"the Catholic Church Can’t Change." The Washington Post

[cappie]

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but the Catholic Church is not going to change its teaching on any of the fun stuff (contraception, female “ordination,” homosexuality, abortion, etc.) with the next pope.

 

Nor will it ever.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/the-catholic-church-cant-change/2013/02/13/a0b1933a-75fe-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_blog.html

 

 

The Catholic Church has an Old Man River thing going on.
She just keeps rolling, she keeps on rolling along. You can stand on
the shores. Or jump in. It’s your choice. But she’s not changing course.
Thank God.

Ashley E. McGuire is a senior fellow with the Catholic Association and editor of www.Altcatholicah.com.
 

[thessalonian]

Not quite sure why "the gates of hell shall not prevail" is so hard to understand.  Good article.

[4588686]

"We want to use our institution's influence to keep the homosexuals in a second class status all across the world and, golly gee, we're proud of it." 

[thessalonian]

"We want to use our institution's influence to keep the homosexuals in a second class status all across the world and, golly gee, we're proud of it." 

 

Well that's pretty ignorant.  You could also write "we wantto use our institutionn's influence to keep the cheaters and lusters in a second class status across the world and, golly gee, we're proud of it".  I am sure you can see a day when all sin is a good thing and noone will have to admit to anything being a sin.  Next step in the deterioration of societal moors, the Man boy love association.

[4588686]

Well that's pretty ignorant.  

 

You misspelled 'correct.'  The Catholic Church is active in fighting against gay marriage and other legal efforts to get gay couples the same rights of straight couples.  

 

 

You could also write "we wantto use our institutionn's influence to keep the cheaters and lusters in a second class status across the world and, golly gee, we're proud of it".  I am sure you can see a day when all sin is a good thing and noone will have to admit to anything being a sin.  Next step in the deterioration of societal moors, the Man boy love association.

 

 

Mhm

[Papist]

You misspelled 'correct.'  The Catholic Church is active in fighting against gay marriage and other legal efforts to get gay couples the same rights of straight couples.  

 

 

 

 

Mhm

 

What is this Catholic Church you speak of? 

[Brother Adam]

You misspelled 'correct.'  The Catholic Church is active in fighting against gay marriage and other legal efforts to get gay couples the same rights of straight couples.  

 

 

 

 

Mhm

 

"When a child gets behind the wheel of a car and runs into a tree, you don't blame the child; he didn't know any better. You blame the 30-year-old woman who got in the passenger seat and said, "Drive, kid; I trust you.""

 

Just because a 5 year old wants to drive your car, doesn't mean you hand over the keys. It is irresponsible to do so. That doesn't mean you have made the child a second class citizen. When he gets older, he will have the opportunity to take a test and earn his license. Just because an alcoholic, really really wants a drink, doesn't mean you serve him if you are a bartender. That does not mean he is a second class citizen. In fact, we give the recovering alcoholic respect for staying sober. Even if getting drunk will make him feel good. He still does not get to enjoy the same right that a non-alcoholic gets to drink. People with homosexual inclinations can still get married - and many have and are very happy. They however cannot marry someone of the same sex, because there is no such thing. Society has an obligation not to recognize same sex marriages. They are not being denied anything or made into second class citizens.

[homeschoolmom]

I have "Old Man River" going through my head now. :(

[4588686]

"When a child gets behind the wheel of a car and runs into a tree, you don't blame the child; he didn't know any better. You blame the 30-year-old woman who got in the passenger seat and said, "Drive, kid; I trust you.""

 

As Kant pointed out, paternalism is the greatest form of despotism.  

 

 

Just because a 5 year old wants to drive your car, doesn't mean you hand over the keys. It is irresponsible to do so. That doesn't mean you have made the child a second class citizen. When he gets older, he will have the opportunity to take a test and earn his license. Just because an alcoholic, really really wants a drink, doesn't mean you serve him if you are a bartender. That does not mean he is a second class citizen. In fact, we give the recovering alcoholic respect for staying sober. Even if getting drunk will make him feel good. He still does not get to enjoy the same right that a non-alcoholic gets to drink. People with homosexual inclinations can still get married - and many have and are very happy. They however cannot marry someone of the same sex, because there is no such thing. Society has an obligation not to recognize same sex marriages. They are not being denied anything or made into second class citizens.

 

 

Gay people aren't children.  They aren't alcoholics.  There is such thing as gay marriage.  Just because your Church does not recognize the legitimacy of a state institution does not mean that is ceases to exist.  Otherwise your Church's political battles would be somewhat redundant.  They are being denied the right to marry.  That carries substantial consequences with our system of government.  

 

 

As I wrote here on Thanksgiving, Morgan, who came out as a lesbian on MSNBC in September 2011, the day the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy became history, hoped she would outlive the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The Clinton-era law forbids Karen, her legally married wife, from receiving the survivor benefits other military widows get.

That money would have gone a long way toward helping raise their young daughter Casey. Just like the death benefits Charlie’s mother got when her soldier husband died in an accident during the Vietnam War went to pay for food and a roof for young Charlie.

“I’m praying that they take it up soon,” Morgan told me in a phone interview from her home in New Durham, N.H. a few days before Thanksgiving. “It’s my motivation for staying alive. I really need to be alive when they actually do overturn DOMA, otherwise Karen is not guaranteed anything.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/02/10/soldier-dies-of-breast-cancer-but-her-widow-wont-get-benefits/

[r2Dtoo]

Well that's pretty ignorant.  You could also write "we wantto use our institutionn's influence to keep the cheaters and lusters in a second class status across the world and, golly gee, we're proud of it".  I am sure you can see a day when all sin is a good thing and noone will have to admit to anything being a sin.  Next step in the deterioration of societal moors, the Man boy love association.

 

The argument that gay marriage will somehow lead to pedophilia is a bunch of poo.  Let's see one hurts children, the other hurts no one.  What part of "What goes on between two consenting adults is nobody's business" don't you understand? 

[Autumn Dusk]

As Kant pointed out, paternalism is the greatest form of despotism.  

 

 

 

 

Gay people aren't children.  They aren't alcoholics.  There is such thing as gay marriage.  Just because your Church does not recognize the legitimacy of a state institution does not mean that is ceases to exist.  Otherwise your Church's political battles would be somewhat redundant.  They are being denied the right to marry.  That carries substantial consequences with our system of government.  

 

 

As I wrote here on Thanksgiving, Morgan, who came out as a lesbian on MSNBC in September 2011, the day the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy became history, hoped she would outlive the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The Clinton-era law forbids Karen, her legally married wife, from receiving the survivor benefits other military widows get.

That money would have gone a long way toward helping raise their young daughter Casey. Just like the death benefits Charlie’s mother got when her soldier husband died in an accident during the Vietnam War went to pay for food and a roof for young Charlie.

“I’m praying that they take it up soon,” Morgan told me in a phone interview from her home in New Durham, N.H. a few days before Thanksgiving. “It’s my motivation for staying alive. I really need to be alive when they actually do overturn DOMA, otherwise Karen is not guaranteed anything.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/02/10/soldier-dies-of-breast-cancer-but-her-widow-wont-get-benefits/

 

 

Hassan....

 

Excuse me for my ignorance, but what part of this has to do with the Catholic Church?

 

That, and the child will still get benefits.  The other woman can go out and get a job, it's not like the child is destitute. 

 

I actually believe that the governemnt should recognize domestic partnership of any kind.  For instance I know of a 50yo woman who is caring for her 72yo mother.  She cannot legally put her mother on her insurance, nor can her mother get the same kind of benefits if this woman dies as would a spouse.

 

I firmly beileve that survivor benefits should be appointed to one person for the reasonable lifetime of the person who passed away.  I believe that it's nobody's business who's on my health insurance, as long as I'm paying the premium for the fair number of adults and children.

 

Why do you need the Catholic church to legitmize gay "marriage" to do this?  They could have every "right" afforded to heterosexual couples if they focused on rights insted of the obnoxious desire to call it marriage.

 

Encouraging such relationships is another story, however, my feelings is the homosexuals brought much of this on themselves.  I don't care to hear about the sexual preference of ANYONE and the fact that it's a daily discussion is aggrivating.

The argument that gay marriage will somehow lead to pedophilia is a bunch of poo.  Let's see one hurts children, the other hurts no one.  What part of "What goes on between two consenting adults is nobody's business" don't you understand? 

 

Maybe not to pedophilia which is a different problem in itself, but the recognition of gay marriage will defiantly allow for polygamy and other less standard relationships, including normalizing relationships that are boarder pedophilia...as an a 30yo and a 14yo....it's not pedophilia because the younger person has reached sexual maturity...still it's on a line that is starting to grey.

[4588686]

Hassan....

 

Excuse me for my ignorance, but what part of this has to do with the Catholic Church?

 

That, and the child will still get benefits.  The other woman can go out and get a job, it's not like the child is destitute. 

 

I actually believe that the governemnt should recognize domestic partnership of any kind.  For instance I know of a 50yo woman who is caring for her 72yo mother.  She cannot legally put her mother on her insurance, nor can her mother get the same kind of benefits if this woman dies as would a spouse.

 

I firmly beileve that survivor benefits should be appointed to one person for the reasonable lifetime of the person who passed away.  I believe that it's nobody's business who's on my health insurance, as long as I'm paying the premium for the fair number of adults and children.

 

Why do you need the Catholic church to legitmize gay "marriage" to do this?  They could have every "right" afforded to heterosexual couples if they focused on rights insted of the obnoxious desire to call it marriage.

 

Encouraging such relationships is another story, however, my feelings is the homosexuals brought much of this on themselves.  I don't care to hear about the sexual preference of ANYONE and the fact that it's a daily discussion is aggrivating.

 

Maybe not to pedophilia which is a different problem in itself, but the recognition of gay marriage will defiantly allow for polygamy and other less standard relationships, including normalizing relationships that are boarder pedophilia...as an a 30yo and a 14yo....it's not pedophilia because the younger person has reached sexual maturity...still it's on a line that is starting to grey.

 

 

I don't care if the Church legitimizes gay marriage.  I honestly couldn't give two poos about whether or not the Church marries gay couples.  But the Church teaches that the state ought not recognize gay marriage and encourages its faithful to fight politically against the state recognizing gay marriage.  That's what I care about.  

[Autumn Dusk]

I don't care if the Church legitimizes gay marriage.  I honestly couldn't give two poos about whether or not the Church marries gay couples.  But the Church teaches that the state ought not recognize gay marriage and encourages its faithful to fight politically against the state recognizing gay marriage.  That's what I care about.  

 

Again, why does it have to be marriage???  Why not simply get insurance/tax/survivors rights to extend to any adult of choice?

 

I agree that we should not legitimize gay marriage.  But I also think that our laws are arcane and reward heterosexual couples who marry and have kids and do not climb the socio economic ladder

[r2Dtoo]

A sexual relationship between a 30 year old and 14 year old is illegal because the age of consent is put at 18 in America.  It should be obvious why its that way: because that's the typical age one gets a high school diploma.  I don't know why you think the age of consent is going to be lowered any time soon. 

 

 

As far as polygamy is concerned, we had that debate a long time ago in this country and it was deemed a threat to women's rights.  I don't know why you think women's rights groups would change their opinion on the matter. 

 

 

 

Maybe not to pedophilia which is a different problem in itself, but the recognition of gay marriage will defiantly allow for polygamy and other less standard relationships, including normalizing relationships that are boarder pedophilia...as an a 30yo and a 14yo....it's not pedophilia because the younger person has reached sexual maturity...still it's on a line that is starting to grey.

Edited February 15, 2013 by r2Dtoo

[4588686]

Again, why does it have to be marriage???  Why not simply get insurance/tax/survivors rights to extend to any adult of choice?

 

 

Because there is no reason not to, aside from the ignorance and/or delusions of large swaths of the population.   

Edited February 15, 2013 by Hasan

[Autumn Dusk]

A sexual relationship between a 30 year old and 14 year old is illegal because the age of consent is put at 18 in America.  It should be obvious why its that way: because that's the typical age one gets a high school diploma.  I don't know why you think the age of consent is going to be lowered any time soon. 

 

 

As far as polygamy is concerned, we had that debate a long time ago in this country and it was deemed a threat to women's rights.  I don't know why you think women's rights groups would change their opinion on the matter. 

 

The age of consent has been highly challenged and is continued to be.  There are some states where a 14yo can get married.  There has been little attempts to change these laws.  Age of consent is actually 16 in most states in America.

 

And as far as poligimy...I don't believe it's a once faught, now gone battle.  Considering that "Big love" an other poligamy shows are very popular on cable TV, your qualms about woman's rights seem to matter little.  If it were such a concern, said TV shows would not be going into their 3rd and 4th seasons.

[add]

I don't care if the Church legitimizes gay marriage.  I honestly couldn't give two poos about whether or not the Church marries gay couples.  But the Church teaches that the state ought not recognize gay marriage and encourages its faithful to fight politically against the state recognizing gay marriage.  That's what I care about.  

 

 

Are you saying that the church should not have the freedom of expression?

 

[r2Dtoo]

The age of consent has been highly challenged and is continued to be.  There are some states where a 14yo can get married.  There has been little attempts to change these laws.  Age of consent is actually 16 in most states in America.

 

And as far as poligimy...I don't believe it's a once faught, now gone battle.  Considering that "Big love" an other poligamy shows are very popular on cable TV, your qualms about woman's rights seem to matter little.  If it were such a concern, said TV shows would not be going into their 3rd and 4th seasons.

As you know, the age of consent for marriage and the age of consent for sexual relationships are different.  Don't pretend that you don't know any better.

 

I don't think how long TV shows are running are a reflection of what can be accomplished in American politics.  

 

Are you saying that the church should not have the freedom of expression?

 

Someone forgot to take their meds this morning.

[Autumn Dusk]

As you know, the age of consent for marriage and the age of consent for sexual relationships are different.  Don't pretend that you don't know any better.

 

I don't think how long TV shows are running are a reflection of what can be accomplished in American politics.  

 

I'm not pretending to know any different.  The youngest that a person can get married stated in the laws is 13 years for females and 14 for males in NH with permission of the court and parents.  Kansas and 3 other state 14 with permission of the court and several allow 15/16 with permission of parents.  In many states 17yo's can get married with the permission of a parent and no input from the state.  There are extra fees involved, the lowest being $5 and the highest being $200.

 

Laws based on sexual activity of minors (those who are sexually mature) have been beaten back quite frequently....with preference given to goofy laws that go after 14yo's sexting their boyfreinds.  While these are serious issues, time should be spent trying to create laws that protect from predation, not stupidity.  I see the open acceptance of the sexuality of minors as a bridge into a time when minor's right to sexual relationships will be recognized.  I don't agree with it, but the impetus is there.

 

You didn't say American politics  you said women's rights groups which is about American opinions. As men retire and women take over, less radically woman's lib women will get in, and those "in touch" with American culture, for better or worse, and will have these more "opened" and "enlightened" opinions.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Autumn Dusk

[r2Dtoo]

I'm not pretending to know any different.  The youngest that a person can get married stated in the laws is 13 years for females and 14 for males in NH with permission of the court and parents.  Kansas and 3 other state 14 with permission of the court and several allow 15/16 with permission of parents.  In many states 17yo's can get married with the permission of a parent and no input from the state.  There are extra fees involved, the lowest being $5 and the highest being $200.

 

Laws based on sexual activity of minors (those who are sexually mature) have been beaten back quite frequently....with preference given to goofy laws that go after 14yo's sexting their boyfreinds.  While these are serious issues, time should be spent trying to create laws that protect from predation, not stupidity.  I see the open acceptance of the sexuality of minors as a bridge into a time when minor's right to sexual relationships will be recognized.  I don't agree with it, but the impetus is there.

 

You didn't say American politics  you said women's rights groups which is about American opinions. As men retire and women take over, less radically woman's lib women will get in, and those "in touch" with American culture, for better or worse, and will have these more "opened" and "enlightened" opinions.

Marriage and sexual relationships are different things.  I don't know why you are trying to equate the two.

 

First you say that laws regulating  the sexual activity of minors have been beaten back, and then you point to prosecutors going after sexting 14 year olds as proof of this.  If anything that seems to point in the other direction that laws regulating the sexual relationships of minors are in full force.

 

Your hypothesis about the future of the women's lib movement is highly theoretical, and probably way off base in my opinion.