What don’t they get? They know the position of the church. This is just a way of mocking religion. It is standard gay activism. We all sin but the problem is these individuals wear theirs as a label
Gay Carnival “Prince” Denied Communion by Dutch Priest
- Thread starter Brian Foley
- Start date
What don’t they get? They know the position of the church. This is just a way of mocking religion. It is standard gay activism. We all sin but the problem is these individuals wear theirs as a label
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
What don’t they get? They know the position of the church. This is just a way of mocking religion. It is standard gay activism. We all sin but the problem is these individuals wear theirs as a label
I'm actually shocked. I thought the Dutch were about as liberal and open-minded as they come. I guess the bigotry of organized religion has no limits.
I thought everyone was a sinner. Hell, they protect their own pedophile priests. Where's the forgiveness? Not that I care, they can reject gays from their own private club if they want, it's just hypocracy.
hypocrisy on your part. plenty of pedophile charges against all religions, just google some key words and you would be surprised what turns up. including non-religious pedophiles which is statistically MUCH higher. I really dont know any religions that openly accepts gays accept for some christian denominations, but maybe there are some more.
regardless, no matter where it takes place, the victim (or parent) is advised to go right to the police.
For some reason, homosexuality is seen as a mor grave sin than, for instance, divorce, or coveting your neighbors wife, or theft. Why is that? Even a convict or felon is more accepted.
My answer is that the activities considered offensive by society preceeded the creation of any particular religion, which simply codified these into religious law.
My answer is that the activities considered offensive by society preceeded the creation of any particular religion, which simply codified these into religious law.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Maybe, maybe not. I think that as long as mankind has been able to think and analyze, there has been religion in some form. The primitives saw the sun rise and set and automatically assumed a higher power must exist that caused this, and thus with speculation and even fear, the concept of religion was formed. I'm not sure about homosexuality and pedophilia (mentioned earlier) and where it stood in the early days of mankind. However, understanding basic human nature and instinct, I'm sure it was quite popular and not looked down upon. I think that it wasn't UNTIL organized religion became common, controlling and so on, that concepts of homosexuality and pedophelia were shunned to some extent. To further explain this: many religions = the governments/leadership for thousands of years around the world and in different cultures at different points in time. Homosexuality was shunned by the early Christians and Jews due to population numbers that needed to increase to support the local military's in order to fight wars and defend ones country/territory. And of course homosexual activity not producing offspring, the churches/governments limited men to only having sex with women. This in turn was written in scriptures (which were the tribal and local laws of the time). One must keep in mind that in those days, there was no separation between church and government in numerous parts of the Middle East as well as Europe, for the church WAS the government. The same can be seen in East Asian, Native American, and African histories and cultures.
superstring01
Moderator
There was a time--that still exists in much of the world--when procreation was the ultimate sign of wealth and familial loyalty. Many children meant the continuation of family traditions and the accumulation of wealth. Religious dogma naturally included such ideals. "Be fruitful and multiply!" And all that.
This concept is dying in much of the world, and in those places--not surprising--the stigma with homosexuality is evaporating as well.
~String
Gay Carnival “Prince” Denied Communion by Dutch Priest
too bad...
too bad...
Bells
Staff member
So why do you remain a Catholic?
I should agree with everything the Catholic church does or believes? I do believe in the Creed, which is the most elemental element of faith. But the Church's sociality and politics haven't always been the same, you know. Marriage, ordination of women, etc.
Now, if you want to take the gay thing as a sin, then one could argue he's being a bit open about it, and it does qualify as "extramarital sex". If I was openly having extramarital affairs (which is the same as above, Canon law-wise), I expect my priest would probably ban me from Communion also. It's a tough one. I don't like the idea of banning someone from Communion, but then again technically it's legit. I don't have affairs, obviously, but I am a sinner and I almost never go to confession, bastard that I am, so actually I don't take Communion either. I haven't had it in...years. Decades. Maybe if I confessed I would. Probably, should, really. Not a good idea, theologically speaking, to be hanging around unshriven, as it were.
Bells
Staff member
Their rules and teachings have remained the same. Women still cannot be priests and gays are still barred from marriage and communion in the church. Which leads me on to the following:
Nice. The religion bans them from marriage and then denies them communion (yes, it is very common for homosexuals to be denied communion once it is known they are homosexuals) and then their defenders say 'well they are having extramarital sex, so we are allowed to deny them their holy communion'. I won't bother to point out the obvious in that argument.
You are one of the privileged in your religion. You are allowed to actually get married. Homosexuals are denied that right and denied the right to their sexuality under the very religious doctrines you adhere to but, apparently, don't always agree with.
How you can even attempt to defend it is quite astounding. You say you do not believe in it, but here you are defending it. My parents are strict Catholics and even they don't try to defend it because they know that the Church, in all its wealthy glory, is wrong.
No. It is not a tough one.
So it is legit to ban and refuse homosexuals the right to marry and then deny them communion on the basis that they are having extra-marital sex?
You consider that "legit"?
It is a disgrace.
Good for you.
Now picture homosexuals who find themselves branded as sinners for simply being homosexuals, going to confession and then being denied communion because they admitted they were homosexuals.
Honestly, you can have affairs and sin as much as you like. You can go to confession and all is put to right. Homosexuals are not granted that right in the Church. They are denied it because they are homosexuals. Extra-marital sex is just the excuse the Church gives to attempt to cover its arse for its bigotry and discrimination.
Is this some kind of anti-gay thread? *reads Foley's words in OP...*
As for the women bit, there were women preachers in the 'original' Church, which I'm still counting as Catholic.
I just think we've gone the wrong way since.Calm, calm: Yes, it isn't very nice, is it? Essentially my feeling is that the issue could be challenged using overt legalistics. Anyone confessing to a sin - or rather, anyone being overly guilty of 'sin' - can't get it. There's no legal way you couldn't pop a confession and get it and then go out and 'sin' again, of course, and I'd like to see someone object to that tactic. You're right on the marriage aspect - I think you could challenge it by getting married in another religion, perhaps (United, Anglican) - and then converting. Still, the whole thing would fall apart in the face of sheer obstinacy. My feeling is this - make some kind of face stipulation to marriage itself (gay or otherwise) and then get the Communion - and then get the Communion. Still again, that probably wouldn't work. Don't imagine for a moment that I consider homosexuality a sin, however.
Ha! Who says I adhere to them? And which ones? I've already mentioned the Creed, and that's what Catholicism really is, in my humble humble. Anyway, my question was whether or not one could Canon-legally deny me Communion if I and the wife had sex before marriage, and it was known so. Possibly; I tend to think not but that wouldn't actually be defensible either. Perhaps I attach an importance to Communion in proportion to the recipient's interest, or interest in maintaining religious 'diligence'.
Defending it?? I'm not defending it in the slightest. I'm merely pointing out that I think you could make the argument that you ought to be married; you could deny any heterosexual person having sex Communion, although this is obviously a lot less likely. I suppose if one were very overt about it. I don't know that the guy in this case is, of course. What I'd be interested in seeing is a legal challenge from a gay married couple on the basis that they are married.
It certainly is. I've known a few priests, and the commitment of any given priest to the specifics of Church ordinance varies massively as to individual. It's hardly a very catholic (meaning universal) church in point of fact. Some certainly wouldn't care. Others are strict assholes. So it is indeed a tough one to say that one or another wouldn't. There are really no uniform expectations in my experience. But rest assured that I understand completely the point you are making about inherent bias.
Oh, stop your goddamned moaning. Do you actually think I support that rot? Give your head a shake.
Probably so. I've known a few Catholic homosexuals but never really asked about the issue. My point is rather that you couldn't (under some approximation of Canon law) deny homosexuals who've had sex Communion if they've confessed, as any person couldn't be denied Communion so far as I know in the same circumstances. I've no doubt that even that tenuous assumption is violated, of course. The telling challenge would be a civil challenge on the basis of gay marriage, which I think might work. Although I suppose the conservative side would argue back to Leviticus, which is absurd.
further more thats wrong, technically PB and I, my brother and his wife (before they got married), my uncle and his partner ect are "having extramarital sex" because we are defacto couples. The church couldnt care less about defactos consistantly and openly giving them communion. Its only if someone is known to be gay that they bring out that argument