Don't make shit up, dude.You replaced half of his sentences with explicitly the wrong things.
Don't make shit up, dude.You replaced half of his sentences with explicitly the wrong things.
The history of the Catholic Church (far from uniquely amongst religious organisations) in campaigning for certain laws in various countries strongly suggests that it does not think people's sins are between them and God.Just the opposite, actually. It does tell you that other people's sins are not your business but between them and god.
What do you expect, Tstorm to admit the church could be wrong?I didn't realize posting full quotes in context is removing phrases to change context. It looks like this jackhole in question stopped just short of declaring the cure for homosexuality comes in a caliber.
Only once they hit the age of majority.If your "context" is merely that Ratzinger referred to gay acts rather than being gay, then functionally that just means an exception for... those who practice lifelong celibacy. In short, repression and self-denial will earn gay people the ability to avoid the censure and condemnation of the Church...
I absolutely did not. You've even been presented now with the full quotes in context. And the substance doesn't change.You replaced half of his sentences with explicitly the wrong things.
Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
So. Homosexuality is a "tendency towards an intrinsic moral evil". Right there, black and white, unaffected by context. And "living out this orientation" is "not morally acceptable". Black and white, in context.Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed towards 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.
That is certainly true.The history of the Catholic Church (far from uniquely amongst religious organisations) in campaigning for certain laws in various countries strongly suggests that it does not think people's sins are between them and God.
You took a piece with the overall message "we should condemn violence and persecution, but we also shouldn't be putting people on a pedestal for their sins" and rearranged the words to imply advocacy for laws banning homosexuality.I absolutely did not. You've even been presented now with the full quotes in context. And the substance doesn't change.
You took a piece with the overall message "we should condemn violence and persecution, but we also shouldn't be putting people on a pedestal for their sins" and rearranged the words to imply advocacy for laws banning homosexuality.
I presented the full quotes in context. I'm the one who did that.
You sure showed us, genius.Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. no. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.
No, you threw up a link to an entire document and hoped that none of us would bother going through and actually reading it because (shocker here) it actually proved you wrong.I presented the full quotes in context. I'm the one who did that.
This is unambiguously wrong. The message isn't merely "don't put people on a pedestal for sins". It's reiterating over and over that homosexuality is a "moral evil", that it cannot be acceptable. And when it comes to rights, the tract very clearly says they can "legitimately be limited" on the basis of "objective disorder"-- under which description it includes homosexuality.You took a piece with the overall message "we should condemn violence and persecution, but we also shouldn't be putting people on a pedestal for their sins" and rearranged the words to imply advocacy for laws banning homosexuality.
I presented the full quotes in context. I'm the one who did that.
Yeah you don't even have to think that hard, there's an explicit condonation of homosexuality straight up in the New Testament. At least, as long as you have an interlinear Bible, an understanding of period-appropriate Greco-Roman culture, and a scrap of self-honesty.And one could easily call that hypocritical or behavior against the doctrine. It is a quite common criticism inside the Catholic church as well. Things like the parable of the adultress stoning are kinda pretty hard to ignore.
Just put on the rainbow wig and the red nose, bud. You're a clown.I presented the full quotes in context. I'm the one who did that.
Religion just exists to create an in-group and an out-group so that the in-group doesn't have to feel bad about taking from the out-group because they're the others, the heathens. The fact that this happens even with what are generally considered peaceful religions, like Buddhism, tells me that all organized religion is bad regardless of its overall teachings.I'd say that broadly I agree. It seems such a shame because some people need something bigger to believe in (I feel just getting some sort of hobby would help a lot of these people), but organised religion always seems to fuck it.
I come from a catholic family and my grandparents were, from my point of view as a child, kind and gentle people, deeply into their religion. But they raised one child who, as an adult, hates gay people, and another who they turned a blind eye to their priest trying to abuse (I have to assume legit didn't believe because the alternative is monstrous). So, you know, not great.
I mean, we're talking about Ratzinger vs Francis, so not even Pope's are infallibleWhat do you expect, Tstorm to admit the church could be wrong?
That's madness, I say. The church is infallible!
Sorry, I mean the Pope is infallible! /s
Fixed that for you.a piece with the overall message "we should condemn violence and persecution, but we also shouldn't beputting people on a pedestaltreating them with neutrality for their sins"
You can't read.You sure showed us, genius.
I made the faulty assumption that all of you can read.No, you threw up a link to an entire document and hoped that none of us would bother going through and actually reading it because (shocker here) it actually proved you wrong.
It is reasonable for you to disagree, my complaint here is people maliciously misinterpreting the words.My own take is that homosexuality is not a sin, no matter if it is in coveting or in actions, so they are coming at it from broken premises.
Maybe you actually don't understand what he was talking about. Let's read the forward:This is unambiguously wrong. The message isn't merely "don't put people on a pedestal for sins". It's reiterating over and over that homosexuality is a "moral evil", that it cannot be acceptable. And when it comes to rights, the tract very clearly says they can "legitimately be limited" on the basis of "objective disorder"-- under which description it includes homosexuality.
The condemnation is right there, unarguably. The idea that it can be a justification to limit rights is right there, unarguably. You're refusing to acknowledge the objective, unambiguous content of the letter.
If you don't agree with the letter, say so. Or if you do agree, say that. But do not stand there and insist that black is white, up is down, and that "may be legitimately limited" somehow doesn't mean "may be legitimately limited".
It's not about laws banning homosexuality. It's not about laws limiting homosexuality. There is no advocacy within to use the law against homosexuality. This was written in response to legislation actively treating homosexuality as a protected class. It is not about the law discriminating, it is about the law banning discrimination, which can (and already has) caused major issues for a global organization that works heavily in adoption, education, and shelter assistance.Recently, legislation has been proposed in various places which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. In some cities, municipal authorities have made public housing, otherwise reserved for families, available to homosexual (and unmarried heterosexual) couples. Such initiatives, even where they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society. Such things as the adoption of children, the employment of teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords' legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example, are often implicated.
While it would be impossible to anticipate every eventuality in respect to legislative proposals in this area, these observations will try to identify some principles and distinctions of a general nature which should be taken into consideration by the conscientious legislator, voter, or Church authority who is confronted with such issues.
Oh so it's just advocating jim crow for queer people? Why didn't you say so. Just say youbhate queer people and be done with itYou can't read.
I made the faulty assumption that all of you can read.
It is reasonable for you to disagree, my complaint here is people maliciously misinterpreting the words.
Maybe you actually don't understand what he was talking about. Let's read the forward:
It's not about laws banning homosexuality. It's not about laws limiting homosexuality. There is no advocacy within to use the law against homosexuality. This was written in response to legislation actively treating homosexuality as a protected class. It is not about the law discriminating, it is about the law banning discrimination, which can (and already has) caused major issues for a global organization that works heavily in adoption, education, and shelter assistance.
I'm gonna take a stab in the dark that you would have understood that had you started reading that from scratch. But you probably read those half quotes somewhere without the context and just repeated them, and then can't stop for a moment to think "Hmmm, did someone lie to me on the internet? No, it must be the Catholics trying to ban the gays."
Oh my dear god, are you an idiot? Did you read what I said? Do you know what Jim Crow laws were? Jim Crow was not "you don't have to treat the races equally." Jim Crow was "you have to treat the races unequally." It's like you can't comprehend any of the space between "banned" and "obligatory".Oh so it's just advocating jim crow for queer people? Why didn't you say so. Just say youbhate queer people and be done with it
So, according to the RCs, it's not a "real" family unless it's a heterosexual couple or single parent. Okay.Recently, legislation has been proposed in various places which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. In some cities, municipal authorities have made public housing, otherwise reserved for families, available to homosexual (and unmarried heterosexual) couples. Such initiatives, even where they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society. Such things as the adoption of children, the employment of teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords' legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example, are often implicated.
While it would be impossible to anticipate every eventuality in respect to legislative proposals in this area, these observations will try to identify some principles and distinctions of a general nature which should be taken into consideration by the conscientious legislator, voter, or Church authority who is confronted with such issues.