Vatican Starts Campaign Vs. Gay Marriage

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally posted by DWAlphaGam


President Bush (news - web sites) said Wednesday that marriage was defined strictly as a union between a man and a woman and said he wants to "codify that one way or the other."

WHOA!!! Something must not be right because me and Pres. Bush actually agree on something!

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by DWAlphaGam
The Vatican (news - web sites) launched a global campaign against gay marriages Thursday, warning Catholic politicians that support of same-sex unions was "gravely immoral" and urging non-Catholics to join the offensive.I guess the pope has never heard of separation of church and state.

Let's understand that this is a "global campaign."

Also, the Constitution protects religion from government -- not the other way around. Seperation of Church and State isn't at issue here. If a church can manage to gain control of a political party through numbers and vote in it's candidates -- so be it. However, unless they can vote in a President and majority of both houses of Congress, they don't really control anything. Even if they did, they'd have the Courts to contend with.

Bottom line, at least in this country, it's not totally a governmental issue (even though some pressure is being put on politicians), but rather a moral one.

George Bush is an elected government official and may suffer some consequences over his stand. While the Pope is also a head of state, he wasn't elected by the public -- and is also a spiritual leader for people in most parts of the world.

There are vast differences.

Although there is a lot of precedent in the past, it still strikes me as strange that the Catholic Church would come out with this pronouncement at this particular time.

It's interesting that we start looking at this as a government vs. church issue. It really isn't. It is a "global" moral issue. The Pope and his Church talk to a lot more people than just us in the United States.

[lifesaver]

MEMORANDUM

To: Pope John Paul II

From: lifesaver

Date: July 30, 2003

RE: Ya just dont get it
______________________________________________

It has come to my attention that you are still not getting it. Maybe its cause you're about 300 years old, really sick, or beginnign to just loose it, but you gotta cut this holier than thou routene if you wanna have more than 3 peopel left in your denomination by the end of the 21 century.

Dotn get me wrong, I actually admire many of the steps you have taken on peaceful issues. Holla. However, you fail to see that you are driving away hundreds of thousands of faithful in America and the world becasue you continue to let politics get in the way of spirituality. Your stance on divorce, women in the church, safe sex, and now gay marrage and adoption have proved that your papacy is out of touch with many of your faithful. Amercians have long considered themselves "a la cart" catholics and pick and choose the idologies and policies they choose to follow. What kind of membership is forced to act this way? A membership who no longer feels connected to the mother church.

You need to adapt the beliefs and policies of the church, and fast. The rapid rise of non-denominational churches and a move away from organized religion is proof that there is indeed a crisis in your church. Its only a matter of time.

Adapt and survive, or resist and perish.

You're close to becoming about as relevant as a polio shot.

[ZTAngel]

The Vatican is calling gay marriages "immoral".

hmmmm....

This is coming from the same people who have attempted to sweep priest molestation charges under the rug. That, to me, is immoral.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

[bcdphie]

Newsflash!!!


Canadian society has just imploded on itself due to the recent legalization of same sex marriages in BC and Ontario

[adduncan]

Originally posted by lifesaver
MEMORANDUM


You need to adapt the beliefs and policies of the church, and fast. The rapid rise of non-denominational churches and a move away from organized religion is proof that there is indeed a crisis in your church. Its only a matter of time.

A couple of problems with your logic:

1) The pope can not change "beliefs and policies". He can emphasize, expound upon, reinforce, or coin a new term if necessary, but he does not have the authority to change the moral theology of the church.

2) The latest scandal isn't even close to being the first one the church has faced in 2000 years. I would wager it's not even the largest. You want to talk about scandals in the priesthood? Start with the 12 apostles: Judas sold Jesus out to his enemies and Peter denied knowing him a all. By your description the church (and all of Christianity) should have died right there. It didn't.

Going back into the background on this one...
Adrienne (PNAM-2003)

[Optimist Prime]

I like the idea of gay marrige. If two people love each other enough to be like "I don't want any one else" then that is them and of no concern to me. I'll still invite them to neighborhood cook outs. Just as long as they don't beat their kids or spouse or spill anything on my carpet. Other than that, its not really my business.

[lifesaver]

Originally posted by adduncan
A couple of problems with your logic:

2) The latest scandal isn't even close to being the first one the church has faced in 2000 years. I would wager it's not even the largest. You want to talk about scandals in the priesthood? Start with the 12 apostles: Judas sold Jesus out to his enemies and Peter denied knowing him a all. By your description the church (and all of Christianity) should have died right there. It didn't.

Going back into the background on this one...
Adrienne (PNAM-2003)

True, but I never said it was the first or largest scandal in the churches history. The point I was trying to make was that recently, its been scandal upon divisive issue for the church and at times they have been unwilling to adapt. The difference is NOW its costing them membership in droves, especially in the us. Hold to your beliefs for all I care, but its gonna come at a cost.

Also, regardign the Apostles, I think its a stretch to consider them the early catholic church. THey considered themselves a faction of judiasm. Most of the rest of the near world did too. It wasnt till later that Christianity emerged as a seperate religion/philosophy from judiasm. I would say the reformation and the scientific revelations of the middle ages were much more of a scandal than what the church is facing today. Of course, back then youd have different factions of christians fighting wars supporting/opposing the pope. Im glad things have simmered down a bit.

[blueGBI]

WOW!! I acutally agree with Bush and the Pope! Hell just froze over!!!




*This happy former Catholic thought that there was no shot in hell where she would agree with Bush or the Pope so agreeing with both at them at this time has made her dizzy.

[PhiDeltAlum]

I have been a long time reader. I never post but I feel as though I've got to give my 2 cents on this subject.

lifesaver: Are you even Catholic? You keep stating that the church is losing many members in the US because of the church's inability to adapt. Do you even have evidence to back this up? Membership in the Catholic church in the US has actually risen in the past 10 years. (Yes I actually do have the numbers on that). Besides only 20% of the US population are actually Catholic so I have a hard time understanding why non Catholics even care about the well being of the church.

I'm responding, because reading from the threads I feel as though there's animosity towards the Pope and church. I take particular offense to what some of you are saying. The church is not perfect and I have yet to actually meet any Catholic who actually agrees with everything the church teaches. There is no such thing as a "Perfect Catholic". For example, even before the priest molestation scandal broke out, I never agreed with the notion that priests should be single and celibate. Also there's no denying the fact that the church definetly needs to clean up its act.

As for the stance on gay marriage. I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic schools all my life. I don't believe in gay marriage but does that make me homophobic? Am I a bigot? No. I have a good friend who is a lesbian and is like a sister to me. She knows my views. She doesn't agree but she respects it and vice versa. You've got to understand that people will not always agree with you.

As for my personal view, I believe that gays should not be discriminated against. They should have many rights but the one thing I don't agree on is marriage. Why? Marriage has always been a moral as well as legal issue. For thousands of years it's always been man and woman. Then all of a sudden, society has become so liberal within the past 30-40 years that people who don't accept certain beliefs like gay marriage such as myself are close-minded? and that we're not "with the times"? I know that homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time but those are my personal beliefs and they are not necessarily influenced by my faith.

Keep in mind however, that the Catholic church is not the only christian church to oppose gay marriage. Baptists are just as vocal against gay marriage and I know that this has become a very hot button issue in the Jewish community as well.

Polls show that Americans are pretty much split on the gay marriage issue. The reasons for disliking gay marriage is just as numerous as those supporting it.

[bethany1982]

Good post PhiDeltAlum.

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by aephi alum

I also found it interesting that they made strong statements against gay couples adopting children. Supposedly it's not in the "best interests of the child" to have two fathers and no mother, or two mothers and no father. So let's see... if there are kids up for adoption in a given area, there are no heterosexual couples around who are willing to adopt, but there are homosexual couples who want to adopt, it's actually preferable that the kids should sit around in an orphanage or in foster care rather than be adopted by two loving parents who just happen to be of the same sex???

This bothers me about the ban on gay adoptions in a lot of states (like my home state of Florida). A wanted child is a loved child. If two men or two women who have been in a long-lasting stable relationship, have the desire to raise a child, and have the financial wherewithal to afford the expensive adoption process want a child, what's the problem? One of my best friends would make an amazing father--does the fact that he's gay negate any potential as a stable father figure?

I'm a little confused about some stuff. Everyone's been saying that the Pope doesn't have the authority to change beliefs and doctrines. What was Vatican II all about, then? Wasn't that an era of major reform and change within the church, which impacted Catholic (and to some extent) and world society? Is it time for Vatican III to address te issues of child molestation, contraception to prevent the very real, very scary spread of AIDS, and other issues?

[kappaloo]

Originally posted by Optimist Prime
I like the idea of gay marrige. If two people love each other enough to be like "I don't want any one else" then that is them and of no concern to me. I'll still invite them to neighborhood cook outs. Just as long as they don't beat their kids or spouse or spill anything on my carpet. Other than that, its not really my business.

EXACTLY!!!!

[adduncan]

Originally posted by Munchkin03


I'm a little confused about some stuff. Everyone's been saying that the Pope doesn't have the authority to change beliefs and doctrines. What was Vatican II all about, then? Wasn't that an era of major reform and change within the church, which impacted Catholic (and to some extent) and world society? Is it time for Vatican III to address te issues of child molestation, contraception to prevent the very real, very scary spread of AIDS, and other issues?

I'm probably going deeper in to an answer to this than many people are willing to accept or listen to but here goes.

In Catholic teaching there is Tradition with a big "T" and tradition with a little "t". Big T's can not be changed. These are the fundamental moral and faith principles that the faith is founded upon.

Little t's however, are more flexible. These are disciplines, not doctrines. They are practices that are intended to reinforce and remind the faithful of what we believe and why. These can be changed. Because life and cultures and languages and the world in general changes, little t's can be modified if necessary if their relevance doesn't have the same impact. However, they do not come into conflict with the Big T's.

Vatican 2 was about "little t's". It was actually a continuation of Vatican 1 which ended prematurely when the Pope who called it died suddenly. Vatican 1 examined the relational role between the bishops/higher-up church authorities and the priests. It was supposed to continue on to examine the relationship between the local priest and the parishes: but like I said, that part didn't happen.

Vatican 2 picked that part up: re-examining the roles and relationship between the priests and parishioners and deciding what role each needed to play in evolving society. Such things as lay altar servers, the language of the Mass, etc. are all "little t's". So discussion of these (and their dissemination by the media) made it sound like a much bigger shift than it was, when taken against the backdrop of nearly two millenia of history.

Another word about councils: there's been lots of them. A problem comes up as a result of society evolving and changing, the church leadership meets about it, and decides how to respond. That's pretty much it. And this has been going on for several centuries. So "changes" and "councils" really aren't new and certainly didn't start in the late 1960s.

Re: artificial contraception: many people who persue these issues are not Catholic and dont' give a tinker's dam what the Pope has to say about anything. So even if "the church" changed its teaching (and it wouldn't, because you are now in the territory of Big T's) it really wouldn't have any effect on the people making the most noise on these issues. Re: AIDS--also a result of people ignoring traditional teaching on sex. You don't have to like that statement, but you'd be hard pressed to argue w/ it.

Re: child molestation: this is already a sin and has been acknowledged as such. The issue is how to handle the perpetrators. (Before anyone else continues to single out Catholics and how they handle child molestors, I'd like to point out that the "seal of confession" extends to other denominations and religions as well. They just don't have as structured "confessional" process as Catholics do. Protestants are every bit as capable of sweeping these crimes under the rug-- you just don't hear the media decrying them.)

Given the tone of most posts about Catholic anything, I have a very real belief that what I just typed is going to fall on deaf ears. Besides, there are a LOT of details that are just not going to fit in a GC thread. So this is more than likely my last explanation on GC of finer points of Catholic teaching. If anyone wants to hear more, hit the "email" button and I'll be glad to chat in private. If you email to argue or condemn or "I don't mean to be mean, but....." I'm not going there. And I can promise that if someone wants to learn something, I'll explain it but not force it--I can't change anyone's mind any more than they can change mine.

Aint' tolerance a great thing???

Adrienne (PNAM-2003)

[OUlioness01]

the problem is that we catholics are supposed to believe that the pope is infallible. that means what he says goes. i'm technically sinning if i don't agree with his beliefs. what's weird though is that one pope can totally contradict what another pope says. therefore, in 50 years or so the church could totally do a 180 and support abortion and nontraditional unions and it would become accepted immediately.