Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (110468)	4/21/2005 5:32:22 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793771

This is the religious equivalent of having had four terms of George W. Bush only to find that his successor as president is Karl Rove. What, were the votes stolen? Is he demanding a recount? Should we send in Jimmy Carter to observe the Cardinals next time? I don't get it. Yes, Andrew, it's the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Were you hoping that now that that old fuddy-duddy, Karol Wojytla, was buried, they'd bring in a snazzy new gay pope, or maybe a lesbian? Someone who was going to renege on all the years that the Church has been saying that practicing homosexuality is a mortal sin, and that marriage is between a man and a woman? And tell you that you can f@(% whoever you want, however you want, whenever you want, and still go to Heaven? Sheesh. Go read the Gospels, Andrew. Either you believe them, or you don't. Your decision. Andrew is the mortal enemy of everything that the Church stands for, and he expects the Church to change. Sort of like a gnat attacking the Queen Mary.

To: LindyBill who wrote (110468)	4/21/2005 5:45:34 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793771

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger on the topic of homosexuality back in 1986 -- here's an exerpt: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation's "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being "intrinsically disordered", and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4). In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.<< vatican.va ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And here's the 1975 Doctrinal Document referred to, relevant excerpt on homosexuality, which demonstrates that Sullivan has been lying to himelf about the Church's acceptance of homosexuality: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people. A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable. In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life. In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of." vatican.va The Catholic Church has never wavered from the position that sexuality is only to be expressed within a sacramental marriage, and that the purpose of sexuality is procreation, not licentiousness.

To: LindyBill who wrote (110468)	4/21/2005 7:16:45 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 793771

"By "filth," I suspect he means gay people" How can anyone read Sullivan when he is so narrow minded. He presents his own agenda! forget about flith being everything else outside gay community and only applies to gays in his opinion. Sullivan picks and chooses his quotes to express his ideas like a cafeteria Catholic. In being so selective he loses any credibility.

To: LindyBill who wrote (110468)	4/21/2005 11:35:38 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793771

"In the last forty years or so, the Church has officially revoked its previous anti-Semitism, it has changed the very structure and vernacular of the mass, it has doubled the number of saints in heaven, it has shifted its position on religious and political liberty, it has apologized for the Inquisition, it has declared that homosexuality is innate and without sin as a condition, it has ordained married priests, it has innovated a new policy against all forms of artificial birth control, and dramatically strengthened its teachings against the death penalty. If you were to believe James Lileks, none of this would have been even faintly possible" The church can and does recognize matters of simple fact, or change policies. But there is a difference between either of those things and changing the moral positions of the church. The mass can change in form without compromising the mass or the church. Declaring additional saints isn't even really a change, the church has always done this and these is nothing that says the rate has to be steady. "Shifted its position on religious and political liberty" is to vague and unspecific to respond to. If the church actually has declared homosexuality as innate (and I think that overstates what the church has done) that is a declaration on current opinion about matters of fact, not morals or theology. The moral opinion is still that homosexual activity is immoral. That has not changed. Ordaining married priests isn't a fundamental change in the church it is just a change of current practice. It breaks no moral law that the church has ever held and it violates no theological principle. Also its a very limited change. The Roman Catholic church allowed already married priests from a church that was restoring communion with Rome to remain both priests and married, such a decision fits perfectly with long standing church principles. Disagreeing with sexual activity that is not open to procreation is a long standing opinion of the church. The exact particular policy may be relatively new but the principles behind it are not. Re: "the Church has officially revoked its previous anti-Semitism...it has apologized for the Inquisition" Anti-Semitism wasn't the church's previous position. Arguably it may have been a frequent attitude of the church, at least it certainly existed to some extent. Repudiating this negative attitude isn't a change in position at all. Apologizing for mistakes and moral errors also fits well with the basic ideas of the church. Tim