Gay Marriage

[NekoNecro]

I am asking you why we should change the existing laws, and the existing rules of the Church. Saying that there are no disadvantages to changing these laws and rules – even if you were right about that – would not answer my question. There are no noteworthy disadvantages to making a law that all priests must own a paisley sweater, but there’s no reason to make that law, either.

I think there’s too much harm being done that to not make it legal would be a great misfortune in itself, the fact that it comes with many benefits is simply a wonderful addition in itself.

We didn’t have to bring the mass into the vernacular, but it was evident to the bishops at the time there were merits to the congregation actually having a clue what was being said during the mass.

But the women’s rights movement grew out of the soil of the Catholic Church, even if the Church opposed it. At any rate, I am not defending the argument that the Church never changes, so don’t confuse me with your other interlocutors.

Oh I’m not But one thing you miss is that until 1945 these people who supported Womens Sufferage were described by the Church itself as her enemies. Those who supported the notion were to be excluded from communion, so to say that the Womens Sufferage movement was founded in Church soil is a gross mistake, after all lets not forget it was actually Athiest women in the USSR who had the vote long before most of Europe and America.

No, I’m not sure about that. I’d be interested to study the history of it. The Catholic Church does not have a fixed and immutable opposition to all forms of slavery even today – and, if you ask me, rightly so. There are exceptional circumstances in which slavery (or what amounts to slavery) is justified. Case in point: insane asylums. If you can explain to me why someone being committed to an insane asylum is not essentially identical to slavery, then I will be impressed.

Somone confined to an insane asylum is not a slave, the same way a murderer incarcerated in a prison is not a slave. They are being kept (in most of Europe at least) in fairly comfortable surroundings and well taken care of, they’re simply not allowed into public society due to the harm they can do to themselves or others.

We do not force them into unpaid labor as servants, no do we sell their children, use them for our physical gratification as the slavemasters of history once did. That is slavery and there is no excuse for it ever. Slavery is never justified,*** ever***.

 

[NekoNecro]

I’m not ashamed to admit that. I’m glad to give credit where credit is due.

I’m not ashamed that they did it (I’m glad they did!), I’m more ashamed that it was the Catholic Church who fought against them

Non sequitor. I said that Roman women were subjugated, and you tell me that Celtic women were not subjugated. OK, fine. (Though I am very unsure about your suggestion that Persian women were not oppressed. *Some *weren’t, but I imagine most of them were.)

The poorer ones probably were, but thats probably true in every society. In China, Japan, Siam and Cambodia though just to name a select few there have been many examples of extremely powerful women who ruled through their own right over men, and not simply as regent.

Patriarchy is a very Mediterranean/Hebrew Idea.

The Hellenes, and the Africans, and the Asians, and the Azteks, and the Native Americans, and the Gauls, and…

May I just point out all of them had some variation of homosexual union ceremony? Such as the “soft” or “two spirit” man rituals of the Native Americans?

The subjugation of women is not some Greek quirk in history.

Probably not, but it’s where we can trace our inheritance of the idea to.

Source? I’m not just going to take your word for it.

asiasociety.org/women-southeast-asia. I’ve got others but this was the first pop-up on google.

Can you give me any more than one citation? Plutarch was an investigator of oddities, so his mentioning this wouldn’t indicate that it was common.

I believe Dinarchus also wrote about it, albit his description wasn’t quite so vivid and descriptive as Plutach. He mentions it as a feature of society and refers to several male couples in the passive using adjectives only appropriate to describe spouses.

But the Church doesn’t say that gays are child abusers, and it doesn’t say that gays must be stopped.

Yes it does, Right from the Big man at the top himself. wdtprs.com/blog/2013/12/pope-francis-shocked-by-gay-adoption-urges-bishop-to-speak-against-it-boldly/

The Church does not defend all the actions of its ministers.

This doesn’t make sense, the Church takes all the credit when one of it’s own like Mother Teresa does something wonderful, but doesn’t own up to the bad or discipline the ones doing bad?

Ooops, I posted my replies in backwards order! Sorry, Neko!

No problem, I did the same myself!

 

[NekoNecro]

But he said Vatican II changed all sorts of stuff so that ends the debate, right?

I’m sorry, who let the SSPX in?

There are certain people who (a) know what they are talking about, (b) certain people who think they know what they are talking about, (c) certain people who admit they don’t know and (d) certain people who know but claim something entirely different.

After observing several posts I can’t decide if our friend falls into (b) or (d).

I know exactly what I’m talking about, clearly more than you since I’m not having to resort to abuse.

 

[NekoNecro]

Bolded an important point.

The problem here with your view point is man didn’t say homosexual acts were sinful, God did, so you aren’t setting anything straight. You are simply making the waters muddy. What I find interesting is your claim man has, the Church specifically, passed erroneous teachings, but what you are doing is the same as you claim others have done.

“God” also said it was an abomination for a woman have the vote, for women to read from the gospels, to stop slavery…

Oh wait, no. That was just the Vatican

Some things in the bible may have been appropriate for their time, like how say divorce was for mosaic times but not for Christs new covenant. The world moves on, and we have to develop our morality with it.

If it does not, we have been teaching error ever since the very first councils of the church when Christs nature was debated. We had no proof, we merely had to deduce and decide what was right.

 

[NekoNecro]

We know very well where the world is headed, but it isn’t where you think.

Oh the world has it’s issues, it’s not driving headlong off the face of a cliff like you seem determined to do.

 

[NekoNecro]

Actually, it isn’t at all, but if you abide by this incorrect standard you would clearly have no problem with the teachings of the Church.

Slavery, Womens Sufferage, the Place of Woman in the Church

Oops, more inconvenient truths again that have changed over time and are apparently entirely subjective.

 

[NekoNecro]

All you have done is repeatedly voiced an opinion which is contrary to truth. The only thing you have proven is you don’t understand.

How about you start correcting my errors then so I can learn better, since you seem to have all the answers seeing as you’ve not posted any.

 

[NekoNecro]

Congratulations on your studies. It’s a shame you are learning very little. By the way, my BA is religion.

I’d have never have guessed from your debating technique.

You are very adept at ignoring a point and shifting to another, so I will say it again for good measure…

Waaaaaaa! I have no good points to make so I’m going to insult you NekoNecro! Waaaaaaaaaa!

The Church does not change to fit you. You change to fit the Church. I will add, the Church has authority over you, not the other way around.

Uh huh, yep, thats why we’re all leaving and not funding it anymore and the Parishes are all shutting up shop.

In other words, for an individual to think he or she knows more than the collective of the Church after thousands of years is not only presumptuous, but extremely arrogant.

It is also arrogant for the church to presume that is is always right, which I have proven it isn’t. It is subject to error as we all are.

You read a few books which, in your mind, makes you an authority.

I’ve have already rejected in this thread the idea of me being an authority, that would be presumptuous. I shall claim to be an authority once I have completed my PhD thank you and not a moment before.

You are incorrect. Wisdom begins when you realize how little you really know. You are simply wrong in your assumptions regarding how you wish things to be when they really are something different.

It is our wishes and ideas that shape the world Nacho, it’s merley having the balls to get up see them put into form and practice.

I wish you the best of luck, for what its worth, but you will one day find the road you travel is an unhappy one. When this happens, remember you can take a different road. One which leads to truth. Don’t let your pride and arrogance prevent this from happening.

I can honestly say my life has improved dramatically since I stopped parroting off the hateful bile on this topic I’d been told was right. Sure, I miss parish life sometimes but pretty much everything else is 120% better since I started to follow my own rational thinking and heart rather than tradition.

 

[NekoNecro]

I think you’re right, so far as it goes. The role of a theologian, however, is certainly to question – not with the goal of destroying the foundations of the Church, but with the goal of testing the strength of those foundations. If the Church is what we say it is, no amount of testing will topple it. This was, I believe, Newman’s understanding of theology, closely related to Aquinas’s understanding.

Oh Good God no, I’m not trying to destroy the Church.

I’m trying to see that it salvages what it has left and stops digging an even deeper hole for itself. If it’s right and the logic behind it is flawless then they won’t mind me questioning it right? Defensiveness and an unwillingness to debate the issue usually indicates you’re in the wrong.

Just wanted to clarify that the Church isn’t looking for mindless submission, but intellectual rigor coupled with humility.

Uh…Considering your views have to be in perfect line and submisssion to the Catholic Church to partake in Christs presence in the Eucharist…That is exactly what it demands, not asks for.

Not debating the right or wrongness of it, just that it’s true.

 

[Verka]

Have to say, this thread caught my eye while I was doing some google searches researching gay marriage and I just have to say.

Neko, you’re just awesome dude

Being LGBT myself I end up having to argue with Christians outside my denomination to defend my right to marriage but you make it look easy. I’m going to use several of your arguments myself the next time Catholics start protesting about me and my partner being together.

I have to ask though, one thing I don’t get. You acknowledge the Catholic Church can and has made mistakes many times in the past, and the Magisterium isn’t infallible. I get why you might want the Catholic Church to change, but why haven’t you just converted

From what I’m reading you sound like a really devout Christian, even distressed that you can’t take part in public worship anymore. If you’ve realized the Church isn’t infallible, that time moves on and it doesn’t have any supernatural magic power that stops it making mistakes on teaching why don’t you join one that accepts your new views? I know you’d be more than welcome in the Church I go to!

Is it because you still think the Catholic Church is the only church allowed because its so old, or something else?

 

[NekoNecro]

Have to say, this thread caught my eye while I was doing some google searches researching gay marriage and I just have to say.

Neko, you’re just awesome dude

Being LGBT myself I end up having to argue with Christians outside my denomination to defend my right to marriage but you make it look easy. I’m going to use several of your arguments myself the next time Catholics start protesting about me and my partner being together.

W-Well Thank you, I’m glad you find my line of thinking useful.

Trust me, I know this forum tends to attract the most fanatical of believers but not all Catholics (my pew report shows) are against you, most are supportive and most of those who don’t are neutral rather than against. It really is a minority.

I have to ask though, one thing I don’t get. You acknowledge the Catholic Church can and has made mistakes many times in the past, and the Magisterium isn’t infallible. I get why you might want the Catholic Church to change, but why haven’t you just converted

From what I’m reading you sound like a really devout Christian, even distressed that you can’t take part in public worship anymore. If you’ve realized the Church isn’t infallible, that time moves on and it doesn’t have any supernatural magic power that stops it making mistakes on teaching why don’t you join one that accepts your new views? I know you’d be more than welcome in the Church I go to!

Is it because you still think the Catholic Church is the only church allowed because its so old, or something else?

Well…Thats an interesting question.

I haven’t converted for three reasons; One is that I believe in the real presence of the Eucharist, which only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches can provide (since the others do not have apostolic succession or to my knowledge a valid priesthood).

I don’t think the Church is infallible no, but neither do most Catholics if recent polls are anything to go by.

Secondly is that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ himself, and while I don’t doubt the worship of other denominations is just as valid and admirable they are offshoots, not the original Church which at present is at danger of running itself into the ground. Being the oldest, I think the Catholic Church probably has the best grip when it comes to doctrine and the sacred tradition that guides and accompanies scripture.

That doesn’t always meanI think it’s always right, clearly there are cases where it has been but it has the best idea seeing as it developed most of it itself. (I know after Vatican II we saw some appropriation of Protestant practices like facing the people during consecration rather than away but that’s mostly visual fluff than the actual core of the practice).

Thirdly is just a mixture of other beliefs, The role of Mary, Purgatory and so on…These beliefs aren’t really to be found elsewhere, except possibly the Lutherans, they’re not that far off in some doctrines but they really are just Catholicism-lite in my eyes.

 

[Rau]

I believe in the real presence of the Eucharist…

I’m wondering why you believe this? Clearly not just because the Church says so - you’ve been at pains to demonstrate that Church teaching is terribly unreliable and subject to change.

 

[NekoNecro]

I’m wondering why you believe this? Clearly not just because the Church says so - you’ve been at pains to demonstrate that Church teaching is terribly unreliable and subject to change.

Now come on, I never said it was unreliable, I said it was subject to make the occasional mistake as we all are. Most people thought slavery was fine in the ancient world, it was only much later more of us started to realize just how dreadful it really was.

There are many areas of Church teaching I have little issue accepting at face value. You yourself as a Catholic must know the reasons why Catholics believe in the real presence, well I do as well and I don’t see reason to object.

 

[Rau]

?.. the Catholic Church was founded by Christ himself, and while I don’t doubt the worship of other denominations is just as valid and admirable they are offshoots, not the original Church which at present is at danger of running itself into the ground. Being the oldest, I think the Catholic Church probably has the best grip when it comes to doctrine and the sacred tradition that guides and accompanies scripture.

Given your demonstration of the Catholic Church’s grave errors in the past and its lack of infallibility, might not an “offshoot” actually achieve a superior standing, a more pure capturing of what is right? For example, could not an offshoot, a break-away group, that embraced Gay Marriage, but was otherwise Catholic, be a better Church, more faithful to Christ?

If as you say, the Catholic Church is at risk of running itself into the ground, what happens if it does indeed collapse? Where then will the true Church be found? If Christ (God) established it, what does it mean if it collapses? It seems to me either that that can’t happen, or that it can happen, in which case the Church is not at all what Catholics think it is, and hence is not particularly deserving of being placed above other Churches.

 

[Rau]

Now come on, I never said it was unreliable, I said it was subject to make the occasional mistake as we all are. Most people thought slavery was fine in the ancient world, it was only much later more of us started to realize just how dreadful it really was.

There are many areas of Church teaching I have little issue accepting at face value. You yourself as a Catholic must know the reasons why Catholics believe in the real presence, well I do as well and I don’t see reason to object.

Occasional mistakes? My goodness, there have been so many you listed. And not minor details, but in major areas of social justice affecting the lives of millions.

I am genuinely perplexed that you would accept what is “fantastic”, can’t be tested, cannot be deduced, and for which the only basis is the statement of a Church that has through history made grave errors, and to this day pursues a platform laden with social injustice as you’ve demonstrated.

 

[NekoNecro]

Given your demonstration of the Catholic Church’s grave errors in the past and its lack of infallibility, might not an “offshoot” actually achieve a superior standing, a more pure capturing of what is right? For example, could not an offshoot, a break-away group, that embraced Gay Marriage, but was otherwise Catholic, be a better Church, more faithful to Christ?

On that single area it probably could, indeed I think on that topic some of them do but it would lack the sacraments, which is rather important to me.

To my knowledge there is no “Catholicism Ver: 2.0” with valid sacraments and is pro gay marriage, besides they could differ on other points of doctrine too (I disapprove of current IVF techniques for instance).

If as you say, the Catholic Church is at risk of running itself into the ground, what happens if it does indeed collapse? Where then will the true Church be found? If Christ (God) established it, what does it mean if it collapses? It seems to me either that that can’t happen, or that it can happen, in which case the Church is not at all what Catholics think it is, and hence is not particularly deserving of being placed above other Churches.

I honestly do not know Rau, call it superstition or childish fear but I would not like to find out. I suppose even I have limits on how far I’d like to experiment with new ideas.

…I admit I am struggling to respond to this one, and I’m having to think deeper about it than my other responses on this thread so far. I believe the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, and thus it deserves a place of prominence. I do not think other denominations are totally devoid of Christs presence however.

Supposing the worst happened and the Catholic Church did fall, we would know it was not the sole tool of God in his plan for salvation. However, I do not think that would be the end, the Christian message would continue in the other churches.

 

[shelby_sun]

Now come on, I never said it was unreliable, I said it was subject to make the occasional mistake as we all are. Most people thought slavery was fine in the ancient world, it was only much later more of us started to realize just how dreadful it really was.

There are many areas of Church teaching I have little issue accepting at face value. You yourself as a Catholic must know the reasons why Catholics believe in the real presence, well I do as well and I don’t see reason to object.

NekoNecro, I have to say I admire you stamina and calmness is keep this up. It is so hard for me too see how some here cannot at least see that the Church has been wrong in the past and made changes.

I often wonder what these people think happened to all those people that never get the chance to learn about Catholicism all over the world, what happens to them. Even with all the evangelist traveling the world, there are still million that never get through teaching of it. So do they not get saved?

 

[NekoNecro]

Occasional mistakes? My goodness, there have been so many you listed. And not minor details, but in major areas of social justice affecting the lives of millions.

Well…Not every Church has two thousand years worth of historical baggage. Not to mention most of them haven’t had their own personal empires and the command of legions as their own personal sledgehammer anytime in the past.

Yeah, there have been major screw ups in church history, but there has been in ever long term organization too. They’re only on such a big scale in the Church because the Church for many centuries has been a powerful social and political entity.

Today we see the Church probably with the weakest influence since the days of Pagan Rome, but even today it still carries some massive political clout in many areas of the world.

France might not really care if the Pope criticizes the Premier today, but the Brazilian one would probably **** himself if it happened.

I am genuinely perplexed that you would accept what is “fantastic”, can’t be tested, cannot be deduced, and for which the only basis is the statement of a Church that has through history made grave errors, and to this day pursues a platform laden with social injustice as you’ve demonstrated.

Faith itself cannot be deduced by rational thought Rau, but ethics and human morality can, we’ve known that in the western world since the days of Protagoras and Xenophanes where through rational observation of that which we can see we can learn and take note of the best action to take.

An artist can be an alcoholic, but still be very skilled using a paintbrush. With it’s long history, especially one so closely intertwined with world politics since the day of Constantine’s vision it is inevitable there are many occasions in it’s history where the Church has made errors of practice, it doesn’t mean it 's ineffective in other areas of it’s job.

I’m not complaining that it made them , I’m complaining that it refuses to help fix them.

 

[NekoNecro]

NekoNecro, I have to say I admire you stamina and calmness is keep this up. It is so hard for me too see how some here cannot at least see that the Church has been wrong in the past and made changes.

Thanks Shelby What can I say, I guess I’m just a bit stubborn. If I think I’m right I’m going to keep saying it unless someone changes my mind

I think it’s partially just the way people are brought up Shelby, I know I myself wouldn’t have dared question a word my parish priest said until I started to see visible signs in my community things weren’t quite right. Until then I guess I just had my nice little perfect bubble and I wasn’t willing to look at anything outside it, I think some folks (especially homes-schooled Catholics) have that.

I often wonder what these people think happened to all those people that never get the chance to learn about Catholicism all over the world, what happens to them. Even with all the evangelist traveling the world, there are still million that never get through teaching of it. So do they not get saved?

Well, that’s actually a question that has developed over time. Originally? No, All the Non Catholics were destined for Hell. If we look at Dante’s allegorical work the Divine Comedy that reflected the faith of the 15th century that’s why in the first circle of hell (a place that wasn’t unpleasant per say, but devoid of God. Essentially full of Good people who died before the birth of Christ) we find graphic descriptions of Babies and pagans in hell.

We moved on from that later, and the concept of limbo was proposed for unbaptized children. Today though we don’t belive in either of these, and this is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about the salvation of non-belivers…

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

This is what we call today the doctrine of “Invincible Ignorance”; If a person truley didn’t get a chance to hear the Gospel and otherwise lived a good and holy life they would be saved. This is quite a recent development though, I know my mother in her fifties still clings adamantly to the concept of limbo.

Provided they didn’t hear and reject church teaching through any fault of their own, they might receive Gods mercy (It’s a might, we really don’t know for sure from scripture and tradition).

Personally I don’t think the non-belivers are going to hell just following a tradition they were taught to be true. If that was the case it makes God look pretty spiteful and unforgiving, hence why the CC doesn’t really go with that idea any more

 

[shelby_sun]

Thanks Shelby What can I say, I guess I’m just a bit stubborn. If I think I’m right I’m going to keep saying it unless someone changes my mind

I think it’s partially just the way people are brought up Shelby, I know I myself wouldn’t have dared question a word my parish priest said until I started to see visible signs in my community things weren’t quite right. Until then I guess I just had my nice little perfect bubble and I wasn’t willing to look at anything outside it, I think some folks (especially homes-schooled Catholics) have that.

Well, that’s actually a question that has developed over time. Originally? No, All the Non Catholics were destined for Hell. If we look at Dante’s allegorical work the Divine Comedy that reflected the faith of the 15th century that’s why in the first circle of hell (a place that wasn’t unpleasant per say, but devoid of God. Essentially full of Good people who died before the birth of Christ) we find graphic descriptions of Babies and pagans in hell.

We moved on from that later, and the concept of limbo was proposed for unbaptized children. Today though we don’t belive in either of these, and this is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about the salvation of non-belivers…

This is what we call today the doctrine of “Invincible Ignorance”; If a person truley didn’t get a chance to hear the Gospel and otherwise lived a good and holy life they would be saved. This is quite a recent development though, I know my mother in her fifties still clings adamantly to the concept of limbo.

Provided they didn’t hear and reject church teaching through any fault of their own, they might receive Gods mercy (It’s a might, we really don’t know for sure from scripture and tradition).

Personally I don’t think the non-belivers are going to hell just following a tradition they were taught to be true. If that was the case it makes God look pretty spiteful and unforgiving, hence why the CC doesn’t really go with that idea any more

Sounds like we agree on quite a bit. I wonder how many Catholic, like many on her, were saying those things could never change, the Church will never changes its view or teachings? They can obviously see it has been done in the past. I guess time will tell, even if I am not alive to see it. Keep you the good work!