Catholic Archbishop attacks gay marriage as undemocratic

[crispybits]

I'm not Catholic you morons, lol. I just don't like hearing the same unoriginal crap every time I turn around. Just stop trying to fit in with your peers for two seconds and you might be able to see the issue from more than one angle.

Yeah, telling the truth about a significant minority of religious leaders who decided to engage in paedophilia and child abuse is "just spouting unoriginal crap trying to fit in".

And defending that by using this argument does what exactly? Are you saying that the catholic church is whiter than white? Are they the organisation without sin that should cast the first stone... oh wait...

[stahrgazer]

What negative consequences will there be from making homosexual marriage legally equal to heterosexual marriage?
Why is homosexual marriage not the same thing as heterosexual marriage?

Hey, while you're asking, why isn't poly-marriage legal? If it's okay for a man to marry a man, and a woman to marry a woman, why isn't okay for a couple of one sex to marry one of the other, as long as they all agree?

No reason. In terms of political economics, it's probably because of the relatively small number of people who want to enter into group marriages. Also, probably because we first need to convince a lot of people that it's ok for a dude to enter into a marriage with one dudes, or at least wait for those opposed to die off. But there's no ethical reason why we should expand the definition of marriage to include dudes marrying dudes but hold the line at dudes marrying dudes and ladies (in much the same way there's no real ethical reason to allow dudes to marry ladies but not allow them to marry dudes), and most people who've accepted gay marriage also accept poly, by my rough polling.

Except that, at one time, Poly marriage was not illegal, therefore it was "okay," then made illegal/not okay - at least, in the U.S. Poly is also acceptable "in the Bible."

But, to be totally honest, I'm more "okay" with Poly than I am gay/lesbian marriage. Social unions for legal purposes, fine, but I would prefer to keep the terms different, the legalities the same.

Arguing that "that's not the same as equality" won't fly by me, because I'm white, and have absolutely zero problem with someone black, brown, yellow, or whatever, being "equal" - still doesn't make me black, brown, whatever, there are cosmetic differences and we should keep terms to describe that, even though it may only be a "cosmetic" difference. Similarly, while a "social union" and a "marriage" may be only cosmetically different, I believe those cosmetic differences should remain.

I also don't believe that those opposed to homosexual marriages should be forced to provide services for them... there was a wedding planner or something who was sued for not wishing to provide services to a gay or lesbian ceremony. Refusing to provide party favors for a party because the party doesn't meet personal moral standards isn't the same to me as refusing to sell a home because someone is "different."

[crispybits]

That would be a convincing argument if only when people introduced their husband or wife it had the same cultural meaning as someone introducing their partner. Using different names for legally identical things is not equality, and purely from a legal standpoint if we have 2 identical things then legally there is no point having 2 separate names for them. Would you, for example, suport there being 2 identical laws on the books, one for "white people" and one for "non-white people", and the non white people weren't legally called "people", but instead were called "beople". You just can't do that legally and maintain equality. Either people are people, and afforded all the rights and responsibilities accordingly, or we set up a multi-tiered system where some people are called something different from everyone else despite being legally identical, and invite all of the prejudice and discrimination that would cause.

[Ray Rider]

Except that, at one time, Poly marriage was not illegal, therefore it was "okay," then made illegal/not okay - at least, in the U.S. Poly is also acceptable "in the Bible."

So what is not illegal is therefore "okay" and "acceptable"? Polygamy was practiced throughout history and is recorded as such in the Bible, but nowhere does it say it's acceptable or in any way condone that lifestyle; instead, it repeatedly, clearly shows the negative consequences of that lifestyle (Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon are some of the most prominent examples) and instead upholds monogamous, heterosexual marriage as the ideal.

[Funkyterrance]

I'm not Catholic you morons, lol. I just don't like hearing the same unoriginal crap every time I turn around. Just stop trying to fit in with your peers for two seconds and you might be able to see the issue from more than one angle.

Yeah, telling the truth about a significant minority of religious leaders who decided to engage in paedophilia and child abuse is "just spouting unoriginal crap trying to fit in".

And defending that by using this argument does what exactly? Are you saying that the catholic church is whiter than white? Are they the organisation without sin that should cast the first stone... oh wait...

I can tell you the sky is blue, it's the truth but it's also common knowledge so I don't feel the need.
Everyone has heard about the Catholic priests caught molesting kids, if anything it's been blown out of proportion at this point. Blaming the Church for it is just asinine. If you would use your own mind for a minute you would see that it was the individuals who were guilty, not the systems they were a part of. Pedophiles are just as, if not more common in other demographics so really, what is your f***ing point?

[crispybits]

The cover-up that the church has been proved to have engaged in, moving priests around instead of reporting them to the proper authorities, make the religious structure itself culpable. maybe not to the same level as the abusers, but it's not blameless. And the sky being blue is indeed common knowledge, but the sky isn't trying to claim moral authority over those who believe in it and those who don't. By the catholics' own terms, they should not judge others, and they should not cast the first stone, but they should leave all that to God. What we have here is not a catholic bishop saying "catholic God is great, come and join us and share our views" which is fine as long as it's targetted at adults (targetting children with that shit is abuse too), but that's not what he's doing. he's saying "catholic morals should apply to everyone, whether they be catholic or not" and THAT is arrogant in the extreme, manipulative and harmful.

[Funkyterrance]

The cover-up that the church has been proved to have engaged in, moving priests around instead of reporting them to the proper authorities, make the religious structure itself culpable. maybe not to the same level as the abusers, but it's not blameless. And the sky being blue is indeed common knowledge, but the sky isn't trying to claim moral authority over those who believe in it and those who don't. By the catholics' own terms, they should not judge others, and they should not cast the first stone, but they should leave all that to God. What we have here is not a catholic bishop saying "catholic God is great, come and join us and share our views" which is fine as long as it's targetted at adults (targetting children with that shit is abuse too), but that's not what he's doing. he's saying "catholic morals should apply to everyone, whether they be catholic or not" and THAT is arrogant in the extreme, manipulative and harmful.

I think the Catholic church is very large and very powerful. The larger a system, the more difficult it is to monitor every single person within it. It is also in the nature of a very powerful system to exercise this power in a way that benefits itself. Many, many organizations operate like the Catholic church yet aren't demonized to the extreme extent that it is. I just wish people would quit using the Catholic church as their own personal whipping boy for their hangups, the problems of the world, etc.. In other words: get a life.

[crispybits]

Oh I don't single the catholic church out, I'll happily bash any religion.

As for the other organisations you mention, I can easily imagine a corporation that breaks the law to further their own greed and make more money, there's undoubtedly a large number of them doing that right now, especially in legal areas where the potential profit is larger than any fines they would be levied should they get caught out. I can easily imagine for example the CEO of that corporation publcly endorsing the philosophy of environmental awareness and "preaching" that philosophy as a good thing, meanwhile his company is causing massive environmental damage on the quiet. But when the environmental damage comes to light, then that companies reputation will be in tatters. It will take a long time and a real sea-change in the companies policies and actions before the public trusts that corporation on the environmental card again. They have to re-prove themselves before they are allowed to go aggressive with their environmental policies as something that anyone else should be doing after being shown to be environmentally bankrupt, whether the CEO knew about it or not.

But the catholic church should be allowed, despite never being honest (a christian value) when the abuse (a sin, and a crime) was occuring and covering it up, and despite as far as I know never really opening their records to secular authorities about all of the abusers within its ranks and just coming clean, admitting fault and asking forgiveness from society, they should be allowed to start preaching to us again about morality? A morally bankrupt organisation, that has at high levels gone against it's own public philosophy to hide not only conflicts between their actions and their philosophy, but also crimes in the state law of many different countries, should be allowed to right away go back to telling us what is right and wrong? And expect people to sit back and not mention the hypocrisy there?

In a thread about a catholic bishop masking bogited moral opinions behind a very flawed legal argument that doesn't even hold water catholic church bashing is relevant and is fair game. If I was popping up in the NFL threads, or the mashed potato thread, or the masturbation thread, and having a pop at the catholic church in one of them you may have a point. When I'm effectively responding (indirectly) to a catholic bishop proclaiming something immoral when his own religion is morally bankrupt then the relevance of the point means it's not a witch hunt, it's simply pointing out the moral character of the organisation claiming moral superiority.

[Funkyterrance]

Oh I don't single the catholic church out, I'll happily bash any religion.

It's this sort of statement that sorts you out as biased/obtuse and therefore incapable of seeing the issue from the multitude of viewpoints available.

In a thread about a catholic bishop masking bogited moral opinions behind a very flawed legal argument that doesn't even hold water catholic church bashing is relevant and is fair game.

Dude, you're totally brainwashed. I'm not seeing this discussion going anywhere but I'm sure symmetry and that other jarhead will be happy to join you in your self-jacking session. Ciao!

[crispybits]

@ brainwashed from a religious person (more so because it's one telling me I shouldn't point out moral hypocrisy so rank the stench of it would drive any rational person to complete loathing of the hypocrites)

If you visit the evidence for God thread you'll know exactly why I'll happily bash any religion, but I'll leave that discussion for there and keep this one vaguely on topic

[Metsfanmax]

Oh I don't single the catholic church out, I'll happily bash any religion.

It's this sort of statement that sorts you out as biased/obtuse and therefore incapable of seeing the issue from the multitude of viewpoints available.

I agree. For example, I have respect for some of the Eastern religions like Hinduism, which actually do promote respect for life and then take it to the logical extent it implies, as many of them are vegetarians. I may not understand why they believe in certain things like karma, but their religion takes fairly seriously the idea of living better in this life.

[crispybits]

OK, I don't really know about hinduism, so maybe I should have typed "I'll happily bash any christian sect, plus the other abrahamic religions when they commit hypocrisy that I know enough about to spot."

That's not to say I declare hinduism immune, just that I haven't studied it to know what it stands for and how it's organised and whether it's actions actually live up to it's own teachings, so I wouldn't go bashing it without further research and cause (remember my posts here are a response to a catholic bishop forcing himself into an argument about secular law, he stuck his head up so he's fair game to be shot at)

Also, I'm wondering about these other viewpoints. Are there viewpoints that say high level clergy moving paedophiles around instead of shopping them to the authorities is OK? Or that a morally bankrupt organisation should be allowed to act as if it's a righteous moral beacon and influence on secular law for people that don't even agree with it's most basic principles and policies? Please... enlighten me....

[Woodruff]

I'm not Catholic you morons, lol. I just don't like hearing the same unoriginal crap every time I turn around. Just stop trying to fit in with your peers for two seconds and you might be able to see the issue from more than one angle.

So you think it's ok for the leader of the Catholic Church to preach to the rest of us about morals while allowing his priests to rape little boys?

Everyone has heard about the Catholic priests caught molesting kids, if anything it's been blown out of proportion at this point.

Hard to blow something of this significance out of proportion, to be honest.

Blaming the Church for it is just asinine. If you would use your own mind for a minute you would see that it was the individuals who were guilty, not the systems they were a part of. Pedophiles are just as, if not more common in other demographics so really, what is your f***ing point?

My point is that the church IS responsible for much of the blame as they have covered a lot of it up instead of taking the action that would have been the "moral" thing to do. They have, by their direct actions as well as their inaction in other cases, actually promoted pedophilia within their ranks.

I think the Catholic church is very large and very powerful. The larger a system, the more difficult it is to monitor every single person within it. It is also in the nature of a very powerful system to exercise this power in a way that benefits itself. Many, many organizations operate like the Catholic church yet aren't demonized to the extreme extent that it is. I just wish people would quit using the Catholic church as their own personal whipping boy for their hangups, the problems of the world, etc.. In other words: get a life.

Your willingness to excuse away significant child abuse by the church is disgusting and casts you in a very poor light. Your claims of non-Catholicism begin to pale. I've rarely seen a non-Catholic who would hold that position...actually, there aren't a lot of Catholics I know who would.

Dude, you're totally brainwashed. I'm not seeing this discussion going anywhere but I'm sure symmetry and that other jarhead will be happy to join you in your self-jacking session. Ciao!

The irony is thick in here. The point is, the Catholic Church has no moral authority nor integrity, and they'd do themselves a lot of good by keeping their mouths shut on such topics so as not to cast the light where they don't want it to shine.

[stahrgazer]

The irony is thick in here. The point is, the Catholic Church has no moral authority nor integrity, and they'd do themselves a lot of good by keeping their mouths shut on such topics so as not to cast the light where they don't want it to shine.

I guess the Boy Scouts have to go away, too, since they, also, have had perverts molesting boys in their ranks.

[crispybits]

I've never heard of the head of the boy scouts trying to preach moral righteousness to the general public. It's not so much the paedophilia, it's true that any large organisation will have bad apples, it's the hypocrisy of immorally hiding the bad apples and then telling everyone else that you're the moral beacon for humanity.

[Metsfanmax]

I've never heard of the head of the boy scouts trying to preach moral righteousness to the general public.

Isn't moral righteousness pretty much the core principle of the Boy Scouts?

[crispybits]

Yeah but from what I've seen they keep it internal - I've never personally seen, read or heard of anyone from the boy scouts trying to tell the general public as a whole how to act on any given issue.

If the bishop had said this in church then nobody would care. He took his sermon into the press, and then people wonder why we're asking on what moral authority he dares to preach to us given the complete lack of moral credibility at the highest levels of his own church..

[Metsfanmax]

Yeah but from what I've seen they keep it internal - I've never personally seen, read or heard of anyone from the boy scouts trying to tell the general public as a whole how to act on any given issue.

Eh. When they say things like

We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.

it's hard to not read that as making a statement about how people ought to act. When you say something is a moral issue, you're necessarily saying something about society at large and not just your organization.

[Phatscotty]

The irony is thick in here. The point is, the Catholic Church has no moral authority nor integrity, and they'd do themselves a lot of good by keeping their mouths shut on such topics so as not to cast the light where they don't want it to shine.

I guess the Boy Scouts have to go away, too, since they, also, have had perverts molesting boys in their ranks.

Wherever there are young children, that is where pervert molesters are going to target. It's not an occupational disease

[MeDeFe]

We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight

I see what they did there...

[crispybits]

Mets that is saying how scouts should act, not everyone. The catholic bishop is saying that his moral standard should apply to everyone when he uses it as a basis to attack a secular law.

[Metsfanmax]

Mets that is saying how scouts should act, not everyone. The catholic bishop is saying that his moral standard should apply to everyone when he uses it as a basis to attack a secular law.

Sure, the Scouts have never (as far as I am aware) leveraged their position to try to influence public policy. Nevertheless, that is not always necessary; when you have an institution that holds a lot of sway in the hearts of the public saying that gays and lesbians are not "morally straight" the damage is done. In my opinion, when you say something is immoral, that means you think it should apply to everyone, even if you aren't pushing for that to be enshrined in law. Morality has always been about making a judgment in a universal sense, and I think that the BSA was well aware of what they were implying when they said that.

[stahrgazer]

Mets that is saying how scouts should act, not everyone. The catholic bishop is saying that his moral standard should apply to everyone when he uses it as a basis to attack a secular law.

Sure, the Scouts have never (as far as I am aware) leveraged their position to try to influence public policy.

In a way, they have. They attempted, for example, to keep known homosexual boys out of their very public organization because in their mind, homosexuality is wrong. That is as potential an influence as some old man in a round cap grumbling about stuff from his drafty old "castle".

I could even argue it's worse, because of the "peer pressure" that young boys and adolescents are more likely to succumb too than those who've been around long enough to know that sometimes peer pressure is just stupid.

[crispybits]

In a lot of ways I agree with you, and to introduce homophobic ideology to children is just as bad as any other form of non-basic moral indoctrination of immature minds (as in where the issue is not clear and there are unresolved arguments for both the yes and the no arguments - examples being abortion, the death penalty, etc etc)

If the bishop had said that catholics should not be allowed to have gay marriages, I'd have no problem with that, or at least none beyond the general problems I already have with the catholic church before he said it. It's only when he comes out and says that his catholic moral standard should apply by force of secular law to everyone whether catholic or not that I criticise him in this way.

[stahrgazer]

In a lot of ways I agree with you, and to introduce homophobic ideology to children is just as bad as any other form of non-basic moral indoctrination of immature minds (as in where the issue is not clear and there are unresolved arguments for both the yes and the no arguments - examples being abortion, the death penalty, etc etc)

If the bishop had said that catholics should not be allowed to have gay marriages, I'd have no problem with that, or at least none beyond the general problems I already have with the catholic church before he said it. It's only when he comes out and says that his catholic moral standard should apply by force of secular law to everyone whether catholic or not that I criticise him in this way.

Do you have the same problem with someone engaged in Sports talking about how great "his" (or her) sport is? How about, someone who likes x deodorant talking about how great x deodorant is?

It's really the same thing, this cranky old geezer in a round cap in his Vatican castle is "advertising" his product when he spouts stuff like that. His product isn't relegated to Monday night (football, for example) or Saturday afternoon (soccer) or Sunday morning (bowling) - his product is a lifestyle that i supposed to exclude certain things; among those are birth control, homosexual behavior of any type, murder, adultery... Further, his product indicates that to engage in those behaviors damns one's soul for eternity. Whether he SHOULD believe it isn't the point, the point is, he DOES believe it, and believes that he has been given the job, by God, to tell people - all people - what's wrong with however their lifestyle is. That's what "the Pope" is supposed to be, in Catholic belief: God's voice on earth. (Not just the voice for Catholics, but "God's voice" for all humans.)

Given that, I have a lot more tolerance for the Pope pontificating than I do for the Boy Scouts trying to do the same in their way.

From a religious viewpoint, treating homosexuals as "undesired" is NOT the same as treating someone as undesired because they are female, handicapped, or of a certain race. In the Bible, old or new testament, it's not a sin to be black, brown, or charpurple "race" but it IS a "Biblical" sin to be homosexual, spoken of as "Sodom and Gomorrah" (hence the word for anal being Sodomy) and referred to as "wrong" again in the New Testament.

Personally, I don't think the Pope is the voice of God on Earth, but according to his religion - and the United States and many other countries allow or even encourage "religion" to be practiced, unmolested - he is. Given that that's his religious belief, that gives him a religious manifesto to advertise the product EXACTLY as he's doing, and all the Catholics who "tithe" are the ones paying him to advertise that product.

And all the church hierarchy is supposed to send the messages as well, just as Jesus of Nazareth supposedly told Peter and the other disciples to spread his gospel.