my.PinkNews.co.uk

The assumption here is that Ratzinger’s message is adhered to, and is respected universally throughout the RC Church . . . it is not!

I think the great deal of "Black and white thinking from "Oriel College Oxford" is based on this assumption. If this was the case, then I think . . . thinking in this way would be warranted. However, I do not think it is.

Firstly, the world catholic is also a generic term used to denote diversity and electism. Although under Ratitzinger, this appears an oxymoron so to speak. Any one who is knowledgeable about the RC theology and spirituality will no that there is an irony here.

The libratory movements in other branches of Christianity which have seen the inclusion of LGBT people, has its roots in the Liberation theology of the South American churches . . . The south American Roman Catholic churches.

Is it no wonder that Jean-Paul the II and Ratzinger have systematically chosen to silence and make impotent these movements.

The assumption here is that Ratzinger’s message is adhered to, and is respected universally throughout the RC Church . . . it is not!

I think the great deal of "Black and white thinking from "Oriel College Oxford" is based on this assumption. If this was the case, then I think . . . thinking in this way would be warranted. However, I do not think it is.

Firstly, the world catholic is also a generic term used to denote diversity and electism. Although under Ratitzinger, this appears an oxymoron so to speak. Any one who is knowledgeable about the RC theology and spirituality will no that there is an irony here.

The libratory movements in other branches of Christianity which have seen the inclusion of LGBT people, has its roots in the Liberation theology of the South American churches . . . The south American Roman Catholic churches.

Is it no wonder that Jean-Paul the II and Ratzinger have systematically chosen to silence and make impotent these movements.

Good morning. First of all, "Oriel College Oxford" at the end of my last message was an answer to a question from someone who wanted to know where I had been to university. I didn't see its relevance but it's not a secret so I answered.

I accept your definition of the word "catholic" (small "c"). I thought it was clear from the context that I was using in neither in the sense of "universal" nor in its broader religious sense (as in the creeds of the Church of England for example): I meant it in its primary sense of "Roman Catholic". I think you knew that.

I do not dissent from what I think you imply, that the RCC faced a turning point in the sixties. It could have developed along the lines of many more accepting institutions - and Vatican II laid the foundations for this. But it didn't - and as you rightly point out the liberation theology movements and other progressive stirrings (such as the genuine hope I remember from some of my RCC friends when I was growing up in the 60s that what became Humanae Vitae would turn out more sensibly) were suppressed by the present Bishop of Rome and his predecessor.

Now we are where we are. The RCC (I speak here primarily of the UK but Maine is in my mind) is the foremost organised political threat to gay rights in this jurisdiction. It lead the campaigns against civil partnership (de facto gay marriage); against the right for gay couples to be considered for adoption; against the equalisation of the age of consent; against the discrimination laws that protect LGBT people from, for example, being refused service at hotels and guest houses just for being gay (unless there was a whopping great exclusion for rights of conscience , i.e. religious bigotry). And so on. An RC priest has just deservedly jointly won the bigot of the year award for appalling remarks abut gays and paedophilia. And the absolute monarch of this organisation has recently delivered himself of the charming proposition that the elimination of gay rights is more important to the world than the fight to deal with climate change.

All of that could perhaps have been otherwise if the RCC had changed. But, lead by some uncompromising bigots (two in particular), it didn't.

So what are we to make of those who are gay and now support it? What in particular are we to make of those gay people (I exclude those who accept its doctrine that they must be celibate if they are gay: they are clearly nutters)? Someone who attends the rituals of an institution such as the modern RCC (reminder: an organisation which is not democratic, not an organisation where people are free to speak their own mind or participate in any ordinary political process to change the institution's outlook on the world: it's take it or leave it. And what they take is the clearest statements and actions against gay people that I have heard in this country. I think it therefore entirely legitimate to label an regular gay Mass attender a hypocrite, as giving overt support of one of the main sources of anti-gay political action in this country. In the case of a gay person who actually joins the RCC has to make a public statement that s/he accepts all the RCC teaches, that is a fortiori hypocrisy (Blair being the most recent example).

Whereas my earlier postings, just after hearing about the Maine referendum result, the winning homophobic side being largely funded by the RCC were somewhat aggressive, I don't resile from the basic principle: gay Catholics are hypocrites. There are plenty of Christian churches they could join (a gay-friendly C of E parish if they really must). If they feel family pressures they will be better off by fleeing from those pressures and from unhealthy emotional blackmail. More than hypocrites, they are also lending aid and comfort to the gay community's biggest political enemy in the UK today.

For the record, I fully accept that there are other threats. The RCC is only one, although the main one, of many enemies. Nearly every sect in that pestilential province, Northern Ireland, for a start. And everything I have said about gay adherents to the RCC applies to them too.

Harry

Thank you, Harry, for clarifying your position.

I must say that I cannot disagree completely with your principal ideas.

I would only add that, as in most religious institutions, all the faithful do not adhere to all the teachings of the church in question, e.g., birth control. After the publication of Humanae Vitae, for example, many, very many Catholic men lined up at hospitals for vasectomies without saying a word to their pators about it.

Also, I am the first to agree with you that the failure of Vatican II to bring the RCC into the 20th century has been its demise, and the fact that the pews are more and more empty is most signficant as to the future of the institution. Furthermore it was a catastrophic blunder for the Vatican to silence its most progressive thinking theologians, notably Hans Küng.

Likewise, many nations who belong to the UN do not respect the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights in its entirety.

However, your point that practicing gay Catholics contribute financially to the RCC's campaign to deprive us of our equal civil rights is spot on.

Speaking in favour of gay Catholics, it is a known fact that millions of them (us) have formed organisations which denounce papal teachings on human sexaulity as well as its refusal to dialogue reasonbly with professionals of all kinds on the subject of updating Catholic theology. These gay Catholics, which can only be called dissenters who are following their consciences, do not contribute any money to Rome's totalitarian regime.

However, as someone who has gradually succeeded in transcending the belief system of the RCC, I can say that one has to be highly motivated to do so because the RCC mentality is practically in our "genes" in a manner of speaking.

Speaking of other enemies of the world's gay population, we would do well to educate ourselves on the events that are brought about by the Islamic Jihad movement, a tremendous threat to all "infidels", gay or not. Educate ourselves, and defend ourselves.

Finally, let me repeat that I do not disagree with you.

Harry

Thanks for clarifying your position.

I cannot disagree with your concern about the Roman Catholic Church, where we do differ is perhaps the nature of the threat from the RCs in the UK.

I do feel concerned about the Roman Catholic churches involvement politically and legally in the US. In the UK however I feel they are less influential, if not partially castrated. I think this is evident in a number of issues.

Firstly, the UK has forced the RCs to change their policy on their adoption societies, or go close. The only serious legal challenge appearing to come from the Scottish societies; perhaps spurred on by the SNP under Alex Salomd’s with his statement that he differed with Westminster on adoption policy and would like to save and accommodate the Catholic societies.

Secondly, although I cannot ignore the Popes position on homosexuality, partly because of the publicity that his statements receive, and also the influence these may have on contemporary attitudes. Moreover, his statement that Homosexuals are "an intrinsic and morally disordered evil" although disturbing, does not have the effect on the church you might imagine. Even the Pope’s words of hatred are some what impotent. For example, a leading ecumenical directive from the UK RC base with regards gay Catholics reads almost like a well thought out and right on, so to speak equality of opportunities policy. I am referring to guide lines not to exclude homosexual people from congregational life, by being attentive to the potential damage of heterosexist and homophobic language. If you are laughing at this point, well so am I. To have such a hypocritical, if not schizoid attitude towards homosexuality is one reason why I think they render themselves impotent.

Thirdly, the issue of celibacy is being to look rather ridiculous with the Popes overtures to the Church of England’s disaffected priests, and his invitation to them to swap Rome for Canterbury . . . and bring their wives.

I am far more concerned with those Christians who are organised politically and legally, hence my group to challenge the “Christian Institutes” presence on face book.
If Lillian Ladele were to win her case, what a disturbing precedence this would create!

JohnK

Thanks John

I do not for a moment dissent from your view that the Christian Institute and its friends are a serious threat. Indeed my next task is to lend support to the Facebook campaign (though I will have to join Facebook first ). But do not underestimate the political power of the Church of Rome, especially in areas where there are many unassimilated Irish immigrants. The church is perceived (wrongly IMHO) as mainstream by the ordinary political establishmen, who tend to dismiss CI as a bunch of nutetrs (as indeed they are). It has a very active political lobbying arm. That is why I am angered by those of our fellow members of the gay community who implicitly endorse their campagns by attending their services. They are enenies, but not the only ones.

As to the better actions of some of the Catholics - such as welcoming gay people to their congregations - you are correct. I laugh at such nonsense. I wouldn't be surprised if the contituents churches of the CI would say the same. When they are prepared to say overtly to the majoirty of bigots in their communities that my committed and monogamous gay relationship within a CP (i.e. a gay marriage) is of no moral difference to any committed and monogamous hetersexual relationship within a marriage, then they and the turncoats who support them from within the gay community will no longer deserve at best our pity (some are under heavy psychological pressure) or at worst our contempt. Until then....

All the best

Harry

Join Facebook if you want, but be ready to receive hundreds of unsollicited messages from total stangers wanting to be your "friend".

It took me an entire morning to deactivate my account, and I will NEVER join Facebook again.

You can set Facebook to ignore freind requests