pope Benedict XVI has had all the force of a universal avalanche. The questions never end.

Journalists are rushing from source to source trying to determine the future of a church led by a theologian considered by many to be both doctrinaire and dogmatic. The apparent answers to their questions leave many in more darkness than light, in search of some kind of spiritual security that their church still includes them, too.

The questions may be difficult but the answers are even more unsettling. They read like an inquisition–and a conviction-- of their own. Is there any possible hope to be had here?

Did anyone really think such an election could happen at a time when the church is apparently more in need of openness than intransigent resistance in the face of so much new information and emerging new questions? Answer: No.

Does anyone know why the Cardinals of the church elected as Pope one of its most polarizing personalities? Answer: No.

Is anyone sure what will happen to church unity now if the oppression of thinkers and the suppression of questions becomes a papal norm? Answer: No.

Is it possible for a disciplinarian of the church to become its universal pastor? Answer: God willing.

And therein lies my hope.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI is said to have taken the name ‘Benedict’ to indicate that the model of his papacy would be the great Patron of Europe, Benedict of Nursia. If that’s really the case, I can’t think of anything more hopeful for the church.

As a Benedictine, I state my case for hope in any leader who sees Benedict of Nursia as the measure of his leadership.

The Rule of Benedict, a document now over 1500 years old and the basis for the lifestyle of monastics around the world, is based on four major concepts that are totally incompatible with authoritarianism or suppression of the human spirit.

Listening is at the center of this Rule for those who live in community. “Listen...with the ear of the heart,” its Prologue counsels. Listen, in other words, not so much for what is canonically right but for what is spiritually true, for what speaks to the deepest part of the human being. Listening to the Word of God, to the tradition, to one another, to the circumstances of life becomes the cornerstone of spiritual growth. It is questions, not answers, that guide this life.

Humility, the second major concept of Benedictine monasticism, requires that each of us come to realize how limited is our own understanding of the universe. It demands that we let God be God. It’s not for any of us, Benedict teaches, abbot or monk, to think we can bend the world to our own designs. After precisely defining the mode of community in twelve separate chapters, Benedict ends the chapters dealing with the most important aspect of monastic life by saying, “If any brother knows a better way, let him arrange things differently.” We cannot look to the Rule of Benedict to legitimate authoritarianism in the name of God.

Community, the third dimension of Benedictine spirituality, brings us to realize how bright and good and essential to our own growth is everyone else around us. We learn from the community. We serve the community. Benedict is clear: “Whenever weighty matters are to be discussed,” the Rule requires, “let the abbot call the community together and, starting with the youngest, ask each their advice.” No thought suppression here. No smothering of fresh thought here. The abbot does not come to the community with answers. The abbot comes with questions and finds his answers there.

Hospitality, the fourth dimension of Benedictine spirituality, takes everyone in. No one is excluded from the Christian community. No one is too bad, too poor, too useless, too unimportant to be part of the community. “Let the Guest be treated as Christ,” the Rule says. Treating one another as Christ becomes the norm.

Finally, St. Benedict had a sister, St. Scholastica, whom he treated as an equal. They came together yearly ‘to speak of holy things together.’ She learned from him, yes, but he learned from her as well and her monastery was independent of his. In Benedictinism lies a holy model of male-female relationships and the authority of women.

Each of us has a piece of the truth, Benedict shows us; no one has all the truth. We need to learn from one another.

Believe me, if this pope really takes Benedict of Nursia for a model, this will be a very healthy church.

Hmm_Messiah

I know loads of people who are very sucessfull and havent an ounce of religion in them.Some of them believe in God alright others don't but it hasnt affected their sucess.
Discussing that with someone recently, they simply said, thats because they are good people.
And you know what they are dead right,if you are a good person,that good will eventually come back to you.
Call that kharma if you don't believe in a higher power or if you do believe in a higher power, then take it as read that following dogma from a church some of which you find objectionable isnt necessary.

Sure, the easiest solution is just to dismiss the man, the position, the dogma or the institution.

I thought though the real concern was

1. those gay people WHO want to stay within and contribute to THEIR church but face a terrible and painful conflict from it's hierarchy.

2. You have a leader of a billion people nominally, but at least many many thousand swho feel obliged to follow him, to accept his word as true. And this man says gay = disordered!!! so even non xian gay people might fear his word, as it encourages the many to feel justified in anti gay sentiment, and may feel frustrated that a man outside their own belief system can thwart their hope for acceptance. .


THE benedictine nun does suggest hope, but I don't see how that runs counterpoint to much said here (as my posts seem unnaturally long!!!)

AS some one who had the "luxury" of some knowledge of catholic dogma/law/nuance/theology/thinking, my only wish would be to assure any gay person, especially perhaps younger visitors here, that its completely fine to embrace ur sexuality, and christ as your god. He doesnt hate u, or frown on you; he loves u; and like everything he made to be; you are good.

I'll stop nattering on now

Zillah

utopian wrote:

My apologies. I don't feel anyone disagrees with me on this, as I'm not sure what I believe.

I do think your examples were a bit specious though.

An example can't be specious, only an argument can, and my argument is flawless. There is no moral absolute, as shown by my examples of how humans through different ages and in different parts of the world had completely different moral values each based on their own culture. Unless of course you'd maintain they were all wrong, that we've only gotten it correct this time...

I may have taken the opportunity to land a few hits on Christianity but thats just my own bias kicking in.


Now, the rest of you, please continue your non bitchy discussion.

damien

De Rebel wrote:

One persons view, something of a counterpoint to much of what's been said in this thread, and a lot more hopeful.

This is the bit from the piece I like:

Each of us has a piece of the truth, Benedict shows us; no one has all the truth. We need to learn from one another.

We'll see how this will progress in the next few years but the fact that he didn't take the name John Paul III means he will not be continuing on the same policies of JPII. With Ratz's strict and almost ruthless attitude he might have the authority to bring about change and clarity. I'd much rather clarity from this regime. At least you'll know where you'll stand then.

uberwolf

according to a comment piece in todays times, teachings are that it is only homosexual acts which are evil, not homosexuals themselves.

So I suppose homosexual acts are covered under the same principles as contraceptive covered sex, etc. Wasting that precious seed you know :rolleyes:

Yoda

"Every sperm is sacred...."

dictatorcat

Well he's started his papacy with a bang! And people said he'd prove us wrong...ha :mad:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4473001.stm

New Pope condemns Spain gay bill

The vote was welcomed by Spanish gay rights campaigners
Pope Benedict XVI has responded firmly to the first challenge of his papacy by condemning a Spanish government bill allowing marriage between homosexuals.
The bill, passed by parliament's Socialist-dominated lower house, also allows gay couples to adopt.

A senior Vatican official described the bill - which is likely to become law within a few months - as iniquitous.

He said Roman Catholic officials should be prepared to lose their jobs rather than co-operate with the law.

The bill would make Spain the first European country to allow homosexual people to marry and adopt children.

Belgium and the Netherlands only allow same-sex marriages. It is also a dramatic step in the rapid secularisation of what was once one of the most devoutly Roman Catholic countries in Europe.

The head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council on the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, denounced the legislation as profoundly iniquitous.

Interviewed in the Italian newspaper, Corriere de la Serra, Cardinal Lopez Trujillo said the Church was making an urgent call for freedom of conscience for Roman Catholics and appealing to them to resist the law.

He said every profession linked with implementing homosexual marriages should oppose it, even if it meant losing their jobs.

The cardinal insisted that just because something was made law it did not make it right.

Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero took office a year ago making it clear he intended to remove what he called the church's undeniable advantages and make Spain a secular state.

There are likely to be further tensions with Pope Benedict XVI. Mr Zapatero has made it clear that he intends to streamline divorce law and even to relax the conditions placed on abortion.

Stark

Pope John Paul II would have done the exact same thing.

dictatorcat

dictatorcat wrote:

Well he's started his papacy with a bang! And people said he'd prove us wrong...ha :mad:

I don't think you should even bother to get too concerned over that.
The writings been on the wall for the last decade or more as regards the Catholic Churches influence on laws.

I mean,you get a divorce legally in this state and you sleep with your next wife who according to the state, you are legally married to,and the Catholic church will condemn you as committing a mortal sin...
Thats papal infallability for you,its basically invalidatable and irrelevant.

A friend of mine got married at 19, his wife had an affair and last year they got an annullment from the catholic church and he is now at 27 remarried...
They had no kids.
Daniel o' Donnells wife was married before she met him and also got an annullment iirc even though she had a family with her ex husband.(or in the strict sense of an annulmment the man she wasnt married to)
Then there are the protestant ministers who turned catholic and were allowed become practising priests saying mass etc etc and going home to their wives every night to give them a good rodgering, all with the blessing of Rome

So they are showing us, that, they are even flouting their own teachings when it suits them

Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero took office a year ago making it clear he intended to remove what he called the church's undeniable advantages and make Spain a secular state.

There are likely to be further tensions with Pope Benedict XVI. Mr Zapatero has made it clear that he intends to streamline divorce law and even to relax the conditions placed on abortion.

And theres not a thing really that Benny can do about it.
The other thing to remember is that,once a right is given it is likely to be much more difficult to take it away, than it was to get the right passed in the first place.

Hmm_Messiah

they are not flouting their own rules in the examples given:

such as protestant ministers becoming catholic priests with wives: the eastern church IN Communion with Roman allows married priests, its a rule not a law/dogma, just something decided on that can be changedAnnulments are given because of the degree of precise meaning RC gives to marriage and its meaning as a sacrament.

I doubt somwhow that "hypocrital" is something that this Pope will be accused of.
Anyways I think w're acknowledged his election enough don't ya think ?

padser

correct me if im wrong but you people are constantly going on about 'tolerance'. The church has a view which it is quite legitimately entitled to air, in fact it has an obligation to its followers to inform them of Gods message. It seems to me to be quite a contradiction that you can not accept or tolerate the Churchs view when this is constantly what you ask for from the rest of us.

dictatorcat

padser wrote:

you people

We're not a different species,please don't refer to us as "you people", it's like me refering to you as "him" when you're in the same room.

padser wrote:

are constantly going on about 'tolerance'. The church has a view which it is quite legitimately entitled to air, in fact it has an obligation to its followers to inform them of Gods message.

"tolerance", hatred, especially that which is bread from ignorance, should never be tolerated. I accept that the church has it's opinion on our way of life, but it is an opinion, and opinions can be changed if challanged.

What is Gods message? Jesus told us to do two things, love god and love our neighbours. He did not say "love thy neighbour..oh unless they're gay, divorced, of a different faith, a prostitute, have children out of wedlock etc." You might disagree with me, but i do not believe that the church is teaching the true message of Jesus.

padser wrote:

It seems to me to be quite a contradiction that you can not accept or tolerate the Churchs view when this is constantly what you ask for from the rest of us

Please discard this "them and us" attitude. You're brother, sister, best friend might be gay, "we" are all human beings who share society together. Perhaps if you walked a mile in our shoes you would see that we do not want to be "tolerated", we want to be accepted for who we are.

Hmm_Messiah

correct me if im wrong but you people are constantly going on about 'tolerance'. The church has a view which it is quite legitimately entitled to air, in fact it has an obligation to its followers to inform them of Gods message. It seems to me to be quite a contradiction that you can not accept or tolerate the Churchs view when this is constantly what you ask for from the rest of us.

Please don't include me in "you people" ; the way you've used it seems derogatory.
And your argument is naive to be polite, childish and really missing the point.

I would personally encourage tolerance, sure.
I would personally encourage the right to opinion, sure.
I would personally encourage the right to speak, sure.

However when that option, and the voicing of that opinion, is erroneous, but more so an offense to basic human rights, and a source of hatred and predjudice then no I don't have to tolerate it .

Should I tolerate people voicing their belief that the Holocaust never happened? or that non-whites are less than human? or that women are unequal to men?

You also seem to have missed the point of some posts here that saying homosexuality is dis-ordered is far removed from "God's message". I fear the nuances are beyond you so not much point explaining further.

BTW I don't really see my sexuality as something that should be "tolerated".

damien

padser wrote:

you people are constantly going on about 'tolerance'.

Bliss.

padser

dictorcat: the churches and indeed other people opinions of homosexual activity is not necessarily 'hatred' nor is it necessarily bread from ignorance. Not liking something, and indeed being opposed to it, and thinking that it is morally wrong does not constitute 'hatred'.
Challange the churches opinion if you wish but the church has being spreading its message for millenia and are unlikely to change its views on what it has always considered a sin. Also it is not an 'opinion' in the sense that what i believe in is an opinion or what you believe in is an opinion, the churches 'opinion' is a definative judgement on an issue within the sphere of the RC church. Therefore if you would consider yourself a catholic then you should stop challenging its teaching and i would suggest go to confession.
If you dont believe the churches teaching then you are not catholic? Catholosism is not an 'a la carte' menu. You either accept it in its entirety or are not catholic.
I think you misconstrue my use of the words 'us' and indeed 'you'. In talking about any group for example it is generally acceptable to refer to them as 'you' and i fail to see why this would cause you offence?
Also i am glad not to find myself in your shoes, i fully accept its a difficult position to be in and dont envy you but that doesnt change the fact i think to act on it is immoral.

HMMM Messiah, condesending comments such as 'I fear the nuances are beyond you so not much point explaining further' not only fail to move on a debate in any meaningful way, they are a great way to deride people who have a contrary viewpoint to your own without having to actually argue a point with them

dictatorcat

padser wrote:

dictorcat: the churches and indeed other people opinions of homosexual activity is not necessarily 'hatred' nor is it necessarily bread from ignorance. Not liking something, and indeed being opposed to it, and thinking that it is morally wrong does not constitute 'hatred'.

Tell that to the chuch who's 2002 document on homosexuality was banned in Ireland because it was seen as "incitement to hatred", it basically said we deserve to be beaten up because we bring hatred on ourselves by being gay. Go tell that to the guy lying in hospital that was gay-bashed last week-end.

padser wrote:

Challange the churches opinion if you wish but the church has being spreading its message for millenia and are unlikely to change its views on what it has always considered a sin. Also it is not an 'opinion' in the sense that what i believe in is an opinion or what you believe in is an opinion, the churches 'opinion' is a definative judgement on an issue within the sphere of the RC church.

I hate this assumption that the church has never changes. *newsflash* Jesus was not born on the winter solstice, priests used to be allowed to marry (this was before the schism and is why eastern orthodox catholic priests can marry), there used to be two popes, which one was infallable? mary was not assumed into heaven until the last centurary, there were originally far more than 4 gospels, once upon a time limbo existed (how do you just wish away a whole plane of existance?) etc. etc. The church has always changed (Vatican II being the most recent changes), it has only existed for millenia due to it's ability to change.

padser wrote:

Therefore if you would consider yourself a catholic then you should stop challenging its teaching and i would suggest go to confession.
If you dont believe the churches teaching then you are not catholic? Catholosism is not an 'a la carte' menu. You either accept it in its entirety or are not catholic.

Casting the first stone are we?

padser wrote:

I think you misconstrue my use of the words 'us' and indeed 'you'. In talking about any group for example it is generally acceptable to refer to them as 'you' and i fail to see why this would cause you offence?
Also i am glad not to find myself in your shoes, i fully accept its a difficult position to be in and dont envy you but that doesnt change the fact i think to act on it is immoral.

That is your opinion, i'm not going to live in misery and shame all my life so you can enjoy your "morals". Look into your heart and tell me what you see? So far all i can see is someone who judges those he hasn't even bothered to get to know.

padser

dictatorcat wrote:

Tell that to the chuch who's 2002 document on homosexuality was banned in Ireland because it was seen as "incitement to hatred", it basically said we deserve to be beaten up because we bring hatred on ourselves by being gay. Go tell that to the guy lying in hospital that was gay-bashed last week-end.

are u honestly saying here that someone went out gay bashing on foot of a document issued by the church?

dictatorcat wrote:

I hate this assumption that the church has never changes. *newsflash* Jesus was not born on the winter solstice, priests used to be allowed to marry (this was before the schism and is why eastern orthodox catholic priests can marry), there used to be two popes, which one was infallable? mary was not assumed into heaven until the last centurary, there were originally far more than 4 gospels, once upon a time limbo existed (how do you just wish away a whole plane of existance?) etc. etc. The church has always changed (Vatican II being the most recent changes), it has only existed for millenia due to it's ability to change.

I think someone has been taking the de vinchy code just a tad seriously. Im not 100% but im almost certain the either the new or old testament condems sodemy? So regardless of wether or not the church wants to change it is bound by its own rules.

dictatorcat wrote:

Casting the first stone are we?.

fully accept im not a RC. dont believe in all of it, do try and avoid basic immorality where i can thoough

dictatorcat wrote:

That is your opinion, i'm not going to live in misery and shame all my life so you can enjoy your "morals". Look into your heart and tell me what you see? So far all i can see is someone who judges those he hasn't even bothered to get to know.

I havnt judged you, iv judged one facet of your character. I dont have to get to know thieves individually to know i dont like one aspect of the character (dont take that analogy to mean im comparing you to a criminal- im simply making the point that knowing one fact about someone is enough to make a judgeone about that aspect of them)

Boston

padser wrote:

are u honestly saying here that someone went out gay bashing on foot of a document issued by the church?

I've no intention of reading or replying to the rest of this thread as I dislike the religious stuff, but on the above point i had to comment. Yes, there are many people that hold bigoted and homophobic views as a result of what the church has said. These people feel that they are right to hold such views because the church says so, and as a result these backwards ignorant opinions are never challanged and are passed down from generation to generation. It has been proven that bigotry and hatred often lead to violence so yes, it does.

Hmm_Messiah

HMMM Messiah, condesending comments such as 'I fear the nuances are beyond you so not much point explaining further' not only fail to move on a debate in any meaningful way, they are a great way to deride people who have a contrary viewpoint to your own without having to actually argue a point with them

Your responses through the thread suggest what i said was correct. And instead of offering argument I simply gave simple examples of the consequences of extending your logic/argument. You did seem to find anything to comment on there. Was it not simple enough?

"Im not 100% but im almost certain the either the new or old testament condems sodemy?

"

Concentrate now... the word sodomy comes from an incident in the Old Testament in the town of Sodom. It relates to tribal cultural laws. Has NOTHING to do with DOGMA etc etc. Also in its original context it was referring to deliberate perversion of sexual norms; i.e. straight men having anal sex.

All of this has been dealt with in this an other threads; maybe you shold bother to read what you decide to contribute to.

the churches 'opinion' is a definative judgement on an issue within the sphere of the RC church.

Definitive? God but your understanding of what you are defending is so weak its difficult to know where to start. The Church (RC) is organic in it's nature, thats the understanding from the "Early Church". Outside of the essential truth of the Christ Event of course it has to grow/change with the community as it evolves. The Church is also both an institution and human, and only too open to fault and mistakes.

Therefore if you would consider yourself a catholic then you should stop challenging its teaching and i would suggest go to confession.
If you dont believe the churches teaching then you are not catholic? Catholosism is not an 'a la carte' menu. You either accept it in its entirety or are not catholic

You should apply for the position of Press Secretary for Joseph Ratzinger. You either accept it in its entirety or are not catholic? I doubt a majority of the Hierachy accept it in entirety let alone a majority of the 1 billion people in it.

You seem to have no understanding of concepts like objective or subjective morality, the nature of Sin, impediments to Sin, the Redemptive role of christ etc, so yea I still think its a waste of time continuing.

And challenging the teaching of any belief system can only be a good thing. Its what we did every day when I studied theology.

Oops !! I studied theology, morality, church history. Maybe I do know what Ia m talking about after all.

Pax Vobiscum

padser

Notsob: My question was do you really believe that the type of people who hold a particular belief simply because the church says so are the type of people who go out 'gay bashing'. The church has been and can be blamed for many things in society but violence is not normally among them.

Quote from Messia: However when that option....... is erroneorous.

fine i will reply to your examples, calling someones (i presume you meant) opinions 'erroneous' is a very conceited thing to do. For millenia the church has been regarded by most people as the ultimate authority on all things moral. To dismiss their opinion, and the opinion of a large portion of society as 'erroneous' would seem to suggest that you have very closed mind and are not open to possibility that maybe you are wrong. What gives you the right to tell me my opinion is 'erroneous'?

on the holocast point personally i believe it happened but i cant be certain although the evidence would seem to be overwhelming. IF someone believes it didnt happen or didnt happen on the scale we are lead to belief well i dont see how I personally (someone who wasnt there and who had no first hand experience of it) can be in a position where i cant 'tolerate' this.

I will accept that if you have studied theology then you obviosly have a massive headstart on me in church matters. However it would seem to me that for all the studying that you have dont seem to have formed the same opinion as the last two popes (who are the only two i have lived through). And if they are infalible when speaking on religious matters, well at least im in good company in my ignorance.

Maybe im coming off slightly strongly on the religous aspect of the discussion. My stance is taken from personal morals rather then religious beliefs. And i dont feel im in a minority in society, lets not forget its only just over 20 yrs since the Irish Supreme Court rejected a consititutional challenge to legisation criminalising homosexual activity. In general peoples beliefs are unlikely to have changed so drastically since then

I understand thats you are obviosly never going to agree with my views. And dont misunderstand me, i dont 'hate' homesexuals, i dont condone 'gay bashing' i just disagree wit homosexuality from a moral standpoint. My main point is that if you ask for tolerance of your way of life from everyone else then you should in return tolerate the views of the section of society that disagree with you.

Hmm_Messiah

Notsob: My question was do you really believe that the type of people who hold a particular belief simply because the church says so are the type of people who go out 'gay bashing'. The church has been and can be blamed for many things in society but violence is not normally among them.

I believe there is a film out soon about the Crusades ? You ever heard of them? I know its along time ago, but apparently the Church never changes.

And as for being conceited to imagine some ones opinion might be "wrong"; what planet are you on?

For millenia the church has been regarded by most people as the ultimate authority on all things moral.

Most People ? Do you mean the 20% (which is less than a majority = less than "most") who are members of the Church nominally, or the much smaller figure who participate in Church, or accept every dictate of the Church?

Work is better than this. my heads hurting from trying to dumb down.

I will though acknowledge that you don't see your stance as being "personal" against gay people, or hateful.

Also glad you're willing to believe the Holocaust probably might of maybe to some degree happened.

Zulu

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

Work is better than this. my heads hurting from trying to dumb down.

Comments like that serve no purpose other than weaken your own argument.

Also glad you're willing to believe the Holocaust probably might of maybe to some degree happened.

Interesting - (s)he asked you to entertain a possiability (however farical) and you attempt to imply it's a belief of his/her.

Tolerant indeed.

damien

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

I believe there is a film out soon about the Crusades ? You ever heard of them? I know its along time ago, but apparently the Church never changes.

So the church's involvement in the Crusades is the same as gay-bashing ?

damien

LGBT Hate Crimes increase directly linked to rise in anti-gay messages from US.

padser

Im sorry if its troublesome having to dumb down your arguement for those ppl who havnt studied theology, church history or morality. please continue to use mono syllabic words so i can follow you.

IF you actually read my thread i didnt say i dont believe in the holocaust i simply said if someone else doesnt there is no reason why i cant tolerate that belief while argueing against it without resorting to insult and degredation.

You called someones opinion 'erroneorous' (and you said is rather might be) and im simply posing the quesiton 'who are you to dictate or pronounce judgement the validity of someones opinion. Challenge it if you want but dont denounce it flat out. If you close your mind to someone elses view it damages your own credibility.

Hmm_Messiah

on the holocast point personally i believe it happened but i cant be certain

IF you actually read my thread i didnt say i dont believe in the holocaust ..

you said you can't be certain !!!!!!!!

Damien.m :So the church's involvement in the Crusades is the same as gay-bashing ?

Erm nope.......I was answering his point that

The church has been and can be blamed for many things in society but violence is not normally among them.

, regarding violence.

Comments like that serve no purpose other than weaken your own argument

.

Maybe true Zulu, but I'd given up on arguing , if that's what i was ever doing, with some one who didn't seem to have any grasp on the "whys" of people disagreeing with him. And nope, it didn't really hurt my head , I was just getting out of there before i got drawn in and ended up signing up for Opus Dei.

Interesting - (s)he asked you to entertain a possiability (however farical) and you attempt to imply it's a belief of his/her. Tolerant indeed."

You used the word yourself; what he said was farcical, I simple replied in the same vein. And to be serious, nope I've no inclination to tolerate such ignorant belief (and I mean ignorant in its proper sense so please don't suggest I've now resorted to name calling). I acknowledged I thought something that was important to him; that he not be seen as "hating" gays.

He doesn't seem to understand how what the Pope/Church says can have a negative impact on gay people. And because its from witha religious entity he doesn't believe it can be wrong. Such thinking/belief can lead to any number of moral wrongs against gay people, women, etc etc and I see no need for me to be tolerant of that.
I fully approve of dialogue, and regarding suggestions of my mind being closed, I am defending possibilities within a Church I don't belong to, my earlier posts were emphasising the "Good News" within Christianity; I don't see how that demonstated anything other than an open mind. And hopefully an informed one.

If my response to what I saw as farcical tended towards offending Padser, then I apologise. I just find it sad, deeply sad that people give so much concern to the morality of sex when there is so much injustice in the world.

The call, of Benedict, echoing John 23rd, was to OPEN the doors to christ (or something similar) It's my "opinion" that the jesus I've read and studied would open his door and heart to every human without even a nanosecond's consideration of his sexuality or his sexual activity.

And finally, I seriously didn't mean to prolong the thread but when some one makes a reference to me I tend to respond.