Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
So what happens if homosexuals were given their design of sexuality by God also?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Obviously, this chap is expressing the religious truth as he sees it;

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

It's propaganda.

---

quote:

---

I think the secularisation has already happened.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I suppose one might say that having accepted divorce, one might as well accept gay marriage. From a legal position, I would agree. But theologically, the RCC hasn't really accepted divorce, has it? As an institution, it's consistent with itself by disapproving of both of these changes, whereas some denominations have probably tried to tolerate one but remain unwilling as regards the other. This is inconsistent.

I don't think the RCC (clergy or laity) should demand that a secular society follow its theological dictates re gay marriage. That makes no sense. But I imagine that this letter, while making reference to decisions to be taken by the state, is really about focusing Catholic minds on the authority of their church. After all, the letter wasn't sent to everyone who might have a view on the matter, but only to Catholics. [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
It's simple.
He's a cunt.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
I suspect that if called upon to justify this outrageous slur, he'd respond in measured terms about how we are only truly human when we live the life intended for us by our Creator, and that any sin which falls short of that perfection in a sense denies our full humanity. Which is, I suppose, just about enough to prevent the sentence being an out-and-out fib, but is ludicrously inadequate to make it appropriate to use such language against a historically persecuted minority in a political campaign directed against them. It is not any truer than gay sex denies humanity than it is that pride, envy, anger, sloth, avarice, gluttony, and lust do, so the use of this language of hostility against that specific sin is morally untrue, even if there is a pathetic justification for the words themselves. The words are not there to make a nuanced theological point - they are there as rhetoric to condemn.

---

The language of something or other making us 'truly human' is one of my great hates with regard to the modern church. Our vicar, with all his liberal credentials, uses it a lot to back up various behaviours. I used to dislike it because it comes across as a bit sick-bucket sentimental, but now I see its implications as rather worse than that. 'Truly' is, in effect, being used as a synonym for 'fully' and if the Church is claiming that some behaviours make us truly/fully human it is by implication also making the statement that those people who are not displaying those favoured behaviours are not truly/fully human.

As far as I am concerned the only thing that makes us truly human is the fact that we are members of the species Homo sapiens. Within that there are no distinctions as to the degree that we are human. You would have hoped the history of the 20th century would have warned people off any idea of dividing the human race into those who are fully human and those who are not.

quote:

---

What I think reason and charity require, in this case, is to assume in the bishop's favour, that he thinks that is cause is right, that he judges his means to be lawful, and that he is not conscious of having deliberately lied or sought to offend.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
It's simple.
He's a cunt.

---

Not so. He lacks depth and warmth.

---

--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
[The Bishop is] not sending the letter to settle a theological argument within the RCC. He's sending it to mobilise the troops in the political, secular debate about amending the Marriage Act.

What you're 'imagining' the letter is doing has no basis in reality on the ground. What the letter is in fact doing is precisely what you've just said the church shouldn't do.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose the issue here is whether religious people in a secular society should express their views on legal matters that also have a bearing on their theological position. The problem is that, in people's mind, there is occasionally a connection between the two.

Some denominations completely withdraw from political participation, and their members don't even vote. They fully accept the division between their own beliefs and the aims and goals of secular power. With their history of political power and influence, it can't be easy for Catholics to take that line.

Still, according to that letter, the authorities are inviting all people, presumably including religious people, to make their views known on a website, so it's not as if Catholics are pushing their views onto a government that has absolutely no interest in them.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
if sexual liberation goes hand in hand with secularisation, then from the perspective of the RCC, it's probably better to stand against it, if possible. But if the church ever decides that this stance is hopeless then it'll probably become more accepting.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
... Church says if you do X, then very bad things will happen.
People do X and bad things don't happen.
Church refuses to revisit claims on X despite evidence.
Sky continues not to fall when more people do X.
Therefore people conclude that church was wrong on X and frame laws accordingly.
'Behold!' says Church, 'How X leads to secularisation!'

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

‘The contradiction’, Summerfield continues, ‘between this representation and the idea that the war had liberated women was resolved by the suggestion that, later in the post-war years, women would turn their backs on the domestic “cage” and demand the freedoms made available by the war.’ In this way, Summerfield has argued (with others) that there was a deferment to women’s liberation in the late 1940s and 1950s ― apparent in the fervency with which media circulated the traditional discourse on domestic ideology through all manners of outlets in the 1950s.
This deferment was critical to understanding the reaction of younger women, growing up in the 1950s and reaching their late teens and twenties in the 1960s. Whether directly or indirectly, there is a sense in which mothers thwarted one way or another in ambition in the 1940s and 1950s passed to their daughters a sense of the liberation they should now grab for themselves.

---

quote:

---

The battlelines were drawn by the British Christian churches over the female body in the 1950s and 1960s, making sexual liberation of women the key issue... The Church of Scotland in 1970 identified the key to the sexual revolution and the alienation of the young from the churches: ‘It is the promiscuous girl who is the real problem here.’ The Church actually understood that the ‘moral turn’ was in female permissiveness, not in men’s, and that the churches were losing their central paradigm of Christian behaviour ― the respectable and sexually-abstinent single woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
if sexual liberation goes hand in hand with secularisation, then from the perspective of the RCC, it's probably better to stand against it, if possible.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Obviously, this chap is expressing the religious truth as he sees it; it's not an objective matter, since religion itself is hardly objective. Noone's is compelled to agree with him, and I suppose many Catholics don't. Some will already have left Catholicism behind due to issues like this.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

It was opposing sexual liberation which ended up undermining the churches authority and really caused the problem.

---

quote:

---

Equally if you're going to hop from women's sexual liberation to gay liberation, then you can't just cite Callum Brown. If women taking the pill and getting out of the kitchen pulled the rug out from under a church still thinking in terms of a woman's duty to be the civilising 'angel in the house' of Victorian piety, then how does gay liberation have the same effect on a predominantly-heterosexual exodus?

---

quote:

---

[T]he experience of a wider working world for women in WW1, led to advances in women's rights, but first comes the experience 'the Church is wrong on this' gained from working outside the home and seeing that the sky doesn't fall in.

---

quote:

---

When you stake your authority as a teaching institution on something and it turns out to go wholly against the lived experience of the people you are trying to appeal to, it ends up convincing them that you are wrong. Hence you begin to lose your authority and start haemorrhaging membership.

In the case of female empowerment, expressed sexually and also in the workplace, the churches dragged their feet, which led to people finding experientially that they could do quite well without the churches, hence later reforms did not tempt large swathes of people back in.
[...]

Sex just happens to be one of the areas where the churches have most consistently blundered and most consistently brazened it out, thus ending up accelerating the process by which differing experience can undermine belief, but the same process works in other areas, eg. the wider role of women, demonising other religious groups, and matters of science when churches back the wrong horse eg. on creationism or medicine.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... I suspect that in any case, there's little that the mainstream historical churches can do to attract the large numbers of people who simply want to make their own moral decisions without the interference of institutions or religions. Becoming more tolerant will give the churches a more friendly image, but won't make them any more attractive as centres of moral guidance. And if they lose that role, what future is there for them? I suppose they can exist as a cultural remnant, guardians of a certain heritage. This is a role that requires very few actual believers, and it certainly doesn’t require bishops who write controversial letters, about gay marriage or anything else!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The interesting here is that you're depicting the church as intrinscally against progress. If that's how things are, then there's not much point in complaining about what the RCC might say or do about gay marriage or anything else: the RCC is inevitably behind the times, on a downward slope to extinction. Might as well let them get on with it, and the sooner the better.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
... New is bad, because if it's really a change then God Himself would surely have mentioned something about it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Svitlana

I suspect that in any case, there's little that the mainstream historical churches can do to attract the large numbers of people who simply want to make their own moral decisions without the interference of institutions or religions. Becoming more tolerant will give the churches a more friendly image, but won't make them any more attractive as centres of moral guidance.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
The fur usually begins to fly on the fuzzy edge between a legal arrangement conveying spousal benefits between individuals, and what characterizes marriage as the church has traditionally understood it. As a church historian I have to say that the history of Church marriage is more complicated than one might suppose, and that historically speaking an awful lot of people lived in non-canonical relationships. It was only with the various Marriage Acts of the eighteenth century, the bringing together of marriage and romantic love, and various moral crusades that the modern definition of "traditional marriage" was arrived at.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Actually, it would be interesting to know if there was also a homosexual exodus. In an earlier age of greater church authority, one would assume that a higher percentage of gay people would have been in the church. The number may have declined, not because gay people wanted to reject a Victorian stereotype that only applied to straight women, of course, but because church authority was now coming under attack more generally. Maybe there were gay people who were inspired by women's liberation, not only socially but in terms of the rejection of church control and values. You'd know more about this than I do, but different groups of oppressed people do benefit from seeing other oppressed people rise up and challenge the status quo. It doesn't matter if their grievances are different. I'm aware that this kind of cross-over has happened in other contexts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

I wonder if all churches universally taught that women were to be confined to the home. I imagine that this must be a particularly middle class phenomenon, not applicable to churches that catered to the working classes, where women were obliged to go out to work. So perhaps it’s a problem born out of the gentrification of the churches, rather than being intrinsic to all church culture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The interesting here is that you're depicting the church as intrinsically against progress. If that's how things are, then there's not much point in complaining about what the RCC might say or do about gay marriage or anything else: the RCC is inevitably behind the times, on a downward slope to extinction. Might as well let them get on with it, and the sooner the better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

One problem with this argument is that, in terms of church development in the West, it frequently seems as though the most liberal, tolerant and culturally acclimatised churches are the ones with the least ability to attract and retain members. People leave restrictive churches, but don't necessarily try to find less restrictive churches to attend (although some do, of course). The RCC has notably lost fewer members, and lost them later, than more inclusive denominations. (I see that it has also become the largest denomination in Australia.) While fewer people go to church overall, the percentage of those who attend more conservative churches increases, because they don't lose members so quickly. This undermines the argument that if only the churches are more accepting of sexual licence (be it gay or straight) then they'll begin to flourish again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suspect that in any case, there's little that the mainstream historical churches can do to attract the large numbers of people who simply want to make their own moral decisions without the interference of institutions or religions. Becoming more tolerant will give the churches a more friendly image, but won't make them any more attractive as centres of moral guidance. And if they lose that role, what future is there for them? I suppose they can exist as a cultural remnant, guardians of a certain heritage. This is a role that requires very few actual believers, and it certainly doesn’t require bishops who write controversial letters, about gay marriage or anything else!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

The problem with what are called liberal churches is that they are liberal only by comparison with conservative churches. They would be better described as conservative-lite because they still use the traditional forms of authority that are being rejected: scriptural interpretation and church tradition guaranteed by apostolic succession. This means that in some key issues they lag behind the wider society which has rejected those authorities.
[...]
An attraction to certain sorts of worship and worship experience can overcome this but I don't think that niche is as easy to pitch to people as offering them certainty - accept the authority and buy the package and everything will be guaranteed to turn out well in the end.

---

quote:

---

I think there will always be a demand of some sort for this kind of authority, although ironically the goal posts will continue almost imperceptibly to move as they have done over the centuries - much of what's considered hard-line conservative today would be thought impossibly liberal, if not heretical, if you went back a few hundred years.

---

quote:

---

When misogynist religions are allowed to censor and to have control of schooling and sex-education/birth control, then under those conditions they can make scary demographic come-backs. Have lots of children, get them while they're young enough, isolate them from other sources of ideas, subsidise the ultra-religious and tax others to pay for them because they vote as a bloc and can hold the balance of power...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I wonder if all churches universally taught that women were to be confined to the home. I imagine that this must be a particularly middle class phenomenon, not applicable to churches that catered to the working classes, where women were obliged to go out to work. So perhaps it’s a problem born out of the gentrification of the churches, rather than being intrinsic to all church culture.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
Every time I hear someone say, "I'm just speaking the truth in Christian love" my brain translates the statement to "Douchebaggery for Jesus!"

---

Am I allowed to get away with that, because I'm right out of deep and meaningful comments?

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
Every time I hear someone say, "I'm just speaking the truth in Christian love" my brain translates the statement to "Douchebaggery for Jesus!"

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mary LA:
Very hard to heckle or protest because he had a wide-eyed look of perpetual innocence that I associate with passive-aggression of the vicarly type.

---