I've had it with the Catholic/Christian gaybashing

(66 Posts)
Tortington Sat 12-Jan-13 22:17:27

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9795680/Gay-marriage-could-signal-return-to-centuries-of-persecution-say-1000-Catholic-priests.html
re: the above article, ive looked into regining formally from the Catholic church - ive not been to church since christmas 2011 and my crisis of faith is entwined in this.

i have always laways seperated out faith and religion. always. Catholic history is a shower of shite, torture, power and money grabbing and sexual abuse - i'm not going to defend that.

i am finding this letter one step too far

i mean, WWJD - its a cliche i know, it makes me want to puke suburban America up in a frilly apron - but jesus wouldn't do this, he wouldn't.
yet i looked at the pro-forma resignation letter and felt sick, i can't do it. i don't know whats wrong with me, i am usually so fucking principled.

does anyone else have a view?

WhatKindofFool Fri 22-Mar-13 12:15:21

The letter is a huge over-reaction and fantasy on the part of the Catholic Church. (IMHO) As a Catholic, it really winds me up. However, like most Catholics, I pick and choose what I believe in. The important thing to me is my relationship with God and not what some stupid tosser men think.

I just posted this on another thread and I know this is a very old one but I jjust wanted to share this.

Just watched all of this. It is very long but it is brilliant and moving.

www.upworthy.com/every-biblical-argument-against-being-gay-debunked-biblically?c=go1

My priest signed it.

Thankfully I haven't had to listen to him pontificate about it as I haven't been able to go to Mass for the last three weeks. Thank goodness that also meant I missed the postcards for my MP.

My children are attending/have attended the parish school and until recently we have had a lovely sense of community. Now I see fewer and fewer people at Mass and I just feel that my priest is telling me I'm not a good enough Catholic because I'm not hard line enough.

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Sun 27-Jan-13 20:38:07

My priest signed it. He is proud of himself. They handed out postcards to send to your MP today so you can lodge your objection with a mere signature. I had already written a letter to my MP inspired by copied from one from queeringthechurch.com

PedroPonyLikesCrisps Sun 27-Jan-13 16:53:47

The way I see it, if the church (RC or otherwise) don't want to perform gay marriages, then fine. They don't have to. There are plenty of other places you can get married. You don't go to supermarkets for weddings because they don't do them.

What gets my back up is that the church seems to think it has a say on these things like they "own" marriage or something perhaps they should butt the f*&# out mind their own business.

PigletJohn Sun 27-Jan-13 13:18:34

Very good idea to write to your MP, but to write what you believe, rather than what you have been told to say.

CelticPromise Sun 27-Jan-13 12:58:12

I bet my priest has signed it. miserable sod.

We were all urged to write to our MPs last week. I will write, but not in the terms suggested! I listen to my conscience on such things.

The vast majority of practising Catholics seem to disagree with
large parts of the church's social teaching. Including a significant number of priests. This has been the case for years. You would think there would be some kind of organised way of voicing this.

I didn't know you could 'officially' resign.

TheDailyWail Sun 27-Jan-13 12:43:01

We had a card handed to all of us at church today which urged us to send it to our MP asking them to vote against the marriage (same sex couples) bill. I am very angry about their assumption that all Catholics will support this. How, when people use marriage to stay in a country, is marriage seen as a ceremony which is completely sacred, or where there is DV within a marriage and they are persuaded to stay? The churches should acknowledge that love is such a very important reason to get married and commitment as well. It does not harm me if gay people are allowed to get married, it doesn't devalue my relationship with my husband.

angry

I have been looking around this thread, it is very interesting. I am not a Roman Catholic so I am not sure I can comment on the specifics of the Roman Catholic response to gay marriage.

I have been thinking about this a lot of late and I know the subject of gay marriage is something other denominations are grappling with too.

I went to an Anglican (Church of England) Church for many years and of late we have attended a free church.

If you wish to read about other denominations response to this subject, this is quite interesting:

www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10860110

Or to listen to Steve Chalke:

I could not find the actual 'talk' except on Adrian Warnock website:

www.patheos.com/blogs/adrianwarnock/2013/01/steve-chalke-and-others-on-homosexuality-and-gay-marriage/

And www.acceptingevangelicals.org/

For me features of the 'argument' are (as well as some people thinking they are right and what they think should apply to all) that perhaps for the majority this is something they feel really compelled to believe in. So not exactly a choice for them, if you see what I mean. It does not mean the rest of society has to agree but I am saying they are not necessarily being ‘awkward’ in thinking this! Does this make sense?

Another major factor is a fear that if the laws are changed than Christians will be compelled to do things they don't want to do, such as perform gay weddings in their churches. I fee (just my humble opinion) that churches should be allowed to perform or not perform gay weddings in their churches according to what that particular church believes. There are a number of gay bed and breakfasts in the UK. Whether all of these are exclusively for gay couples or not, I don't know. But certainly some will want to receive gay customers as opposed to others. I think they should have the right to have gay people staying only. By the same token if any others wish to only have straight people in their bed and breakfasts then I think that is fine too. Some people have been prosecuted for not allowing gay couples in their bed and breakfast. So again by the same token I think churches should be able to choose whether they will marry gay couples or not. I do genuinely think that this fear of being prosecuted/persecuted because of this issue is what is partly driving many churches to be so critical. It does seem that individual Christians have a variety of beliefs, and churches do too, but that fear is a factor.

Just wanted to add my thoughts. Hope you do not mind.

KenDoddsDadsDog Thu 17-Jan-13 22:53:46

Custardo , glad I found this thread as I'm really struggling too at the moment. Have been missing in action since the lady in Ireland died (which coincided with the spuc visit to our church) DH is still taking DD, everyone is asking where I am but I feel pretty annoyed with it all. The gay marriage Christmas message just about finished me off.

PigletJohn Tue 15-Jan-13 00:11:45

If I wanted to learn how best to train and look after a performing giraffe, the last person whose opinion I would respect would be someone who had taken an oath never to own or train one.

If I wanted advice on sexual and family matters....

Tortington Mon 14-Jan-13 23:20:11

thanks curry eater and mrs rochester cat for sharing your views amongst condoms and papal Aids wink

I agree with you mrsrochester, fake is exactly it, i know i know i know its wrong to think like that. i know that the religeon - by my own standards at least should be the vessel for my faith.

arses to it - the more i read daily on the catholic church, the more i wonder why i would want to be part of it.

EllieArroway Mon 14-Jan-13 14:25:30

Yes, Jake. I think the Catholic Church are hugely out of step with the vast majority of it's priests & flock - and so too is the CofE, perhaps to a lesser, though still significant, extent.

But it's alright for them, swanning around in their golden palaces, while everyone else takes the flack for their medieval pronouncements.

curryeater Mon 14-Jan-13 13:08:41

Custardo, I have not formally resigned from the catholic church (and don't know how - tell me!) but now go to a c of e church. I love it. It is not happy clappy. It is a huge relief to be a member of a church. (and the music is really good)

I was upset when the c of e rejected women bishops but I believe they will get there.

Catholics - never. I have given up.

One of the priests at my church is an ex catholic priest. He left the catholic church for all the good reasons you can guess, then got married, then found his way into the c of e. For some reason (childhood indoctrination probably) I find this very comforting. I suppose my warped logic is: if a PRIEST can make this decision, it cannot be as EVIL and CHILDISH and PATHETIC as all that (disagreeing with the catholic church was always portrayed as wrong and lazy and childish and missing the point and if you were GOOD enough you would AGREE with it)

I lost heart with the catholic church a long time ago but did not have the imagination or confidence to do anything constructive about it, just wandered off, feeling terrible about it, and drinking too much. Because of this my children are not baptised. I have recently talked to my vicar about having them baptised and it is filling me with the most insane joy that this is something we can do and will do. It is just flooding me. I am welling up now thinking about it.

Custardo, I really hope you find peace and I suggest that you visit some c of e churches and think about it. they are all very different from each other I think, and there is more emphasis on finding a style of worship that fulfills your needs

JakeBullet Mon 14-Jan-13 12:55:29

Ellie, well said...it speaks volumes that I think both of our local Catholic priests would agree with you too.

Neither of them signed this letter either I am pleased to say.

No, the Catholic Church needs to keep its nose out except for supporting prevention and caring for those affected.

EllieArroway Mon 14-Jan-13 09:59:47

If the RC church's doctrine (no sex before marriage. No adultery within marriage) had been adhered to in the first place then the spread of HIV infection would not have been nearly so widespread

And what business is it, exactly, of the RC church to take it upon themselves to tell anyone else what they may or may not do with their own bodies?

The point is not whether people have been promiscuous (some have, some haven't) the point is that they were frightened out of using the ONE THING that we know would prevent infection in the majority of cases by being lied to.

They weren't just told not to use condoms, they were told that condoms CAUSE AIDS. How any decent human being can seek to justify this is beyond me.

As I've said before, the Pope should be arrested for crimes against humanity for this. Perhaps his sentence could run concurrent with his other one for perverting the cause of justice by covering up for his nonce priests.

If a bunch of old virgins want to want wander around in their pretend city wearing dresses, good for them. But if they wouldn't mind taking their noses out of other people's business the world would be a safer place.

crescentmoon Mon 14-Jan-13 08:10:08

When the first studies showing circumcised men had far lower rates of HIV/AIDS to uncircumcised men were published, critics said that the results did not factor in the sociocultural behaviour of Muslim men. That they tended to be far less promiscuous- which means much lower rates of casual sex with multiple sexual partners- because of religion and culture not circumcision. Anti circumcision activists said this skewed the results.

And this was a valid criticism accepted across the board, which is why they did the later studies only amongst non muslim men ( and still found circumcision reduced the risks of HiV/AIDS infection amongst adult males.)

This really is about male behaviour- female 'chastity' doesnt help if the man is adulterous.many married women were infected with HiV who only ever slept with their husbands because their husbands were having sex outside of marriage.
Just as it that a woman once she becomes sexually active can get cervical cancer whether she has had 1 partner or several because it is to do with the HPV virus from the male partner - and that risk increases the more sexual partners he has and how many other sexual partners those women have.

JakeBullet Mon 14-Jan-13 06:53:41

Okay....found the letter and the signatories; neither of our parish priests have signed it smilesmile. So relieved about that.

JakeBullet Mon 14-Jan-13 06:42:17

Has anyone got a link to the actual letter? Would like to see if either of the two parish priests here have signed it. Actually I know that at least one of them won't have done as he is a friend and very vocal about the Catholic Church .....his comments on the Vatican are eye watering .....guess that he WON'T be making Pope then?grin

He often says that the Vatican have backed themselves into a corner over lots of things and now look like idiots but because the wheels of change move slowly there it will take time before they realise this.

Despite this he remains committed to being a Priest and says he has no regrets about the path he has chosen. He is very much a person who loves and cares for others though and he says he can "ignore a lot of the bollocks coming from the Vatican" in his day to day practice. Neither he or the other priest would agree with the church's stance on contraception. They had to read out a letter regarding the Bill for same sex marriages last year....both followed it up with their own comments that Jesus was about love and that anyone of any sexual persuasion would always be welcome in the parish churches.

sashh Mon 14-Jan-13 06:07:21

promiscuity is not part of the muslim culture.

So why do muslims have

a) temporary marriages
b) multiple wives

RC church, or its doctrine, is not responsible for the spread of HIV infection!

Yes it is, where is the campaign to be faithful to your partner? To not use prostitutes? To not rape? It might be official doctrine but that is not what is being publicised.

MrsRochestersCat Mon 14-Jan-13 00:56:56

Custardo, I've written this out a few times - but I'm not comfortable with actively persuading another against the church (I feel like I will be struck down!)

In short I could have written all that you have here. Except, I have an idea of why I can't resign from the Catholic Church is for fear of unbaptised future grandchildren. There is more but I can't word it very well so late at night.

I have two girls. I just can't allow them to think such hatred of another, such intolerance is okay.

I can't find a suitable alternative because anything else feels fake, I am in no rush to find anything. (Judaism has always called to me - but I just can't devote myself to god at all at he moment).

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Mon 14-Jan-13 00:42:47

Anyone remember George Bush's billions in aid being withdrawn from countries who refused to teach abstinence over condom use?

The Catholic church are, at best, naive in thinking that not using condoms would magically make people monogamous but its the evangelicals with the $$$$$$ that continue to get away with this whilst the world has turned to give the Vatican a hard stare. Countries with the highest infection rates (Swaziland, Botswana, SA, Namibia) tend to be Christian countries with small RC populations.

PigletJohn Sun 13-Jan-13 23:34:44

Alas, the RC church, and its doctrine, is responsible for obstructing a cheap, simple and effective barrier to the spread of a fatal and incurable disease.

Can this be anything other than wicked?

PigletJohn Sun 13-Jan-13 23:32:59

"It's ridiculous to imagine that if the RC church had said "ok, you can use condoms in order to prevent the spread of disease" that those - promiscuous - people would then have thought "oh, right. Ok, I'll use condoms henceforth"."

It's ridiculous to make such an assertion.

More to the point, however, if the anti-condom movement had not, and did not, obstruct and prevent the supply of condoms, they would be more readily available and, without doubt, more frequently used.

Zavi Sun 13-Jan-13 23:11:58

It's ridiculous to imagine that if the RC church had said "ok, you can use condoms in order to prevent the spread of disease" that those - promiscuous - people would then have thought "oh, right. Ok, I'll use condoms henceforth".

If the RC church's doctrine (no sex before marriage. No adultery within marriage) had been adhered to in the first place then the spread of HIV infection would not have been nearly so widespread.

RC church, or its doctrine, is not responsible for the spread of HIV infection!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now