Gay marriage thread

[ahinton]

It's much much more fundamental than the "few rouge priests" that they would have us believe i'm afraid

That's the most amusing Freudian slip that I've read in ages! Point taken, though (and in broad accordance with one that I made earlier in response to scotty).

It's interesting to note that everyone I have spoken to about this who was in their youth part of church music of all brands has a "story to tell" about what went on, not all are as terrible as some but some things are so deeply embedded that I think maybe they should follow the advice of Edwin Collins ("Rip it up and start again" )

Hmmm; put together the problems of this nature that appear to be rife within certain Churches and those that are increasingly being revealed about what goes on in some music education establishments and it could be argued that 2 + 2 make an awful lot more than 4...

[MrGongGong]

That's the most amusing Freudian slip that I've read in ages! Point taken, though (and in broad accordance with one that I made earlier in response to scotty).

ooops

[ahinton]

I wouldn't be quite so confident. Times are very different now, with instant mass communication. I think the Catholic Church will have to do at least two things if it is to have a chance to recover. First, it will have to elect a 'progressive' Pope (if that is not an oxymoron); and second, it will have to abandon the prohibition on priests marrying.

True as far as it goes, but I don't think that those two alone will suffice. Firstly, the Church's attitude to and policy concerning gay marriage (the subject of this thread, after all!) will surely have to change, at the very least in all countries in which the Church has a presence and the law supports same-sex marriage. Secondly, it will need to revise its policy on women priests, bishops, cardinals, archbishops et al. Thirdly, it will have to abandon - and be seen unequivocally to abandon - its inculcation of fear. These five things, taken together and accepted in full, would arguably identify the need for the most fundamental overhaul of the Church since its inception.

The rule requiring celibacy is not that old anyway. Remember that Lucrezia Borgia was one of the eight (?) children of Alexander VI.

It's also not a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith, either; it is, as you say, a mere "rule" created by one particular Christian Church long after the death of Christ.

[Pabmusic]

True as far as it goes, but I don't think that those two alone will suffice. Firstly, the Church's attitude to and policy concerning gay marriage (the subject of this thread, after all!) will surely have to change, at the very least in all countries in which the Church has a presence and the law supports same-sex marriage. Secondly, it will need to revise its policy on women bishops, cardinals, archibishops et al. Thirdly, it will have to abandon - and be seen unequivocally to abandon - its inculcation of fear...

Oh yes. The result of this all may well be to cause a schism between the West and those (often developing) countries where Catholicism holds sway. That will change the nature of the Church fundamentally.

[Flosshilde]

The rule requiring celibacy is not that old anyway. Remember that Lucrezia Borgia was one of the eight (?) children of Alexander VI.

The rule requiring celibacy from priests somewhat pre-dated Alexander VI's reign. He just ignored it. It seems to be the most ineffectual rule of the Catholic Church.

[Pabmusic]

The rule requiring celibacy from priests somewhat pre-dated Alexander VI's reign. He just ignored it. It seems to be the most ineffectual rule of the Catholic Church.

Why am I not surprised?

[ahinton]

The rule requiring celibacy from priests somewhat pre-dated Alexander VI's reign. He just ignored it. It seems to be the most ineffectual rule of the Catholic Church.

Does it really? Given the extent of its adherence and the paucity of examples of its breach (at least in terms of those cases of which we know), it doesn't look that way from here! You've made some very pertinent points in this part of the discussion but I can't quite see eye to eye with you on this one! What seems to me to be the most important issue about it, however, is that there's neither an obvious reason for such a celibacy "rule" nor and obvious advantage in having or adhering to it, as it has no clear connection with the raison d'être of the Church or the practices with which it is charged with responsibility.

[ahinton]

Oh yes. The result of this all may well be to cause a schism between the West and those (often developing) countries where Catholicism holds sway. That will change the nature of the Church fundamentally.

Perhaps so, but I'm not so sure that this will be of especially great importance, actually; those "developing" countries will inevitably change in many ways, not least culturally, as a consequence of such "development" if indeed it takes place and is sustainable, so ultimately even the outcome of such a schism may diminish over time.

[scottycelt]

I won't get involved in the same old arguments. I have said in the strongest possible terms that there is much wrong within the Catholic Church.

However, a Catholic cleric simply espousing traditional Catholic ethics seems perfectly reasonable and a quite natural thing to me, in the same way as a Marxist will preach Marxism and football managers will always shout and bawl at referees.

The trouble with the Catholic Church is not the clerics who practise what they preach but those who do not! The O'Brien and clerical child-abuse cases have done much greater damage to the Church than anything else.

The Catholic Church is not going to change its ethics however much atheists and others shout and bawl in the same way as referees will continue to ignore the shouting and bawling on the touchline of Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger ... and if they are to do their jobs properly, rightly so!.

To think otherwise is both naive in the extreme and pure wishful thinking.on the part of non-believers, I'm afraid.

[amateur51]

I won't get involved in the same old arguments. I have said in the strongest possible terms that there is much wrong within the Catholic Church.

However, a Catholic cleric simply espousing traditional Catholic ethics seems perfectly reasonable and a quite natural thing to me, in the same way as a Marxist will preach Marxism and football managers will always shout and bawl at referees.

The trouble with the Catholic Church is not the clerics who practise what they preach but those who do not! The O'Brien and clerical child-abuse cases have done much greater damage to the Church than anything else.

The Catholic Church is not going to change its ethics however much atheists and others shout and bawl in the same way as referees will continue to ignore the shouting and bawling on the touchline of Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger ... and if they are to do their jobs properly, rightly so!.

To think otherwise is both naive in the extreme and pure wishful thinking.on the part of non-believers, I'm afraid.

So you'll accept that as a result of choosing wilfully not to embrace change, all educational and social care contracts beteen the Catholic Church and the State should be suspended pending further investigation, standard setting, etc?

[MrGongGong]

However, a Catholic cleric simply espousing traditional Catholic ethics seems perfectly reasonable and a quite natural thing to me,

No it's not "reasonable" and not in any way "natural"

The trouble with the Catholic Church is not the clerics who practise what they preach but those who do not!

No , that's the mistake they make over and over and over again that leads to the covering up of abuse
the "trouble" is much deeper than that
and unless they REALLY get their little heads around that then history will repeat itself again and again

The O'Brien and clerical child-abuse cases have done much greater damage to the Church than anything else.

no shit Sherlock


Having met some really inspirational people in your church (as I mentioned before about a school staffed by nuns in Limerick ) I only wish those who really DO do good things could find a way to ditch the whole nasty organisation and carry on doing the obviously good work that they do. Sadly I think the whole sick organisation is riding on the back of some dedicated folk who HAVE benefitted the world. Loosing the stupid sex /guilt thing would save countless lives from a HIV and improve the lives of many women in developing countries BUT the sad dysfunctional leaders of the church don't really give a toss about that.

[ahinton]

I won't get involved in the same old arguments. I have said in the strongest possible terms that there is much wrong within the Catholic Church.

And I think that most itf not all of us here who've read your various recent comments about this accept that, scotty -and, indeed, some of us have expressed due appreciation for your candour.

However, a Catholic cleric simply espousing traditional Catholic ethics seems perfectly reasonable and a quite natural thing to me, in the same way as a Marxist will preach Marxism and football managers will always shout and bawl at referees.

But now you seem to be retracting from your position, to the extent that what you write here appears to suggest (unless I misunderstand you) that you're less than amenable to changes to at least some of those "traditional Catholic ethics" that, whilst "traditional", are clearly not "ethical". I have no interest in considering soccer managers' behaviour towards referees beyond observing that this is hardly a helpful comparative, but since at least some Marxists preaching Marxism will recognise that Marxism today (not the now long defunct journal of that name!) and the political, technological, cultural et al environments in which it might or might not thrive has inevitably to be a quite different phenomenon to that of the society in which it began, it is surely not above the Church to move with the times in order to survive.

The trouble with the Catholic Church is not the clerics who practise what they preach but those who do not! The O'Brien and clerical child-abuse cases have done much greater damage to the Church than anything else.

Of course!

The Catholic Church is not going to change its ethics however much atheists and others shout and bawl in the same way as referees will continue to ignore the shouting and bawling on the touchline of Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger ... and if they are to do their jobs properly, rightly so!.

To think otherwise is both naive in the extreme and pure wishful thinking.on the part of non-believers, I'm afraid.

But one must question what its ethics actually are in the light of recent and not-so-recent actions on the part of its officials and of the recent and not-so-recent covering up of those actions; one is not, after all, expecting the Catholic (or for that matter any other) Church to change its ethics per se but to ensue that it does not abandon any of them in the ways that certain of its officials have done - and I do not for one moment believe that more than a vanishingly tiny minority of "atheists and others" are "shouting and bawling" for that Church to do this; openly facing up and admitting to transgressions and doing all possible to ensure that they're consigned to history may involve and/or lead to a fundamental overhaul of Church practices and openness but do not, after all, require a change of ethics.

[ahinton]

So you'll accept that as a result of choosing wilfully not to embrace change, all educational and social care contracts beteen the Catholic Church and the State should be suspended pending further investigation, standard setting, etc?

To be fair, scotty was referring specifically to changes of ethics and, as I've already stated, what needs to be sought is an overt adherence to its actual ethics along with an equally open willingness to consider changes to those five issues that Pabmusic and I raised between us a few posts back, of which none need necessarily involve a change of ethics per se.

[ahinton]

To scotty's statement that
The trouble with the Catholic Church is not the clerics who practise what they preach but those who do not!
you replied

No , that's the mistake they make over and over and over again that leads to the covering up of abuse
the "trouble" is much deeper than that
and unless they REALLY get their little heads around that then history will repeat itself again and again.

Whilst what scotty observes here does not address the entire issue, I don't think that your response here is either entirely fair or correct; how "ethical" in principle would it be for a priest to practise one thing whilst preaching another? (subject, of course, to what it is that's being preached, which I fully accept to be a second, albeit equally important, matter).

Having met some really inspirational people in your church (as I mentioned before about a school staffed by nuns in Limerick ) I only wish those who really DO do good things could find a way to ditch the whole nasty organisation and carry on doing the obviously good work that they do. Sadly I think the whole sick organisation is riding on the back of some dedicated folk who HAVE benefitted the world. Loosing the stupid sex /guilt thing would save countless lives from a HIV and improve the lives of many women in developing countries BUT the sad dysfunctional leaders of the church don't really give a toss about that.

As so often happens, we find ourselves confronting the two opposite possibilities of reform from within or destruction from both within and without; I suspect that there are many Catholics - not least those "really inspirational" ones to whom you have yourself drawn attention here - that would eagerly advocate the former as not merely the better option but an essential requirement to ensure that any genuinely and demonstrably "nasty" part of "the...nasty organisation" be dispensed with once and for all. With your last sentence, however, I am broadly in agreement and only fundamental leadership change will succeed in addressing this as it should be.

[MrGongGong]

Whilst what scotty observes here doe not address the entire issue, I don't think that your response here is either entirely fair or correct; how "ethical" in principle would it be for a priest to practise one thing whilst preaching another? (subject, of course, to what it is that's being preached, which I fully accept to be a second, albeit equally important, matter)..

Maybe they should stop preaching some of the offensive and harmful nonsense that the church tradition has created over many years ?
and concentrate on trying to make the world a better place for those who are less fortunate than themselves ?