|
|
Post by andyc251 on Aug 11, 2008 23:30:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ouch on Aug 11, 2008 23:36:19 GMT -5
lol, read that one earlier today too...
|
|
|
|
Post by Claire on Aug 12, 2008 5:54:48 GMT -5
Well, not really, considering the Church frowns on masturbation as well.
I'm used to it, but I find it sad that people find it so easy to bash the Church even though with Jason's well-written post, we now know that there are Catholics on the board (I am a practicing Catholic myself). No respect for other people's feelings and beliefs. Anti-Catholicism is the last respected bigotry on Earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Triassic on Aug 12, 2008 7:51:25 GMT -5
well, there's nothing wrong w/well-reasoned critique...but what bugs me is IGNORANT anti-anything; in this case catholic doctrine. in fact, there seems to be a kind of wild anger and hatred directed toward ANY religious belief. i don't mean on this board necessarily, but more generally in modern culture. richard dawkins and george carlin are exemplars of this trend. i personally am not a christian, nor even a theist, exactly...but i have respect for religious perspectives and religious people-partly, i suppose because people i love hold those sorts of views and i see how it has benefitted them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pony on Aug 12, 2008 8:29:28 GMT -5
First, too damn funny about the park bench-fucker!! I thought I was desperate. lol On a serious note, it makes me angry at a church, or anyone, that would exclude someone from marriage because they can't 'hump.' Pretty amazing in this day and age, really. I thought there was much more to sex and a relationship than that. And, for Natasha, the girl probably never realized he was impotent because he was making her cum so damn good through OTHER means. And you know what 'other' I mean!!! lol Yup, I've been guilty of bashing Catholicism, mainly because I can't stand blatant hypocrisy that's built on fear and guilt. It's not just Catholics for me. It's politicians that stand in the way of gays getting the marriage certificate or vote against it, then get caught trying to suck cock. For me, most religion is a hypocritical and complete lies, but I'm not really AGAINST it. I'm just not FOR it. As Matisse said, 'It's their club!' If you need this 'form of getting high' in your life, more power to you. Religion has always tried to hold back knowledge because it answers all the hard questions so easily, and they don't really want you asking questions anyway. If God said NO CHAIRDUDE THAT CAN'T FUCK CAN GET MARRIED, then hey, it's God, can't question that, can you? Natasha, I'm also amazed how easily they leave out the parts about God's love of everyone...blessed are the poor...love one another with brotherly affection... Please don't take this as bitter, hateful or bashing!! I actually think religion has it's place, and is not all bad for bringing people together trying to do good deeds. I just feel they're misled, deceived and anytime you draw a circle around your group and declare WE'RE THE ONES WITH ALL THE ANSWERS then you're setting up an atmosphere to discriminate against those not in THE CLUB. You can't 'masturbate' either?  Didn't know that. Sheeesh. |
|
|
|
Post by andyc251 on Aug 12, 2008 8:48:58 GMT -5
Well, not really, considering the Church frowns on masturbation as well. You're perfectly right, that guy obviously has no place as part of a church congregation, he seems much more suited to priesthood! I can't help but see the irony (again!) that the church frowning on masturbation would mean that 99.99% of any congregation are 'sinners', other than perhaps the paraplegic guy who cant masturbate because he's impotent. I'm used to it, but I find it sad that people find it so easy to bash the Church even though with Jason's well-written post, we now know that there are Catholics on the board (I am a practicing Catholic myself). No respect for other people's feelings and beliefs. Anti-Catholicism is the last respected bigotry on Earth. Criticizing a supposed good will organisation for openly and proudly discriminating against one of it's own loyal members purely because of his disability is hardly bigotry or anti-catholicism, it's simply anti-discrimination. I would of commented exactly the same had the organisation involved been any other church or religion. No respect for other people's feelings and beliefs. Why does the slightest criticism, or even questioning, of any religion immediately draw claims of a lack of respect? The rest of us are expected to defend our prejudices, but the moment you ask a religious person to justify their actions, words or beliefs, or dare point out flaws in their chosen religion you are immediately accused of bigotry, a lack of respect or infringing on 'religious liberty'. Why do religious beliefs have to remain so completely off topic? Why do I have to respect them automatically and without reason simply because they are religious? It's because of religions complete inability to withstand counter arguments, analysis and criticism. The moment anyone is so 'bigoted' as to question or lampoon a religious doctrine, the religious immediately withdraw into complete indignation at the 'lack of respect' and cite it as an attack on 'religious liberties'. If religious discrimination had any decent foundation at all, other than 'it's my religious belief' then I might be able to accept them despite their ugliness. But there's no sensible reasoning behind them at all. They deserve no more or less respect than any other ideas or actions that can't be substantiated, just as I am free to criticize anything else, I am free to criticize religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Claire on Aug 12, 2008 10:34:32 GMT -5
Well, not really, considering the Church frowns on masturbation as well. You're perfectly right, that guy obviously has no place as part of a church congregation, he seems much more suited to priesthood! I can't help but see the irony (again!) that the church frowning on masturbation would mean that 99.99% of any congregation are 'sinners', other than perhaps the paraplegic guy who cant masturbate because he's impotent. Well, we're all sinners. Nobody's perfect, certainly not me. I don't think that any religion teaches that certain people are perfect and only those perfect members can belong to the congregation. FWIW, I have difficulty with this particular doctrine myself. It's certainly a hard one to come to terms with. I don't think anyone who doesn't have a great faith in the church and its teachings could understand it. There's a level of faith and trust involved that most people don't have. I don't blame you for having a huge problem with this issue. The Church's intention is not to discriminate against the couple, it's intention is to uphold the teaching and understanding of what a marriage consists of and to protect its understanding of the marriage covenant. There are other avenues that the Church would have allowed the couple to take; Jason took one, and the couple (and maybe even the bishop concerned, unfortunately) were unaware of the options. The whole situation sucks. My problem wasn't with the questioning. Like I said, it's hard to understand and it's a valid question worth discussing. My problem is more with the derogatory terms like "ignorant" and "hypocrisy", and with confusing the actions of fallible human beings (ex. Christians who forget about "love one another", as Tony mentioned) with actual church doctrine. Everyone sins. I do. But that doesn't mean that because I sin, that my church actually condones it or that I'm actually living what I profess to believe. Sad, but true, and universal. Everywhere. For example I know people with certain disabilities who use derogatory language towards people with other types of disabilities. People of X minority who discriminate against Y minority. Rampant ignorance and hypocrisy everywhere. Mostly based on a lack of understanding. Triassic was right when he said: We're all railing at each other and both sides (like myself) are guilty of knee-jerk reactions before we try to truly understand the other.  Yes, you are. And I am free to defend it. Nope, I can't substantiate it because it's based on faith in a God I can't see, but whose actions I can feel in my own life. It's real, and very personal, and pretty much impossible to explain to someone who needs physical proof. I've seen the physical proof (for example, I've experienced miracles), but of course, how could I show it to you? Maybe someone wiser than me has the answer to that. My intention wasn't to attack you Andy personally or anyone else. I apologize. |
|
|
|
Post by E on Aug 12, 2008 11:47:49 GMT -5
Anti-Catholicism is the last respected bigotry on Earth. It's not really bigotry. You choose to be Catholic. If you chose to be Communist or, even worse, a George W. supporter, it wouldn't be bigotry for me to mock on you then, either. |
|
|
|
Post by Claire on Aug 12, 2008 13:34:12 GMT -5
Well, according to the American Heritage Dictionary a bigot is "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. " However, according to that definition, I could be accused of that myself. Note to self: reread John 8:7. *sigh*
|
|
|
|
Post by E on Aug 12, 2008 14:41:23 GMT -5
Why does the slightest criticism, or even questioning, of any religion immediately draw claims of a lack of respect? Most people are ignorant. This applies to religious people, as well. Sadly. The rest of us are expected to defend our prejudices, but the moment you ask a religious person to justify their actions, words or beliefs, or dare point out flaws in their chosen religion you are immediately accused of bigotry, a lack of respect or infringing on 'religious liberty'. This shouldn't be either. If a person is in a religion they can't defend intelligently, they should a) become more educated or b) switch religions to one that is defendable. Why do religious beliefs have to remain so completely off topic? Why do I have to respect them automatically and without reason simply because they are religious? You don't. And you shouldn't. It's because of religions complete inability to withstand counter arguments, analysis and criticism. This isn't true. I fully welcome, invite, and encourage counter arguments, analysis, and criticism of my religion. Its ability to withstand is crucial. However, some people, on both sides of the issue, are impossibly close-minded and set in their beliefs, no matter how much evidence and sound logic you place before them. This is clearly wrong. The moment anyone is so 'bigoted' as to question or lampoon a religious doctrine, the religious immediately withdraw into complete indignation at the 'lack of respect' and cite it as an attack on 'religious liberties'. This annoys me, as well. Again, a person should be able to defend their religion if they believe it. Otherwise, why are you wasting your time? |
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 12, 2008 22:21:58 GMT -5
Would it have been discrimination if, instead of the prospective groom being disabled, he was 12? Or if he were still in a previous marriage? Or if he was openly homosexual? In none of those situations would Catholic theology concerning what marriage should be allow him to be married in the Catholic church. In simplest terms, it's a rule; and without rules, any organization is bound to descend into disarray. And I can't state this enough: research it enough, and you will understand why the theology (rules) is what it is. Then put emotions aside, and you will understand why the Catholic church could not marry this man. So was it really undisputed that his sperm was no good? I wasn't under the impression that he'd had some sort of test, but the article didn't say. At least the way we use the terms, impotence is not the same as fertility. If they didn't know for sure he was unable to have children, why not give the bugger a chance? And even if his sperm count was really low, why not give him a shot. As for your comment about the pedophilia reaction being limited to priests, I don't. I'm not letting my boys alone with lots of men, including priests, teachers, coaches, boy scout leaders, etc. In fact, I am really glad that boy scouts has so many women involved in it when the kids are younger (den mothers, etc.). |
|
|
|
Post by BA on Aug 13, 2008 6:18:24 GMT -5
As stated in the first post of this thread, the prospective groom stated that he was impotent, which is what caused the whole denial of marriage in the first place. There is no 100% guarantee of impotence in anyone, even after a vascectomy ( unless they have had their testicles removed entirely).
All religions have their rules and doctrines, some much more conservative and stringent than others. I feel I have to right to walk away from a religion whose creedos I cannot live with (I did), a right to criticize what I disagree with and an obligation to show a degree of tolerance towards others who have a different set of beliefs than I do.
My particular church (Episcopal) has a 'Sinners' entrance, literally marked with a sign (that's the door I use), an openly homosexual Priest and Bishop and is facing the possiblity of being kicked out of the World Anglican Communion for our subversive ways. I am happy with my faith and wouldn't begrudge anybody theirs.
|
|
|
|
Post by E on Aug 13, 2008 8:02:28 GMT -5
Laughing makes my mouth hurt, but I must say, I couldn't help but laugh when I saw this...  |
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 13, 2008 11:38:36 GMT -5
As stated in the first post of this thread, the prospective groom stated that he was impotent, which is what caused the whole denial of marriage in the first place. Yeah I know that's what it says, but what does it mean? Jason's response focused on fertility, which is not necessarily the same thing. Did this guy get declined because he said he was infertile, or because he said he couldn't engage in traditional intercourse in a natural way, without drugs? I have a vague recollection that the question is worded oddly. When I was asked the question, I remember thinking, "how would I know the answer unless I had engaged in sex, which I am not supposed to have done?" I don't recall thinking that there's no way I would know whether or not I was fertile. This was a long time ago though.......... |
|
|
|
Post by Claire on Aug 13, 2008 12:35:59 GMT -5
Matisse, this blog post by a Catholic priest (Father Joe) might shed some light on that: fatherjoe.wordpress.com/instructions/catechesis/questions/impotence-marriage/ It's kind of long, but I recommend it for anyone who has a sincere wish to understand the whys and wherefores of the Catholic Church's position on this. You can also ask him questions about it in the comments and he will answer. I asked him about BIID (the post I recommend above has nothing to do with BIID whatsoever) and was treated with a very, very long response. It was a lot of time for him to spend on a complete stranger. I didn't like much of the answer either, and struggle with that in much the same way that Jason struggled with the church's position on marrying paraplegics. But it doesn't make me want to leave the Church. I, also, had many many questions long ago, and they were all answered to my satisfaction. Question after question, I've come to trust that the Church is wiser than I am. Now, my inability to grasp this one is more likely due to my being too close to it, to my being blinded by mental illness and emotion and my own personal desires, and not with any faulty logic on the part of the Church. Although to be perfectly honest, unless my bishop addresses this personally with me, I reserve the right to withhold a tiny bit of doubt until someone figures out EXACTLY what BIID is and the Church is able to make a judgment on it based on the medical facts. Regarding marrying paraplegics, Fr. Joe himself said: "Further, modern technologies have made available various pump mechanisms (requiring surgery) which would make possible an erection. If there is some transmission of seminal fluid, then again, marriage might very well be permitted" and decisions may well have come down from the Church that were based on both the disabled and Church parties ignorance of biology and the possibilities. And where a doubt exists, then the marriage may go forward. Unfortunately, Eric is right...if people are going to defend their faith then they need to become more educated about it. To my dismay, I can no longer reproduce the arguments that so convinced me back when I was studying theology in a Catholic university. Many of the fine details of much of the logic are gone with the wind and what is with me now is the faith. That's what I need most in my life anyway. I realize how lame that sounds. But thankfully, that's not the case with all Christians and Catholics. If anyone really, REALLY wants to know, then I can put you in contact with knowledgeable people who can explain it to you. |
|
Didn't know that. Sheeesh.
