-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
pope made homophobic slur
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
I'm talking about the whole gamut of actions taken by the Catholic Church, not just marriages that they celebrate themselves.
The Catholic Church lobbies and campaigns against secular same-sex marriage in every jurisdiction where they think it will be effective. I remember the newspaper ads that all the Canadian bishops did before the legalization of same-sex marriage here.
Regardless of your personal feelings about secular marriage, it's the thing that makes the difference when, say, hospital administrators have to decide whether a terminal cancer patient's partner can stay in the room overnight or will get booted out at the end of visiting hours. It's also the thing that decides whether that patient's widow(er) will inherit the other half of their marital home or if it will go to a family member who will evict the widow(er) out of spite.
... for a Pope.
*Yawn* ignore *yawn*
Again, though, I haven't seen this here.
I don't disbelieve you and I understand the gravity, but it seems local to you.
I think the issue we're facing is that you are in America, which continent has a far more, dare I say, deranged form of Catholicism. I have heard from a fellow I met on here when he worked in the US he saw anti-abortion leaflets on pew seats in his church (RCC). I have never ever seen such here in England, nor had he, hence his shock. There seems to be a rift between American Catholicism and European Catholicism. If we want to agree rather than disagree, consider this my branch. I simply, honestly, don't recognize the version of Catholicism you are talking about. It is very foreign here, where the RCC has very little influence, and what influence it has barely touches people under 40. I am 28, and due to my age have grown up in a very different environment.
The RCC I attended before becoming an Anglican had a liberal clergy and a more conservative congregation by comparison (veil wearing types), with whom I am very familiar, and their attitudes towards these issues are nothing like you describe. These are older ladies, you know the kind. One was my landlady, and while she is not for SSM, she is in no way a raging anti-gay bigot. She's 70-odd.
I do think this is rather more cultural, as far as I can tell. I don't see it any other way as what you describe is not anything like my experience of the RCC here, which main problem seems to be its sheer dismissiveness. My former landlady and I knew a more conservative, young priest, and he's basically given up. He no longer acts as a priest and is a priest-councillor at a local university full time. It happens to all the conservatives here; they're drowned out.
So I think these issues are more local than we think.
"It's better to ask forgiveness, than permission"
Well sure, but not everyone agrees with you.
Happened in the US too. Also still happening in S. America.
So it's a 33% of the world problem.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
English not your first language? That's exactly what it is.
I mean, okay?
Then that is for that 33% to deal with.
And we are. You just don't seem to appreciate the fact that people called the Pope out on it. Don't like what we have to say. *Ignore* it.
Again, it's been established as a likely error.
I shouldn't need to repeat this, the article itself says it.
And? Your point?
Making a mistake/accident doesn't lessen the consequences. Ask anyone ever convicted of a law they didn't know existed. Tough ****. You still get charged.
As an aside:
On that, my personal opinion is that if an organization threatens its members with a fate worse than death for leaving, it has a moral and ethical obligation to ensure that they're comfortable with staying... even if the organization's leadership objects to it.
IMO, an organization is only morally and ethically free to set its own standards for its members if those members are free to leave when they don't want to follow those standards.
IOW: if you force people to stay with threats of Hell for leaving, then you oblige yourself to take those people as they are.
Now... this isn't anything I would enforce by law. It's just another way that I note that many religious organizations behave unethically.
A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the canonical form.
Thus, the Church could indeed consider a couple married, even if one or other was infertile -- so long as they remain "open to children" in the event that some miracle occurred. To suppose that such a miracle could only occur if one is a man and one is a woman is to put an unreasonable constraint on what a "miracle" actually is, don't you think?
So you believe that all marriages between atheists are not really marriages, or meaningful? What is it that religion adds to a marriage that makes it "real?"
The one specific term was an error. The sentiment of "we shouldn't accept gay people" was not.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Then don't post in a public place and under a heading "Religious Debates."
Francis' other statements ought be taken into account. I don't know why this isn't being done. I mean, one even appears in the article quoted.
His other statements are being taken into account; that's the problem.