Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The Church is comprised of all the faithful. The moral depredations of priests does not invalidate the faith or the tradition.

All the faithful except all those people that the priests say are all bad and icky and everyone should shun them and please ignore the priest behind the curtain doing everything that we have told you is bad and then ignore the entire institution protect him and work to keep the victims silent so that we can contine taking your money, defiling your children in body and mind and pushing our dogma despite all the harm it does to the people we claim to love and claim that god loves (terms and conditions apply).

I'm sorry, but the catholic church has invalidated itself from the moral high ground through the actions of those who control it.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

If thats okay with you, we'll continue the discussion we were having.

I don't recall attempting to stop you from talking about how it might be possible for the faithful to treat large groups of people it has persecuted throughout history as human beings, despite a lot of the people leading the crusade indulging in plenty of the same "sins" (and worse) as those they decry...

While I am getting what you're putting out initially it does seem a bit unreasonable to hold the modern church responsible for what happened, like, 600 years ago.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The Church is comprised of all the faithful. The moral depredations of priests does not invalidate the faith or the tradition.

All the faithful except all those people that the priests say are all bad and icky and everyone should shun them and please ignore the priest behind the curtain doing everything that we have told you is bad and then ignore the entire institution protect him and work to keep the victims silent so that we can contine taking your money, defiling your children in body and mind and pushing our dogma despite all the harm it does to the people we claim to love and claim that god loves (terms and conditions apply).

I'm sorry, but the catholic church has invalidated itself from the moral high ground through the actions of those who control it.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

If thats okay with you, we'll continue the discussion we were having.

I don't recall attempting to stop you from talking about how it might be possible for the faithful to treat large groups of people it has persecuted throughout history as human beings, despite a lot of the people leading the crusade indulging in plenty of the same "sins" (and worse) as those they decry...

Silver... do you feel bad for being a Brit? History shows that Britain isn't an angel... so, has Britain "lost the high ground" in your eyes?

Trim down your brush size.

 Manchu wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
one person in a fancy hat saying a few plattitudes

So this pretty clearly shows you haven't even read the OP.

An attempt to show how little I expect things to change rather than a summary of what is going on

 SilverMK2 wrote:
how little I expect things to change

Well, facts or no facts, you've clearly already made up your mind.

Back on topic, is it also the case that the Church is currently re-examining its attitude to contraception having found out that very many Roman Catholics ignore the current teachings?

I don't want to derail the topic and it seems relevant being part of the teachings on sexuality.

"Hate the sin but love the sinner" is a nice thought exercise but in practical application doesn't work. You don't have to hate someone to actively marginalize them. Most things like DOMA aren't from a place of hate, though I'm sure some do, but from ignorance and platitudes like the one given don't really change that.

 whembly wrote:

Silver... do you feel bad for being a Brit? History shows that Britain isn't an angel... so, has Britain "lost the high ground" in your eyes?

Trim down your brush size.

I don't feel particularly proud or bad or indeed anything for being a Brit. I freely admit to both the bad and good Britan has done in the past and continues to do now.

When the UK goes out on a moral crusade I certainly voice my displeasure. When it sticks its oar in where it is not wanted or needed, I voice my displeasure.

While it is not golden (or perhaps rainbow? ) in the UK for a lot of people or groups, the UK does not represent itself as a supreme moral authority...

Well, it seems like we've gone from "hating the sinner" to accepting the sinner, while acknowledging they will never be equals, and can never indulge in the basic biological drives they were born with.

Truly, words are wind.

If the church wants to maintain a stance opposing abortion, it's going to have to loosen up on contraception. Not getting pregnant in the first place means not having to get an abortion later on, thus reducing the need for a debate on when life exactly begins.

The Church will probably explain the shift in stance by saying "You know what? Sometimes married people like to have sex, and don't want another kid. And you know what else? The rythym method completely doesn't work, so let's not demonize condoms or the pill anymore. Because it's not just sinners and women of loose morals who use contraception; sometimes its married couples."

But hey, however they choose to rationalize it, it's all good if it helps bring the Church into the 20th Century.

Yeah, I know it's the 21st Century, but like I said: baby steps, people.

 Manchu wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
how little I expect things to change

Well, facts or no facts, you've clearly already made up your mind.

My mind being made up or not has zero impact on the workings of the church. If the next pope is an openly gay man, and the one after a lesbian I will loudly applaud the progress the church has made... while still loudly calling for it to put all the priests responsible for, in some cases, decades of abuse and cover ups into the hands of the police and open up their organisation to a proper investigation to identify and help the survivors of the treatment they received at the hands of the church. As well as speaking out against all the other issues in the church.

 Ouze wrote:
acknowledging they will never be equals

Misguided, like saying men and women can never be equal because men cannot menstruate.

 Ouze wrote:
basic biological drives they were born with

That is a very problematic understanding of human sexuality.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
My mind being made up or not has zero impact on the workings of the church.

This statement makes no sense at all.

You have made it clear you disdain the RC church's thinking and/or authority on the topic.

Many other users are interested in continuing the discussion.

At this point I think there is nothing worthwhile for you to add.

squidhills: the teaching about contraception is for married people

 Manchu wrote:
squidhills: the teaching about contraception is for married people

I don't have time to read the entire original article! I've got stuff to do! I can't thoroughly read a new article that a poster links in a thread! I have to make posts in the OT, instead!

On a slightly less snarky note, I haven't been keeping up with my knowledge of current Catholic doctrine. Ever since I converted to atheism, I've just kind of assumed the Church hasn't changed much in the mean time. What I've observed from my extended family (mostly Submarine Catholics, but a few are more observant) seemed to back that up.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
how little I expect things to change

Well, facts or no facts, you've clearly already made up your mind.

My mind being made up or not has zero impact on the workings of the church. If the next pope is an openly gay man, and the one after a lesbian I will loudly applaud the progress the church has made... while still loudly calling for it to put all the priests responsible for, in some cases, decades of abuse and cover ups into the hands of the police and open up their organisation to a proper investigation to identify and help the survivors of the treatment they received at the hands of the church.

Why does a gay or lesbian need to be in position to show progress. It should be someone qualified for the job. If you vote on people purely based on their gender or sexual orientation that makes you a bad person. Since I am pretty sure equal rights doesnt mean selecting people because they are Gay or lesbian or women or whatever thing is in at the time.

If you hate the church for their past acts you should hate every single person on earth. Because if you trace peoples past back far enough we are all guilty of terrible things. Especially as far back as 600 years.

So by your logic, both you and I should be shunned because of the deeds as our forefathers. Im sure some of your ancestors aided in the brutality of the British Empire, for example, or celebrated the beggining of the first world war, do you love and cherish the idea of millions being cut down in warfare?. Somewhere down the line your past will contain many things you will not be proud of.

The first family member in my country back in the 1800s hunted whales in the very town I live in today. So is my view that whales need to be protected and preserved invalid because some guy I dont know but happened to have a relation to hunted whales?

You are probably very young and have really strong not well thought out opinions. But this will change as you age.

squidhills wrote:
I don't have time to read the entire original article!

LOL my apologies!

In seriousness, this point isn't actually in the article. It's just something a lot of people miss.

The teaching about not using contraception is for married people. Unmarried people are not supposed to be having sex at all, and we all know how well that goes. The idea that unmarried people do not use condoms when they have sex because the Church says not to is pretty foolish. Unmarried people having sex are already violating Catholic teaching. It's not like they hold the teaching against married couples using contraception in such high esteem that they will honor that one, even though it does not apply to them, while disregarding the other.

In honesty, people often blame religion for their own failings. "I got this girl I don't even know pregnant because as a Catholic I am not supposed to use condoms." Well, as a Catholic you aren't supposed to be banging a girl who is not your wife.

Since apparently it would be unwise of me to continue discussing the church itself in this thread, if you particulaly want to discuss it, please feel free to take it to pm.

I would also be thankful to go without your assumptions on my age and the basis and validity of my position. In a thread on religion, casting the stones of "not very well thought out opinions" is never a good move

Oh dear god, NO, SERIOUSLY, this really creeps me out! The last barrier is about to fall, thanks to all those same-sex pro-voters. Thanks, Obama.

Haha, sorry, haters, not this time

If they changed their attitude, that'd be awesome. What's creepy about it is that...well...the same priests that told all gay couples to feck off before "because gay" would then suddenly say "Yo, no prob, next Wednesday guys?" just because of a decision made above. I don't really know why, but this irritates me a lot and makes me question whether those people actually believe in what they preach or if they just follow orders from above. If for the latter, well, that'd be a sad sign for religion.

This thread has strongly reinforced my belief that threads with religious discussion are dangerous to your ability to post on DakkaDakka if you're not on the right team. I generally avoid them and this thread quickly reminded me that is the best policy.

 Ouze wrote:
This thread has strongly reinforced my belief that threads with religious discussion are dangerous to your ability to post on DakkaDakka if you're not on the right team. I generally avoid them and this thread quickly reminded me that is the best policy.

Rules of Hats Ouze.

Never expect civility in a thread about religion

 Ouze wrote:
threads with religious discussion are dangerous to your ability to post on DakkaDakka if you're not on the right team

That's insulting to read and I am disappointed in you for posting it.

 Ouze wrote:
This thread has strongly reinforced my belief that threads with religious discussion are dangerous to your ability to post on DakkaDakka if you're not on the right team. I generally avoid them and this thread quickly reminded me that is the best policy.

Really? I mean, nothing in this thread is really that groundshattering or that ridiculous.

o.O

 Ahtman wrote:
"Hate the sin but love the sinner" is a nice thought exercise but in practical application doesn't work.

I agree, as I already posted ITT, and that is why I think it is important to move away from that and why I am hopeful given that the Synod seems to be doing just that.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
"Hate the sin but love the sinner" is a nice thought exercise but in practical application doesn't work.

I agree, as I already posted ITT, and that is why I think it is important to move away from that and why I am hopeful given that the Synod seems to be doing just that.

What practical changes do you hope to see from a reinterpretation of the good book and do you feel it will make that much of a difference in the day to day of the church? As has been noted, the changes seem to be reasonably superficial. And as you yourself mentioned, people tend to do whatever they feel like doing regardless of what the official word in the pews is (unless they can use it to blame or excuse their behaviour ).

To me it seems very much a simple reskin of "HTSBLTS".

I think the "hate the sin" stuff has basically given bigoted Catholics institutional cover for their prejudices. If the Pope and the synod of bishops says that gay relationships can offer "precious support" and they are asking whether we can value gay people even as a matter (rather than in spite of) their sexuality, I think it will be much harder to get that cover.

In other words, it will be a lot harder to disguise homophobia as Christianity.

 Ouze wrote:
This thread has strongly reinforced my belief that threads with religious discussion

Nah, there's at least one worse topic that will get you warned. Religion is kinda safe-ish.

But then issues still remain with homosexuality being a moral problem for the church which goes against its core teachings.

"We really value you as a person and your contributions to society but would you mind sitting at the back of the bus?"

Thing is, no one feels unwelcome in church for having extramarital heterosexual intercourse even when people also at church know the couple is having sex.

We won't get there over night. But this is a significant step in the right direction to a point where gay Catholics can feel comfortable and welcome at mass.

I also don't think pretending gay people can be sacramentally married is necessary. It will be an obstacle to those committed first and foremost to non-religious ideology, on both sides, but nothing can be done about that.

 Ahtman wrote:
"Hate the sin but love the sinner" is a nice thought exercise but in practical application doesn't work. You don't have to hate someone to actively marginalize them. Most things like DOMA aren't from a place of hate, though I'm sure some do, but from ignorance and platitudes like the one given don't really change that.

We do need to remember that this isn't a formal Catholic teaching, either. It's from St. Augustine's Letters.

Not that I don't think it's applicable, as one of the most primary teaching of Catholicism is the forgiveness of sin.