Religion
Related: About this forumCatholic bishop: Being born gay isn’t what God intended — it’s like Down’s syndrome
Irish Catholic bishop said on Monday that homosexuality — like Down’s syndrome or spina bifida — was not part of God’s plan, and that same-sex couples with children were “not necessarily parents.”
In an interview with the NewsTalk Breakfast radio program, Elphin Bishop Kevin Doran argued that voters should reject an upcoming referendum to legalize same-sex marriage because LGBT couples could not procreate.
According to Doran, it was not a “sin” to be gay, as long as people did not “behave” like homosexuals.
“What the church asks of people who are homosexual by orientation is exactly the same as what the church asks of people who are heterosexual, that they reserve sexual relationships to marriage,” he explained. “Now, it’s a completely different question to say that we believe marriage is between a man and a woman.”
The radio host asked the bishop people being born gay was “as God intended.”
“That would be to suggest that some people are born with Down’s syndrome or spina bifida, that that was what God intended,” Doran opined. “The thing about it is, I can’t see it in the mind of God.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/catholic-bishop-being-born-gay-isnt-what-god-intended-its-like-downs-syndrome/#.VP5Mk98Xzxc.facebook
This bigot did get one thing right: "I can’t see it in the mind of God" - indeed as that would be like seeing into the mind of Harry Potter. So perhaps as the bigot admits that he has no fucking clue what his alleged deity wants, how about he opts for non-bigotry over bigotry?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)This bishop is an ass.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Concise and cogently stated.
longship
(40,416 posts)They argue that one cannot know the mind of god while simultaneously arguing from authority from the pulpit. Does anybody else see this as hypocrisy?
Alas, it is a standard ploy.
okasha
(11,573 posts)When it's as blatant as it is in this bishop's case, though, I think I'd vote for stupidity.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)motivated by the wonderfulness of his "faith", which is as legitimate as anyone else's.
Or so some here have argued.
longship
(40,416 posts)I think that William of Okham sliced off hypocrisy centuries ago.
Well put, my friend. Thank you for keeping me honest.
pinto
(106,886 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)He can't possibly mean what this says, any more than the pope meant that the Devil was punishing Mexico.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Stop sacrificing the dignity and love of others to your own pride.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)to me an uncontroversial view, rooted in biology, although it overlooks evolutionary developments in humans (such as the lack of an annual rutting season) that suggest a social role for human sexuality, associated with pair bonding, that could also serve evolutionary ends
The traditional Catholic view can certainly be used in bigoted way, but the view itself is not necessarily bigoted: Catholic theology teaches that we must love others despite their failure to meet Catholic ideals; and moreover it teaches that (in fact) every single one of us constantly fails to meet Catholic ideals. This accords with the ancient Christian admonishment
... How can you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and fail to notice the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck from your eye’, when there is a plank in your own? You fraud! Take the plank from your own eye first; then you can see clearly enough to remove your brother’s speck ...
What trivial debts are owed to us
Take a look at yourself and you can look at the others differently
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 20, 2015, 11:58 AM - Edit history (1)
the natural purpose of sexuality is reproductive. This seems to me an uncontroversial view, rooted in biology,
it isn't rooted in biology, as there are obviously other reasons why all sorts of critters engage in all sorts of sexual acts, outside of reproduction.
For the record, the entire message responded to:
The Catholic Church's view is that the natural purpose of sexuality is reproductive. This seems
to me an uncontroversial view, rooted in biology, although it overlooks evolutionary developments in humans (such as the lack of an annual rutting season) that suggest a social role for human sexuality, associated with pair bonding, that could also serve evolutionary ends
The traditional Catholic view can certainly be used in bigoted way, but the view itself is not necessarily bigoted: Catholic theology teaches that we must love others despite their failure to meet Catholic ideals; and moreover it teaches that (in fact) every single one of us constantly fails to meet Catholic ideals. This accords with the ancient Christian admonishment
... How can you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and fail to notice the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck from your eye’, when there is a plank in your own? You fraud! Take the plank from your own eye first; then you can see clearly enough to remove your brother’s speck ...
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Literally that simple.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)That's some bullshit right there.
okasha
(11,573 posts)you're attacking religion, not religious people.
You're right. That's some bullshit.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)We can see where they lead, what those 'ideals' foment. Pass.
Denying women, catholic or not, basic healthcare.
Denying non-heteronormative couples catholic or not, of any combination, the right to marry.
Denying the terminally ill, catholic or not, the right to end their suffering on their own terms.
You're damn skippy I don't meet catholic ideals.
If someone suggests I do, now we've got a fight.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Catholic morality on sexuality is rooted in Natural Law, which, despite the name, has nothing to do with naturalism or naturalistic and scientific explanations of sexuality. Instead is based on philosophies of ancient Greek philosophers, and the rough summary is this, every action, body part, etc. is supposed to act a certain way to be ordered, when it doesn't act this way, its disordered, and therefore wrong. This was developed well before Evolution was solidified, which, by the way, completely blows such overly-simplistic ideas out of the water.
The problem is that Natural Law assumes a goal in mind, even if that mind isn't specified.
The tradition Catholic view is bigoted, by definition, look at the fucking Catechism if you don't believe me, its right here:
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. (SIDE NOTE: I think I've heard this before.) Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
To be honest, given your history of posts on homosexuality, I do wonder if you actually agree with the Catholic Church on this, and that's why you defend it so voraciously. Perhaps you would be happier on a more suitable board.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)respect, compassion, and sensitivity"?
Unvanguard
(4,588 posts)because the genitalia of their partners aren't the right sort. 
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Only if they endeavor to 'perfect' themselves with chastity and prayer...pfft.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)The Catholic church teaches they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity and also teaches by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection
The second is not given as a precondition for the first
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Would dictate conditions on my life and all others using a secular government and it's ability to enact laws that codify those same beliefs. Women, LGBT, etc. are not comforted by religious meddling in things they have no business being involved in. I want them, their money, their wailing and tooth gnashing out of my government. Their hate and bigotry is anathema to our constitution and our future as a country.
I don't care about the fine divides of 'Catholic' meaning, sorry. I know from life experience how people use their religion on others.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)taught that people be "accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity"? unless they bore the mark of Cain. What's bigoted about that?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)display any of those qualities, oh, and you left out the "unjust discrimination", they never specify what is just or unjust.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)How can something happen that the ALL POWERFUL, OMNIPRESENT and OMNIPOTENT creator of everything didn't intend???????
Religion is ridiculous.
Beside, what to these ego driven daddy types who dropped out of normal society know about it? They obviously cannot deal with reality. What a joke... a bad joke that deliberately hurts people.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)call the Catholic Church a hate organization.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I see you've joined a yacht club. How jolly for you. I'm sure you'll enjoy the company.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)
Warpy
(111,274 posts)says that semen contains tiny, perfect, male human beings and any deviation from this is an aberration. That means a woman who has girl children but no boys was often suspected of witchcraft or of having witches curse her or of being ill or defective in some way. It made it a lot easier for the crowned heads to discard wives through annulment since they were defective if they only had girl babies.
Since the church has accepted this idiocy as fact for so long, it has had to revamp it by turning those tiny perfect male seeds into metaphorical or spiritual ones, but the theory is still there in the background, bubbling up through church doctrine like poisonous marsh gas: women are defective males; children who aren't born 100% normal, hetero and male are a result of some defect inherent in the woman; god's plan is for the world to be populated 100% by healthy hetero males.
They haven't thought any of this through because god. They haven't accepted modern scientific discoveries that say semen only contains DNA propelled by a flagellum because Aristotle and god. They are incapable of seeing women as fully human and variations in the human population as completely normal because god.
I really wish the Vatican were capable of change. Since that isn't the case, it's time for the church to discard it.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)of church attitude's towards Aristotle and his views, before turning to attack the church for supposedly basing its views on some Aristotelian error
Now, in fact, Aristotle's views seem not to be as you state, for he says in Book II of On the Generation of Animals
Now it would appear irrational to suppose that any of either the internal organs or the other parts is made by something external, since one thing cannot set up a motion in another without touching it, nor can a thing be affected in any way by another if it does not set up a motion in it. Something then of the sort we require exists in the embryo itself, being either a part of it or separate from it. To suppose that it should be something else separate from it is irrational. For after the animal has been produced does this something perish or does it remain in it? But nothing of the kind appears to be in it, nothing which is not a part of the whole plant or animal ... How, then, does it make the other parts? Either all the parts, as heart, lung, liver, eye, and all the rest, come into being together or in succession, as is said in the verse ascribed to Orpheus, for there he says that an animal comes into being in the same way as the knitting of a net. That the former is not the fact is plain even to the senses, for some of the parts are clearly visible as already existing in the embryo while others are not; that it is not because of their being too small that they are not visible is clear, for the lung is of greater size than the heart, and yet appears later than the heart in the original development. Since, then, one is earlier and another later, does the one make the other, and does the later part exist on account of the part which is next to it, or rather does the one come into being only after the other? I mean, for instance, that it is not the fact that the heart, having come into being first, then makes the liver, and the liver again another organ, but that the liver only comes into being after the heart, and not by the agency of the heart, as a man becomes a man after being a boy, not by his agency. An explanation of this is that, in all the productions of Nature or of art, what already exists potentially is brought into being only by what exists actually; therefore if one organ formed another the form and the character of the later organ would have to exist in the earlier, e.g. the form of the liver in the heart.
Aristotle has, of course, later been found wrong about many things, which is unsurprising, since we have now had 2300 years to discover better ways to understand such questions. But his view was obviously not the homunculus theory you would put in his mouth.
A second point regards the attitude of the Catholic church towards Aristotle. The reality, here, is that much Greek learning was lost to the West and was preserved instead in the East, nearer to where most of those texts originated, until somewhere around the time of the Crusades, at which point copies of the lost texts began to come into Europe. The scholastic glorification of Aristotle would have been impossible prior to the thirteen century work of Thomas Aquinas, who made a monumental effort to show that Aristotle's methods could be consistent with Christian theology. This effort did not meet with immediate universal approval: the bishop of Paris twice issued sweeping condemnations of Aquinas, in 1270 before his death and again in 1277 after his death. It is, therefore, inaccurate to portray Christian theology as flowing somehow by Aristotle's views; although many people have admired the Thomist synthesis, it was a rather late development, and the contribution of Aquinas was to organize theology according to the principles of Aristotle's logic, rather than to base a theological system on Aristotle's writings, as if they were gospel