Catholic Archbishop attacks gay marriage as undemocratic

[crispybits]

Nope, because a sports team is not a moral decision. Liking the Miami Dolphins or the Chicago Bulls is neither moral nor immoral. Same with the deodorant.

If he was simply advertising his product, then he would be saying something along the lines of "this is catholicism, come and join us and then you will enter a system where the rules for you living your life are.....". But this is not what he's doing, he's saying "this is catholicism, whether you join us or not the rules for you living your life are....".

As you'll know if you read the evidence for God thread, my opinion is that religion in this societally controlling form is morally evil in and of itself, and I've given my reasons why I believe that there so I won't repeat them here. So as much as he has the moral obligation from his perspective to try and save mankind from Satan, I have the moral imperative from my perspective to try and save mankind from religion (I'm being deliberately grandiose here, I'm not really on a global quest).

[thegreekdog]

Nope, because a sports team is not a moral decision. Liking the Miami Dolphins or the Chicago Bulls is neither moral nor immoral. Same with the deodorant.

If he was simply advertising his product, then he would be saying something along the lines of "this is catholicism, come and join us and then you will enter a system where the rules for you living your life are.....". But this is not what he's doing, he's saying "this is catholicism, whether you join us or not the rules for you living your life are....".

As you'll know if you read the evidence for God thread, my opinion is that religion in this societally controlling form is morally evil in and of itself, and I've given my reasons why I believe that there so I won't repeat them here. So as much as he has the moral obligation from his perspective to try and save mankind from Satan, I have the moral imperative from my perspective to try and save mankind from religion (I'm being deliberately grandiose here, I'm not really on a global quest).

In a representative democracy the bishop would be arguing for a certain point of view and for the legislature to take that point of view (or the voters to help their legislators take that point of view). I have no problem with him arguing a point of view. I have a problem with his argument generally, however.

There are plenty of moral decisions made by governments.

[crispybits]

If it's just a political opinion then it's about as effective as a chocolate oven glove because he's not giving any rational reason for why the change of law will benefit the society, but I take your point.

[thegreekdog]

If it's just a political opinion then it's about as effective as a chocolate oven glove because he's not giving any rational reason for why the change of law will benefit the society, but I take your point.

It's effective if the person he is reaching out to is Catholic and believes his or her morality should dictate what others do. I know quite a few Catholics here in the U.S. who vote one way or another only because of social reasons (e.g. abortion or gay marriage). Many wouldn't vote but for those issues.

If it helps, I'm Catholic and would not be swayed by his argument mostly because I believe there should be a sharp separation between church and state. I need a better argument than "religion." And yeah, that makes me a bad Catholic (by the Church's standards), but it is what it is.

[crispybits]

Yep - but it also means that everyone else is free to reply back with their own opinions, including pointing out the moral hypocrisy of the philosophy being promoted versus the actual moral track record of the organisation promoting it, without being shouted down and accused of a witch hunt (which is how the debate got into these areas)

[chang50]

Yep - but it also means that everyone else is free to reply back with their own opinions, including pointing out the moral hypocrisy of the philosophy being promoted versus the actual moral track record of the organisation promoting it, without being shouted down and accused of a witch hunt (which is how the debate got into these areas)

So true.I've never understood what is so special about religion.It should be as open to robust criticism as every other topic.We should not pander to the sensitivities of adherents who are overly emotionally attached to their religious opinions,even if they have got used to this dispensation over a long time.

[stahrgazer]

Yep - but it also means that everyone else is free to reply back with their own opinions, including pointing out the moral hypocrisy of the philosophy being promoted versus the actual moral track record of the organisation promoting it, without being shouted down and accused of a witch hunt (which is how the debate got into these areas)

"Moral Hypocrisy" only exists if the old man doing the grumbling is someone who's done the deed he's grumbling about, or condones the deed within his organization but no one else.

But since the Catholic church as a whole doesn't condone the deed, and we have no evidence that the grumbly old man ever did the deed, your argument is fun but false.

It's false despite the fact that there is evidence that the deed has been done within the church organization, because while it may occur, it's against their precepts (just as sex outside of marriage of any type is performed by "Catholics" and other "Christians" but is against their churches' precepts.)

[crispybits]

So agents of an organisation, acting on official business for the organisation, covering up sex crimes and officially reorganising deployments of staff within that organisation with full knowledge of their criminal transgressions against children, they are all simply individual agents and the organisation itself is totally clear of blame? This includes people at the highest levels of the organisation, not just the worker bees.

If a corporate director, acting on official business as a corporate director, commits or covers up a crime within the corporation then the company can be criminally charged, but if a high level church official, acting on official business as a high level church official, commits or covers up a crime within the church then the church is blameless? Or should the corporation be exempt from any action because it's mission statement says it will not commit or cover up crimes, regardless of the actions of it's senior executives? I'm sure the lawyers for BP, LaRoche, BASF and HSBC (among many others) will be very interested to hear that...

[BigBallinStalin]

So agents of an organisation, acting on official business for the organisation, covering up sex crimes and officially reorganising deployments of staff within that organisation with full knowledge of their criminal transgressions against children, they are all simply individual agents and the organisation itself is totally clear of blame? This includes people at the highest levels of the organisation, not just the worker bees.

If a corporate director, acting on official business as a corporate director, commits or covers up a crime within the corporation then the company can be criminally charged, but if a high level church official, acting on official business as a high level church official, commits or covers up a crime within the church then the church is blameless? Or should the corporation be exempt from any action because it's mission statement says it will not commit or cover up crimes, regardless of the actions of it's senior executives? I'm sure the lawyers for BP, LaRoche, BASF and HSBC (among many others) will be very interested to hear that...

Well, if it's a corporation, then of course the executives are blamed, but when the Catholic Church becomes involved in similar scandals, then the Church cannot be blamed because many exercise double standards.

It's a good analogy, crispy, but I'm not sure some will apply it consistently.

Furthermore, it's amusing that the Church did not condone the child molestations (Why would it?), while it attempted to cover-up such incidents and tried--and succeeded--in shuffling around its priests to different areas, instead of having them serve jail time.

[stahrgazer]

If a corporate director, acting on official business as a corporate director, commits or covers up a crime within the corporation then the company can be criminally charged, but if a high level church official, acting on official business as a high level church official, commits or covers up a crime within the church then the church is blameless? Or should the corporation be exempt from any action because it's mission statement says it will not commit or cover up crimes, regardless of the actions of it's senior executives? I'm sure the lawyers for BP, LaRoche, BASF and HSBC (among many others) will be very interested to hear that...

No, those in the know higher up are responsible for covering up even in a church; still doesn't make it hypocritical of members of the church to continue to speak out against something as "wrong" since it continues to be "wrong" in that organization's philosophy even if they've found that some in their organization were guilty of that "wrong."

Also, remember, the Catholic church is a state within a state, historically and still in some countries, meaning it has been responsible to deal its own discipline; they would view it like a foreign diplomat who may break a law in another country. The diplomat may not be subject to that country's court system but his own country should deal appropriate discipline.

[crispybits]

But subscribing to a biblical philosophy, and then not only judging people yourself (let he who is without sin cast the first stone / judge not lest ye be judged), but enforcing your personal moral judgement on society through secular law is hypocritical.

So by both being an adherent to catholicism, and by lobbying for any secular law changes or influence, the bishop is a hypocrite if he was acting as an individual. If he was acting as a church official then the church itself is guilty of moral hypocrisy in addition to this personal hypocrisy. And this is before they even had the sex candal, it's a consequence of their own divine rules.

They can preach, and they can convert souls to God's grace, what they can't do, by their own rules, is enforce God's grace or God's rules on those who don't choose the catholic way of life by their own free will.

The catholic church also doesn't get to make it's own secular rules about the behaviour of it's officials in foreign countries (what they do within the vatican state, from a secular standpoint, is up to them). If they believe that every priest, regardless of what flavour of passport they hold should have diplomatic immunity, then the correct way to achieve this is by proper negotiation and legal agreement with each other state, not by just assuming it and acting like you're untouchable.

[stahrgazer]

But subscribing to a biblical philosophy, and then not only judging people yourself (let he who is without sin cast the first stone / judge not lest ye be judged), but enforcing your personal moral judgement on society through secular law is hypocritical.

Not at all. The Pope is not saying those folks should be stoned, he's saying what they do is morally wrong and because it's morally wrong, he doesn't think it should be condoned.

So by both being an adherent to catholicism, and by lobbying for any secular law changes or influence, the bishop is a hypocrite if he was acting as an individual. If he was acting as a church official then the church itself is guilty of moral hypocrisy in addition to this personal hypocrisy. And this is before they even had the sex candal, it's a consequence of their own divine rules.

No.

They can preach, and they can convert souls to God's grace, what they can't do, by their own rules, is enforce God's grace or God's rules on those who don't choose the catholic way of life by their own free will.

The Pope isn't forcing folks to be Catholic just because he's preaching about something that is "wrong" that he doesn't feel should be encouraged.

If he was talking about murder, would you have the same problem with it?

In the ways of his church, BOTH are "mortal sins," which equates to a religious felony rather than a religious misdemeanor; so he doesn't feel society should encourage the one any more than we encourage murder.

The catholic church also doesn't get to make it's own secular rules about the behaviour of it's officials in foreign countries (what they do within the vatican state, from a secular standpoint, is up to them). If they believe that every priest, regardless of what flavour of passport they hold should have diplomatic immunity, then the correct way to achieve this is by proper negotiation and legal agreement with each other state, not by just assuming it and acting like you're untouchable.

While this part is true, it's also true that just about any country with ambassadors is gonna do their best to keep their ambassadors from facing the penalties in the other countries, if the ambassador did something wrong; and deal with it themselves, if they can. Wrong of them all, perhaps, but they all try it where they can.

Personally I think anyone who diddles young boys or young girls oughta have their weeny and acorns cut off, not just 'transferred' to a different church (in the case of the Catholic priest nasties) or briefly incarcerated (in the case of other molesters,) but obviously the Catholic church and most countries disagree with me that that's an appropriate punishment.

[crispybits]

He IS talking about judging people. He doesn't say "gay marriage is wrong" he says "Gay marriage should not be made legal". What happens if you break a law? Oh yeah you get put in front of a judge. That is lobbying for non-catholics to be held, by force of law, to catholic principles, or else face wordly judgement.

Secular countries ambassadors have legal diplomatic immunity. If a citizen of a country without diplomatic immunity on holiday somewhere commits a crime which the parent country also believes is wrong, then most countries don't try and smuggle them out. They offer practical assistance sometimes, like translators or lawyers, but the citizen still has to face trial.

[stahrgazer]

He IS talking about judging people. He doesn't say "gay marriage is wrong" he says "Gay marriage should not be made legal". What happens if you break a law? Oh yeah you get put in front of a judge. That is lobbying for non-catholics to be held, by force of law, to catholic principles, or else face wordly judgement.

Secular countries ambassadors have legal diplomatic immunity. If a citizen of a country without diplomatic immunity on holiday somewhere commits a crime which the parent country also believes is wrong, then most countries don't try and smuggle them out. They offer practical assistance sometimes, like translators or lawyers, but the citizen still has to face trial.

Many middle-eastern countries have much fiercer laws than we have in other countries. When our folks get caught, we sure do try to smuggle them out. They made a movie about a rescue that got released this year.
And other countries? Don't be so naive, crispy, most countries WILL try to get their people out rather than have to face a foreign trial.


Meanwhile, does a murderer have to face a judge, you don't seem to have a problem with that sort of judgement.

So your issue is simply: you don't agree with the old man's belief that homosexuality is just as much a soul-killing sin as murder.

And it's fine that you don't. It still doesn't make him "hypocritical" to say it should be illegal (which also means he thinks it's "wrong.")

[crispybits]

In that case the people wouldn't have been judged to have broken American law, so the situation was different (unless you wish to say that the catholic churches philosophy condones child sex abuse) - there's whole rafts of cases of people facing trials in foreign countries. The british government recently ran ads on national TV explaining that when you're abroad you shouldn't expect to be smuggled out or helped with money, that you would just get legal aid to assist you in the trial.

Yes I agree with a murderer facing a judge, but even saying that would make a catholic a hypocrite. Their book of divine absolute moral law states that only God can judge. I am not encumbered by that philosophy.

You do understand there is a difference between "morally wrong" and "illegal and punishable by law" right? The bishop was clearly talking about the legality, not the morality of the issue.

[stahrgazer]

In that case the people wouldn't have been judged to have broken American law, so the situation was different (unless you wish to say that the catholic churches philosophy condones child sex abuse) - there's whole rafts of cases of people facing trials in foreign countries. The british government recently ran ads on national TV explaining that when you're abroad you shouldn't expect to be smuggled out or helped with money, that you would just get legal aid to assist you in the trial.

Yes I agree with a murderer facing a judge, but even saying that would make a catholic a hypocrite. Their book of divine absolute moral law states that only God can judge. I am not encumbered by that philosophy.

You do understand there is a difference between "morally wrong" and "illegal and punishable by law" right? The bishop was clearly talking about the legality, not the morality of the issue.

You understand that there are still tons of laws on the books that make homosexuality illegal? Some have been done away with, some still exist, merely aren't enforced.

On the opposite spectrum, "drugs" were at one time, "not" illegal; now they're illegal but folks are fighting to make them legal - they are in some states, even though federal laws still exist making them illegal. At one time, booze was legal, then illegal, now legal again except in some counties where it's illegal.

And you STILL miss the point: in Catholic perspective, Jesus, son of God, handed to his followers his authority, and gave it to them to hand down as well... which means, in the church's eyes, the Pope conveys God's messages and hands them out to be further conveyed. In essence, in their belief, they are speaking "for" God.

And, in their viewpoint, one mortal sin is as bad as another, and "homosexuality" is considered a mortal sin every bit as bad as murder.

Also, "child sex abuse" varies from state to state, and depends upon the ages of those engaging.

In other words, dearie, "law" isn't as concrete as you're trying to make it out to be.

And the REAL hypocrisy would be if the religious institution chose to keep quiet about what they feel is wrong.

All that said, do I believe our laws should be tailored to religion? No, not specifically.... but "religion" gave the first laws for human society, so in some regard, there cannot be a total separation between church and state.

Personally, I believe, "don't ask, don't tell, and stay the hell out of my bedroom," is the better perspective for our government. I also believe that someone should be able to designate ANYONE to be their legal partner for purposes of estate, insurance, and so forth, and that, "marriage" shouldn't be a prerequisite of that.

I also believe that if homosexuality is "legally okay" then America did the Mormons a disservice by making poly illegal. Maybe the Mormons should sue and get billions in back pay like others who've had a "historical wrong" done to them received.

And as for the religious perspective of "poly" ? Biblically, homosexuality was always frowned on, but poly was quite acceptable IF the spouses were properly cared for.

[crispybits]

So you don't understand the difference between moral/immoral and legal/illegal then? Because that point you say I'm "STLL missing" is that catholics believe God gave them MORAL authority to go out and speak for him - not LEGAL authority to go out and force catholic values on the world.

[thegreekdog]

So you don't understand the difference between moral/immoral and legal/illegal then? Because that point you say I'm "STLL missing" is that catholics believe God gave them MORAL authority to go out and speak for him - not LEGAL authority to go out and force catholic values on the world.

Yes, that's where I part with the Church. While I have a moral responsibility for myself and my family, I do not believe I have a legal responsibility to implement a theocracy in the United States.

[spurgistan]

So you don't understand the difference between moral/immoral and legal/illegal then? Because that point you say I'm "STLL missing" is that catholics believe God gave them MORAL authority to go out and speak for him - not LEGAL authority to go out and force catholic values on the world.

Yes, that's where I part with the Church. While I have a moral responsibility for myself and my family, I do not believe I have a legal responsibility to implement a theocracy in the United States.

Once the union breaks up, I feel like there will be a few theocracies you can live in while remaining in what now comprises the United States of America, but yeah, you'd have a tough one setting one up in the Eastern corridor anyways.

[thegreekdog]

So you don't understand the difference between moral/immoral and legal/illegal then? Because that point you say I'm "STLL missing" is that catholics believe God gave them MORAL authority to go out and speak for him - not LEGAL authority to go out and force catholic values on the world.

Yes, that's where I part with the Church. While I have a moral responsibility for myself and my family, I do not believe I have a legal responsibility to implement a theocracy in the United States.

Once the union breaks up, I feel like there will be a few theocracies you can live in while remaining in what now comprises the United States of America, but yeah, you'd have a tough one setting one up in the Eastern corridor anyways.

That and any theocracy in the US would be very anti-Catholic.

[stahrgazer]

So you don't understand the difference between moral/immoral and legal/illegal then? Because that point you say I'm "STLL missing" is that catholics believe God gave them MORAL authority to go out and speak for him - not LEGAL authority to go out and force catholic values on the world.

I guess it's you who doesn't understand the difference between MORAL actions and LEGAL ones.

The old man saying this should be illegal is NOT the same as forcing Catholic values on the world.

He's morally obligated to express his opinion, and he does so.

Whether those who make the LAWS listen, is up to them, not him.

Again, you just beef about hearing his opinion on THIS because you don't agree with it. And that's fine, you have a right to disagree.

Still doesn't make him a hypocrite to give his/his church's opinion on the matter.

NOR is "a church" the first or only organization to give their opinion vehemently. Some folks make a career out of providing a company's opinions to legislators - for a fee.

[crispybits]

Frankly, the process is shambolic, there was no announcement in any party manifesto; there's been no green paper; there's been no statement in the Queen's speech. And yet here we are on the verge of primary legislation. From a democratic point of view, it's a shambles.

There's no mention of morals there. He hasn't said it is wrong. he's saying they shouldn't make it legal.

That isn't preaching or having an opinion, that's attempting to directly influence secular law. To get the thing he disagrees with judged. And not by rallying catholics to vote en masse against it, but by using his position and secular political power to directly influence the law.

The church can't say they think anything should be legal or illegal without displaying hypocrisy, even if it is just "opinion" bcause it goes against their teachings. That counts for murder too, so it's not just a case of things I disagree with. It's a basic aspect of their supposedly sacred philosophy (which they seem happy to break whenever it suits them)

[stahrgazer]

Frankly, the process is shambolic, there was no announcement in any party manifesto; there's been no green paper; there's been no statement in the Queen's speech. And yet here we are on the verge of primary legislation. From a democratic point of view, it's a shambles.

There's no mention of morals there. He hasn't said it is wrong. he's saying they shouldn't make it legal.

That isn't preaching or having an opinion, that's attempting to directly influence secular law. To get the thing he disagrees with judged. And not by rallying catholics to vote en masse against it, but by using his position and secular political power to directly influence the law.

The church can't say they think anything should be legal or illegal without displaying hypocrisy, even if it is just "opinion" bcause it goes against their teachings. That counts for murder too, so it's not just a case of things I disagree with. It's a basic aspect of their supposedly sacred philosophy (which they seem happy to break whenever it suits them)

EVERYONE attempts to influence secular law, so what? And, jeezus, crispy, talk about semantics, he's saying it shouldn't be legal because in the eyes of the church, it's wrong.

And it's not hypocrisy to want things "your way." Look it up. It's hypocrisy to want things one way for you, something else for everyone else.

Speaking out for what you believe in, is not Hypocrisy. According to biblical teachings, Christ spoke out for what he believed in - and against certain things - all the time.

It is a case of things you disagree with, and you know what's hypocrisy? You are displaying hypocrisy, for thinking everyone in the world should have "freedom of speech" except a religious institution.

[crispybits]

I'm happy for a religion to have freedom of speech, but I'll call a religion hypocritical if it goes against it's teachings in what it says. Catholics should not judge anyone or try to prevent anyone doing whatever their free will allows them to do (within reason obviously, I wouldn't exect a catholic not to defend themselves if physically attacked, although even doing that would make them hypocritical - turn the other cheek remember)

You keep mixing in all these other aspects but it really is quite simple

The bible says that man is not in a position to judge other men. Only god can do this.
The bible says that man has free will to choose to reject God and God's teachings and rules. They will go to hell, but they are free to reject the whole lot.
Therefore, the bible says that if you follow the bible and someone is doing something you disagree with and think is immoral, you should try and show them the right way to find God and thereby change their behaviour, but you have no business using your religious values as a standard to force people to live by your religion's rules unless they voluntarily come into your religion and accept those rules willingly.

You might not like the above, but that's pretty fundamental biblical morality 101. It's the stuff we all get given in school as some of the basic principles of that philosophy.

Anyone violating that basic morality and still calling themself a catholic is a hypocrite. Breaking those rules, for instance, would include lobbying for or against a secular law on religious ethical grounds. Which it seems is exactly what our friend the bishop has done. If he so much as modified the argument to say that catholics should not be legally allowed to have same sex marriages I wouldn't say a word (but then that would be a pretty damn redundant law)

You'll notice by the way that in all of this I've never said the bishop is wrong about the morality of gay marriage. I think he is I won't deny that, but I haven't even needed to go there to defend my argument. So the argument is not about whether or not I agree with him, but whether he is being consistent with the teachings he claims to be a representative of.

[thegreekdog]

I'm happy for a religion to have freedom of speech, but I'll call a religion hypocritical if it goes against it's teachings in what it says. Catholics should not judge anyone or try to prevent anyone doing whatever their free will allows them to do (within reason obviously, I wouldn't exect a catholic not to defend themselves if physically attacked, although even doing that would make them hypocritical - turn the other cheek remember)

You keep mixing in all these other aspects but it really is quite simple

The bible says that man is not in a position to judge other men. Only god can do this.
The bible says that man has free will to choose to reject God and God's teachings and rules. They will go to hell, but they are free to reject the whole lot.
Therefore, the bible says that if you follow the bible and someone is doing something you disagree with and think is immoral, you should try and show them the right way to find God and thereby change their behaviour, but you have no business using your religious values as a standard to force people to live by your religion's rules unless they voluntarily come into your religion and accept those rules willingly.

You might not like the above, but that's pretty fundamental biblical morality 101. It's the stuff we all get given in school as some of the basic principles of that philosophy.

Anyone violating that basic morality and still calling themself a catholic is a hypocrite. Breaking those rules, for instance, would include lobbying for or against a secular law on religious ethical grounds. Which it seems is exactly what our friend the bishop has done. If he so much as modified the argument to say that catholics should not be legally allowed to have same sex marriages I wouldn't say a word (but then that would be a pretty damn redundant law)

You'll notice by the way that in all of this I've never said the bishop is wrong about the morality of gay marriage. I think he is I won't deny that, but I haven't even needed to go there to defend my argument. So the argument is not about whether or not I agree with him, but whether he is being consistent with the teachings he claims to be a representative of.

The Catholic Church and the Bible aren't always consistent. In other words, the bishop's response to your critique would be "Yeah, so?"