Barcode

Oh, I think I may even praise the Lord if she left that organization!

But joking aside, I have to realise it means a lot to her, so asking her to quit clearly isn't an option. I just don't know how she can associate with people espousing the opinion that her r/ship is wrong and immoral.

She said to me if she stopped being friends with someone simply because they disliked gay people she would be prejudiced as well, but I see it as preserving ones own self esteem and not being brought down by those who cannot accept you for who you are unless you conform to their rules.

She also seems to think she can change things by being a part of it rather than walking away ....

Meanwhile, I feel like banging my head against the wall ... it is mentally draining feeling I have to fight all these things just to be with her ... goodness knows how bad it is making her feel.

Aravnah Ornan

Does the requirement for priestly celibacy uphold G-d's plan for marriage and family?

Doctor X

kkholiday:

It looks like Brighid rather answered your objection for me.

Nevertheless:

Ah . . . but he is trying to do that for those who do not follow him. Period.

As stated previously, a person has a right to believe whatever he wants. He does not have a right to force others to believe the same way. It cuts both ways, I would not want "da guv'ment" to force the Catholic Church to recognize marriages they disagree with.

"Guvnough!" HA!HA!HA! . . . heh . . . a little [Mispelled.--Ed.] Polish joke there . . . fine . . . right, to answer your question:

Yes.

Now, you probably do not wish to argue dogma, but since you brought it up:

based on nothing more than what they like and dislike. This may seem low, but ala Godless Dave's wonderful contribution, it is perfectly alright it "you do it" to a child?!! Those priests continued practicing.

The point of that is that they cannot expect others to share their system of belief, particularly when, frankly, it reflects nothing but a current personal opinions.

Again, I am not accusing you of defending the Church, particularly with regards to its cover-up of pedaphilia, but do note how the hypocrisy undercuts the argument you make for them. How can they "point out the way . . . on morally tough issues" when they fail on a particularly clear moral issue?

Answer: they cannot. They certainly cannot expect others to take them seriously on it.

I am not homosexual either, but I do not like to see people's rights trampled. Rights that [Cue Battle Hymn of the Republic.--Ed.] that our Founding Fathers fought for . . . or . . . at least . . . got a bunch of other guys to fight for. On the contrary, by publically planning to influence foreign governments, the Catholic Church is trying to "force" an opinion upon me . . . in the land of the Free, the home of the Brave . . . Mom's apple pie . . . Fast Food!

Barcode:

For what it is worth, I am very sorry about your girlfiend's predictament. I see no justification for such damage to another person.

Again, for what it is worth:

She has not stopped be a friend, her friends have chosen to stop being her friend. She needs to realize that. Let me be blunt: if she was black and discovered her white friends made racist jokes and judgments behind her back should she consider herself a friend?

Anyways, the best thing you can do is be what they are not . . . her friend.

--J.D.

never been there

Up here, we got it even worse for a while - one bishop in Canada has uttered dark things about politicians' eternal fate if they didn't vote against same-sex marriage. Since the current Prime Minister and the shoo-in next one are both RC churchgoers, this smacks of direct Vatican pressure on our PM, and there are still people alive who remember being threatened with excommunication if they didn't vote for the church's party.

Even other bishops were apalled, though. They've learned their lesson over abortion, and they realise that getting belligerent on same-sex marriage will only ensure than in most of Canada even Christians won't ever vote for a candidate more religious than themselves.

liamo

Amos,

Maybe I'm being a bit slow, but I don't understand this bit:
What would homosexuals be hiding from, and how would the Church be a better place, if society now accepts them?

Liam

Amos

Hello liamo, I am a bit slow myself and just returned to this tread.

Some time ago homosexuality was a criminal offense in the US and this really drove it underground (I actually read this in a homo rag while I was Holland last year). I would guess that it takes some time for this to change and if the percentage of homosexuals in the priesthood does not return to normal it would appear that priesthood is the preferred occupation for homosexuals.

Amos

In Catholicism free love marraiges are arranged in heaven because Catholics 'carry' heaven with them. Free love marriages are arranged by God and therefore divorce is not part of Catholicism. Opposite to free love marriages are rational relationships and since these have not been arranged in heaven the church must have been misled to sanction them and therefore must be annulled upon request.


You mean reproduction without the attraction of opposites? Show me where.

Civil law is not the sam as natural law. In natural law survival is the judge.Ah but we are more than the bible which is just one small part of us that we long since improved upon with "greater things."

We do not reject homosexuality as a gender identity but find it wrong to encourage the lifestyle that increases its occurance.

JP does not and would not demand that his ideas are enforced by the rest of the world and there is nothing wrong with him stating his opinion. After that he will forgive sinners and may remind them that he told them so.

Doctor X

Where?

someone would consider that a more stable basis of a marriage than relying on "free love."

You consider sex only exists for reproduction? You have the right to that, certainly, but understand why you do not get invited to the Estate. . . .

Then homicide is justifiable--survival of the fitest.

Let us be frank, "natural law" is a euphemism for what you hope to be an objective morality rather than your subjective morality.

Such as? Where then is your basis for "rules" other than the personal opinion of biased people?

Then you should have no further opinion on it. Leave it alone.

How? Is it "catching?" Allowing homosexuals to codify stable relationships decreases promiscuity, something, methinks, "ye" would support.

No, you fear that it will give legitimacy to a lifestyle you do not like. Fine, but the law does not exist to crush that which we do not like--otherwise I would have had the last country-western band executed years ago.

Absolutely contradicted by his actions.

How is it a sin? What should he "tell them so" about?

--J.D.

openeyes

From Doctor X: I have been confounded by the argument about the Church's positive role as a moral guide, since as you say, they have failed miserbly in areas that should have be easy to determine the "moral" response.

Of course, the pedaphilia problem has received the most notice recently. We could also look to the Church's rich history of torture and murder through the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, and the general suppresion of knowledge and scientific advancements. I suppose it wouldn't be "nice" to mention those atrocities again because the Church really does have the proper answers this time, right?

never been there

Unfortunately, that's not the case, and since you live in the same province as Bishop Henry you know that. If you read the link in the OP, IOW, JP's right-hand "bad cop" is instructing Catholic politicians to impose the RC church's views on all citizens, including the United Church of Canada and the Unitarian Universalists who are ready to marry homosexual couples in their churches. Not to mention us unbelievers. But the Vatican has never quite endorsed the legitimacy of religious freedom.

I'm not asking Roman Catholics to change their beliefs or marry homosexuals, I just want the Pope to mind his own f****** business.