Gay marriage thread

[Julien Sorel]

Non-believers love to refer to Galileo & The Spanish Inquisition when citing that a Pope and the Church can get things badly wrong. However, the great scientist Galileo was a convinced Catholic himself and certainly not anti-Church and a 'secularist'. That is often conveniently forgotten by those who still raise this centuries-old issue!

It was the Roman Inquisition, wasn't it? This is quite a neat summary of the interaction between the Church and Galileo http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physic...ww/node52.html (the throwaway final line is a bit naughty, perhaps ). Anyone here a specialist in the History of Science or the Philosophy of Science? IIRC Feyerabend's deliberately provocative, anarchist, argument was the Church was correct that Galileo was presenting hypothetical arguments as (ahem) dogmatically not hypothetical.

If I also recall correctly the reason Kepler and Descartes present scientific arguments as hypothetical was a result of the fall-out from the Galileo affair: presenting something as a hypothesis kept it in the realm of speculative theory and so protected it from dogmatic censure.

Milton refers to Galileo in Book 1 of Paradise Lost, having visited him in Tuscany in the 1630s, in an epic simile describing Satan's shield:

... the broad circumference
Hung on his shoulders like the Moon, whose Orb
Through Optic Glass the Tuscan Artist views
At Ev'ning from the top of Fesole,
Or in Valdarno, to descry new Lands

[ahinton]

We are talking about dogma and doctrine (at least I am) not the evolving of different stances on certain issues...

...Thankfully, though some may not have noticed, things have moved on a bit since then but this has little to do with essential Catholic dogma and doctrine which is wholly resistant to change.

But scotty, what precisely do you mean by Catholic "dogma" and "doctrine" and what is it about either or both that can justify unwavering and permanent resistance to any change whatsoever when all of society is constantly changing around it at an ever increasing pace? I do think that you need to be clearer about this and give us some idea why you believe that these things not only do not change but should not change in any way.

[amateur51]

Non-believers love to refer to Galileo & The Spanish Inquisition when citing that a Pope and the Church can get things badly wrong. However, the great scientist Galileo was a convinced Catholic himself and certainly not anti-Church and a 'secularist'. That is often conveniently forgotten by those who still raise this centuries-old issue!

Thankfully, though some may not have noticed, things have moved on a bit since then but this has little to do with essential Catholic dogma and doctrine which is wholly resistant to change.

Have a heart scotty, secularists (who they?) choose the example of Galileo because it's such a good example and anyone who has read about Galileo or say seen Brecht's play will be aware of what you say.

Doesn't stop it being a good example tho

[Pabmusic]

I don't think one can easily "accuse" the Catholic Church of 'often adapting to accord with contemporary secular morality', Pab,..

How right, Scotty.

Non-believers love to refer to Galileo & The Spanish Inquisition when citing that a Pope and the Church can get things badly wrong...

Not me, though.

Thankfully, though some may not have noticed, things have moved on a bit since then...

Thank goodness.

There is a deeper issue, though. The Bible is regularly reinterpreted in the light of new ideas or new discoveries, and huge chunks of it are ignored or 'spun' by apologists. (This is not a dig at Catholics as much as most Protestants.) We don't consider it moral to stone our unruly children to death, but that is what the Bible clearly says - in fact we would consider it grossly immoral.

[scottycelt]

But scotty, what precisely do you mean by Catholic "dogma" and "doctrine" and what is it about either or both that can justify unwavering and permanent resistance to any change whatsoever when all of society is constantly changing around it at an ever increasing pace? I do think that you need to be clearer about this and give us some idea why you believe that these things not only do not change but should not change in any way.

Well, I do try to be clear, ahinton, but let me put it like this, albeit in a rather slightly silly way ...

If some Catholics (including even the Pope himself) still believe that the Earth is flat well that's their perogative. Such belief is not in moral contradiction with any Catholic doctrine. A Catholic can believe our planet is shaped like the backside of an elephant if he/she is convinced that this is the case. No problem. I hasten to add I've actually never met any Catholics (or anyone else) who believe the Earth is flat (though I understand such folk do exist) or who espouse the 'backside of an elephant' claim.

However, if any Catholic were to deny the Catholic doctrine of, say, Transubstantiation he/she would no longer be a Catholic. The great majority of humanity (being non-Catholic) does not accept this doctrine. That's fine as no one or thing is forcing them to do so. Everyone can simply agree to differ and move on with their own lives whilst sticking steadfastly to their own beliefs whatever those may be.

There is even less chance of the Catholic Church ditching its core doctrines as Flossie suddenly 'outing' the shocking news that he has been a 'Closet Catholic' all his life, and has now found the courage to 'go public'.

Can you honestly see either or both of those earth-shattering events happening any time soon, ahinton ... ?

[amateur51]

Well, I do try to be clear, ahinton, but let me put it like this, albeit in a rather slightly silly way ...

If some Catholics (including even the Pope himself) still believe that the Earth is flat well that's their perogative. Such belief is not in moral contradiction with any Catholic doctrine. A Catholic can believe our planet is shaped like the backside of an elephant if he/she is convinced that this is the case. No problem. I hasten to add I've actually never met any Catholics (or anyone else) who believe the Earth is flat (though I understand such folk do exist) or who espouse the 'backside of an elephant' claim.

However, if any Catholic were to deny the Catholic doctrine of, say, Transubstantiation he/she would no longer be a Catholic. The great majority of humanity (being non-Catholic) does not accept this doctrine. That's fine as no one or thing is forcing them to do so. Everyone can simply agree to differ and move on with their own lives whilst sticking steadfastly to their own beliefs whatever those may be.

There is even less chance of the Catholic Church ditching its core doctrines as Flossie suddenly 'outing' the shocking news that he has been a 'Closet Catholic' all his life, and has now found the courage to 'go public'.

Can you honestly see either or both of those earth-shattering events happening any time soon, ahinton ... ?

You raise an interesting point here scotty, albeit perhaps unwittingly.

A good proportion of the more coveted secondary schools in UK are faith schools of which many are run by Catholics. The reasons for this are complex and I don't want to go into them now.

However regarding what you have said about transubstantiation, what would be the position of a Catholic state school on this matter? Would it be taught as a matter of course as part of the Catholic ethos of the school or would it not be regarded as part of the secular curriculum? Genuine enquiry

[ahinton]

If some Catholics (including even the Pope himself) still believe that the Earth is flat well that's their perogative. Such belief is not in moral contradiction with any Catholic doctrine. A Catholic can believe our planet is shaped like the backside of an elephant if he/she is convinced that this is the case. No problem. I hasten to add I've actually never met any Catholics (or anyone else) who believe the Earth is flat (though I understand such folk do exist) or who espouse the 'backside of an elephant' claim.

This is obviously not the kind of thing to which I was referring and, in any case, the tiny minority who continue to believe in a flat Earth are not exclusively Catholic, so this is something of a red herring, I fear

However, if any Catholic were to deny the Catholic doctrine of, say, Transubstantiation he/she would no longer be a Catholic. The great majority of humanity (being non-Catholic) does not accept this doctrine. That's fine as no one or thing is forcing them to do so. Everyone can simply agree to differ and move on with their own lives whilst sticking steadfastly to their own beliefs whatever those may be.

OK, now this time you've given a serious and relevant example, although a belief in transubstantiation is not exclusive to Catholics, as you know, even though other Churches that embrace it might or might not use that actual term to describe the phenomenon. Since I have no problem either with Catholics' or others' belief in this or with anyone else's disbelief in it and, since it seems to be both harmless in itself and not an especial candidate for victim status as a consequence of social changes, this is not a Catholic dogma that I assume there to be any need to change.

However, you've provided only one example, albeit a good one insofar as it goes. Pabmusic and I wrote earlier, between us, about five issues to which some might perceive a need for the Catholic Church to give due consideration in terms of its stance and which would represent fundamental shifts of the Church's long held "traditional" views were it to decide to amend its view on any of them, but you've not responded to these; would you mind doing so? These are issues that I'd like to be clearer about from your viewpoint, so that I can better understand what Catholic dogmas, doctrines and stances need not be changed and which ought be be regarded as being up for review. To remind you, these are from posts #690 and #693 in this thread and the issues are
1. The election of a "progressive" (i.e. open-minded and reforming) Pope
2. The abandonment of its prohibition of priests marrying
3. The recognition and acceptance of the legitimacy of gay marriage, at least in countries where the law provides for it and the Church has a presence
4. The acceptance of women as officials of the Church, whether as priests, bishops, cardinals, archbishops and indeed as candidates for the Papacy itself
5. The overt abandonment of its inculcation of fear and guilt.
In addition, there are the matters of abandoning the requirement for celibacy among its officials and an openness about investigating and/or having investigated allegations of sexual, psychological and physical abuse within its walls.

Whilst I don't know to what extent you might regard any or all of these issues as affecting or affected by Church dogma and/or doctrine, some response from you about all of this will help the rest of us to understand your viewpoints better.

I therefore invite you to "beam yourself up, scotty"!...

[scottycelt]

This is obviously not the kind of thing to which I was referring and, in any case, the tiny minority who continue to believe in a flat Earth are not exclusively Catholic, so this is something of a red herring, I fear


OK, now this time you've given a serious and relevant example, although a belief in transubstantiation is not exclusive to Catholics, as you know, even though other Churches that embrace it might or might not use that actual term to describe the phenomenon. Since I have no problem either with Catholics' or others' belief in this or with anyone else's disbelief in it and, since it seems to be both harmless in itself and not an especial candidate for victim status as a consequence of social changes, this is not a Catholic dogma that I assume there to be any need to change.

However, you've provided only one example, albeit a good one insofar as it goes. Pabmusic and I wrote earlier, between us, about five issues to which some might perceive a need for the Catholic Church to give due consideration in terms of its stance and which would represent fundamental shifts of the Church's long held "traditional" views were it to decide to amend its view on any of them, but you've not responded to these; would you mind doing so? These are issues that I'd like to be clearer about from your viewpoint, so that I can better understand what Catholic dogmas, doctrines and stances need not be changed and which ought be be regarded as being up for review. To remind you, these are from posts #690 and #693 in this thread and the issues are
1. The election of a "progressive" (i.e. open-minded and reforming) Pope
2. The abandonment of its prohibition of priests marrying
3. The recognition and acceptance of the legitimacy of gay marriage, at least in countries where the law provides for it and the Church has a presence
4. The acceptance of women as officials of the Church, whether as priests, bishops, cardinals, archbishops and indeed as candidates for the Papacy itself
5. The overt abandonment of its inculcation of fear and guilt.
In addition, there are the matters of abandoning the requirement for celibacy among its officials and an openness about investigating and/or having investigated allegations of sexual, psychological and physical abuse within its walls.

Whilst I don't know to what extent you might regard any or all of these issues as affecting or affected by Church dogma and/or doctrine, some response from you about all of this will help the rest of us to understand your viewpoints better.

I therefore invite you to "beam yourself up, scotty"!...

Oh, if only I could shine an enlightening beam on yourself, ahinton, if only ...

Your post only proves my previous point that it appears to be the Church's critics who get most hung-up about the Catholic Church's attitude to matters of sex.

You talk about 'open-minded' and 'progressive'. What I think you mean by that is modern secular fashion in regard to personal and social morality. The matter of married priests is not doctrinal and indeed could be changed by the Church if that were ever considered desirable. Now that former Anglican married priests have converted to Catholicism under special dispensation I feel this may well come sometime in the future. However, without meaning in any way to be rude, what conceivable business this might be to anyone outside the Church I haven't the faintest idea.

Men and women have traditional and different roles within the Church. That of course is not compatible with the modern secular view that men and women must have exactly the same rights and responsibilities in the service of any organisation. They call it 'equality'. The Church takes a rather different view. It readily accepts and indeed constantly promotes that men and women are of equal VALUE but are best performing different roles. As it happens that largely has been my secular experience as well, but never mind. The Church is often accused of being misogynistic and 'anti-women' which is ridiculous. The very same church upholds the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and reveres the Virgin Mary. No male Catholic saint is held in such reverence. (as far as I am aware).

Homosexual practice in common with certain heterosexual practices are contrary to the moral teaching of the Church and that has been confirmed time and again by various Popes. Therefore it's a bit silly to expect it to suddenly accept 'gay marriage'. It looks like it will have to accept it a a secular reality whilst continuing to oppose it. Abortion is a secular reality and is morally opposed by the Church (and others). Such is the imperfect world we inhabit.

Short of expecting the Church to abandon all its ethics if these conflict with modern secular mores I honestly cannot see the point you are making, ahinton. Honestly!

[Julien Sorel]

The matter of married priests is not doctrinal .... However, without meaning in any way to be rude, what conceivable business this might be to anyone outside the Church I haven't the faintest idea.

Couldn't agree more. So how come

'gay marriage'. It looks like it will have to accept it a a secular reality whilst continuing to oppose it.

If it's a secular reality, without meaning in any way to be rude , what conceivable business is it of (any) church (or Church)? And what business has any church etc. continuing to oppose it?

[Julien Sorel]

Men and women have traditional and different roles within the Church. That of course is not compatible with the modern secular view that men and women must have exactly the same rights and responsibilities in the service of any organisation. They call it 'equality'. The Church takes a rather different view. It readily accepts and indeed constantly promotes that men and women are of equal VALUE but are best performing different roles. As it happens that largely has been my secular experience as well, but never mind. The Church is often accused of being misogynistic and 'anti-women' which is ridiculous. The very same church upholds the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and reveres the Virgin Mary. No male Catholic saint is held in such reverence. (as far as I am aware).

Just one minor observation. Those in authority in your church are, of course, all men. So actually what is involved is men defining the rights and responsibilities women are allowed within the organisation and by extension in real life. The Church's view is the view of men within the Church, which is administered by men. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and reverence for the Virgin Mary define woman's place as entirely passive: fetishistically revered, perhaps, but a passive receptacle. Given that it's men who thought all this up, men who maintain its significance, it's all a bit self-referential really: like lions deciding wildebeest are of equal VALUE within the order of things, but their role is to be eaten by lions.

[jean]

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and reverence for the Virgin Mary define woman's place as entirely passive: fetishistically revered, perhaps, but a passive receptacle.

Another minor observation - the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is the doctrine that Mary herself was conceived without sin. It's nothing to do with her status as receptacle.

[ahinton]

Oh, if only I could shine an enlightening beam on yourself, ahinton, if only ...

But given the length of your post, perhaps you're about to try!

Your post only proves my previous point that it appears to be the Church's critics who get most hung-up about the Catholic Church's attitude to matters of sex.

Not really; the word order appears to be the problem here, in that it seems to me to be the Catholic Church that's "hung up" about certain matters of sex - specifically male and female homosexuality and the denial to women of access to the kinds of place in the Church hierarchy to which, as human beings, they surely have a moral and spiritual right, especially since being a priest, bishop, cardinal etc. is not merely "doing a job" but responding to an inner calling which I have no evidence to suggest is any less likely in a woman than in a man (although, of course, once again, the Catholic Church is not the only one where there are failings here) - and that climate of part antediluvian, part plain insensitive and bigoted attitudes of mind towards homosexuals of both sexes and towards women officiating within the Church, may arguably help to foster a breeding ground for sexual abuse.

You talk about 'open-minded' and 'progressive'. What I think you mean by that is modern secular fashion in regard to personal and social morality. The matter of married priests is not doctrinal and indeed could be changed by the Church if that were ever considered desirable. Now that former Anglican married priests have converted to Catholicism under special dispensation I feel this may well come sometime in the future. However, without meaning in any way to be rude, what conceivable business this might be to anyone outside the Church I haven't the faintest idea.

The "business that it might be" is that anyone who cares about human compassion - a fundamental tenet of Christ's teachings, as I've said before - is likely (and indeed might well feel a duty) to be concerned about discrimination against women and about the apparently duplicitous and illogically inconsistent attitude of a Church that sanctifies marriage between people of the opposite sex but at the same time denies its own priesthood access to that "honourable estate". I am pleased nonetheless to note your preparedness to countenance at least the possibility of a change on this in the future but, while we each wait for that actually to happen, I would add that it is unquestionably the business of people within the Church who would like to marry but who are denied that opportunity by their Church; just because I and others are "outside the Church" doesn't of itself signify that we don't care about the rights and rightful desires of those who officiate within it.

Men and women have traditional and different roles within the Church. That of course is not compatible with the modern secular view that men and women must have exactly the same rights and responsibilities in the service of any organisation. They call it 'equality'. The Church takes a rather different view. It readily accepts and indeed constantly promotes that men and women are of equal VALUE but are best performing different roles. As it happens that largely has been my secular experience as well, but never mind. The Church is often accused of being misogynistic and 'anti-women' which is ridiculous. The very same church upholds the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and reveres the Virgin Mary. No male Catholic saint is held in such reverence. (as far as I am aware).

Yes, that last bit is indeed true but, in so being, seems to me to illustrate once again a somewhat bizarre illogicality of approach. What I fear that the Church really seeks to do in endeavouring to hammer home its view that "men and women have traditional and different roles within" it is to persuade those inside and outside it that it alone has decided that these rôles are and must be different but sees no reason to justify such a view; how would you personally justify it? A lady that I used to know (we've lost touch years ago), when asked by her school careers adviser what her ultimate professional aim might be, she answered promptly and unequivocally "the position of Archbishop of Canterbury"; it wasn't a joke - she felt wholly committed to serving the (albeit Protestant) Church and felt a calling that might lead her to that exalted position and she went on to attain a degree in history and her doctorate of divinity, only to find scorn poured upon her aspirations by her Church on the grounds that women were unsuited to high office within it. I find that an inhuman and insensitive - and profoundly unChristian - attitude and it was one that, when she was patronisingly told that she should consider teaching instead, prompted her finally to sever her connections not only with the Church but with her faith on the grounds that it no longer had a Church capable of representing it. The Church's attitude to women seems to be one in it sees its upholding of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception and reverence for the Virgin Mary as providing to it an excuse to treat them as second-class citizens in certain areas of real life; what business is it of the Church to decide which rôles best suit women and which don't? - still less to determine that all women must be treated equally in the sense that all are suited to some rôles and likewise unsuited to others?

Homosexual practice in common with certain heterosexual practices are contrary to the moral teaching of the Church and that has been confirmed time and again by various Popes. Therefore it's a bit silly to expect it to suddenly accept 'gay marriage'.

It's not "silly", scotty, but that's not the point that I was seeking to address or with which I was endeavouring to engage you; that point, au contraire, is that a Church that persists in failing to accord to and accept that, in countries where it maintains a presence, laws have been passed that have removed restrictions on the practice of homosexuality and supported same-sex marriage is likely to risk increasing disengagement from contemporary society. Such a Church does not by definition have to abandon the teachings of Christ or the provision of pastoral care and spiritual succour to people as a consequence of engaging with secular law and, if it did, it would risk putting its future more and more on the line; what price a Church that openly and wilfully denies access to and frowns upon homosexuals, male or female, married or otherwise, when it is likely that Christ himself would have done no such thing?

It looks like it will have to accept it a a secular reality whilst continuing to oppose it.

That's surely like not having your cake and not eating it?! How in reality could the Church meaningfully and credibly adopt so duplicitous a position?

Abortion is a secular reality and is morally opposed by the Church (and others). Such is the imperfect world we inhabit.

Abortion isn't compulsory, or a part of a belief mechanism or tradition that merely happens to conflict with those of the Church! To imply anything of the kind would be not only patronising to women but also profoundly insensitive- as well as being incorrect. Women do not choose to abort lightly; choosing to undergo abortion, having it and living with the fact of having had it are almost always deeply traumatic experiences but there are on occasions social, financial and medical reasons why it might be the only possible route for a woman, yet the Catholic Church seems to maintain an anti-abortion stance even when it is deemed to be medically necessary; what kind of message does that send to people, inside or outside the Church, today?

Short of expecting the Church to abandon all its ethics if these conflict with modern secular mores I honestly cannot see the point you are making, ahinton. Honestly!

Well, I'm not asking that it does any such thing and I hope that this and the points that I'm making are clearer to you now than they appear to have been previously. Much of this is about the future of the Church and the more that it distances itself from society by displaying inflexibility and insensitivity, the more parlous that future is likely to become.

[ahinton]

Just one minor observation. Those in authority in your church are, of course, all men. So actually what is involved is men defining the rights and responsibilities women are allowed within the organisation and by extension in real life. The Church's view is the view of men within the Church, which is administered by men. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and reverence for the Virgin Mary define woman's place as entirely passive: fetishistically revered, perhaps, but a passive receptacle. Given that it's men who thought all this up, men who maintain its significance, it's all a bit self-referential really: like lions deciding wildebeest are of equal VALUE within the order of things, but their role is to be eaten by lions.

Very elegantly and pointedly put, if I may say so!

[ahinton]

Another minor observation - the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is the doctrine that Mary herself was conceived without sin. It's nothing to do with her status as receptacle.

Indeed - and, perhaps even more importantly, since it is a tenet of faith as distinct from a scientific possibility, it seems to be a conveniently contrived means of attempting to endorse the myth that she was "conceived without sin", which itself is a notion heavily imbued with patronising connotations, however implicit they may be.

[Julien Sorel]

Another minor observation - the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is the doctrine that Mary herself was conceived without sin.

Yes I did know that, sorry.

It's nothing to do with her status as receptacle.

Put differently: she's defined externally (her actions and selfhood are irrelevant, she is what she is by conception) and by extension she defines all other women (according to their difference from her).