Anti gay-marriage atheist??

[Catholic_Lady]

Even the current Pope, who I like a lot, recently made a comment about being against life imprisonment that I did not agree with.

But it's perfectly in line with the thoughts of early church fathers. Prior to Niccea, when politics became part of the church.

What he said was that he does not agree with life imprisonment. 

"All Christians and people of good will are thus called today to struggle not only for abolition of the death penalty, whether it be legal or illegal and in all its forms, but also to improve prison conditions, out of respect for the human dignity of persons deprived of their liberty. And this, I connect with life imprisonment. Life imprisonment is a hidden death penalty."

I agree with everything he says here except his opposition to life imprisonment. I understand setting someone free when they are too old to hurt society, but how would a 75 year old man who's been in prison for 50 years know how to take care of himself in the real world?

[abaris]

What he said was that he does not agree with life imprisonment. 

"All Christians and people of good will are thus called today to struggle not only for abolition of the death penalty, whether it be legal or illegal and in all its forms, but also to improve prison conditions, out of respect for the human dignity of persons deprived of their liberty. And this, I connect with life imprisonment. Life imprisonment is a hidden death penalty."

I agree with everything he says here except his opposition to life imprisonment. I understand setting someone free when they are too old to hurt society, but how would a 75 year old man who's been in prison for 50 years know how to take care of himself in the real world?

Yes, I know that. And that's why I said, it's perfectly in line with what early christian church fathers said. Many of them opposed to capital punishment or extraditing any criminal to the authorities. They also were totally opposed to military service and threatened every christian becoming a soldier with excommunication. The canons of the Church of Alexandria absolutely forbade volunteering, which was the foundation of the Roman Army, and authoritatively laid down that ‘it was not fitting for Christians to bear arms.

Prior to 325, when the council of Niccea threw all of this out the window to please the Roman emperor.

[Catholic_Lady]

What he said was that he does not agree with life imprisonment. 

"All Christians and people of good will are thus called today to struggle not only for abolition of the death penalty, whether it be legal or illegal and in all its forms, but also to improve prison conditions, out of respect for the human dignity of persons deprived of their liberty. And this, I connect with life imprisonment. Life imprisonment is a hidden death penalty."

I agree with everything he says here except his opposition to life imprisonment. I understand setting someone free when they are too old to hurt society, but how would a 75 year old man who's been in prison for 50 years know how to take care of himself in the real world?

Yes, I know that. And that's why I said, it's perfectly in line with what early christian church fathers said. Many of them opposed to capital punishment or extraditing any criminal to the authorities. They also were totally opposed to military service and threatened every christian becoming a soldier with excommunication. The canons of the Church of Alexandria absolutely forbade volunteering, which was the foundation of the Roman Army, and authoritatively laid down that ‘it was not fitting for Christians to bear arms.

Prior to 325, when the council of Niccea threw all of this out the window to please the Roman emperor.

Oh I see. My apologies, I misunderstood.

[Javaman]

I'm sorry to harp, but how do you believe in the sanctity of the church if you don't think everything they do is sacred? Isn't that part of the point?

And herein lies the rub: when well-meaning Catholics drop some money into the collection plate as it's passed around at Sunday Mass, a percentage of the money every-well meaning Catholic contributes may be used to further a cause said Catholic is not actually in favour of.

To be more specific, when CL and other Catholics give money to the RCC, they need to understand that they are effectively funding its anti-SSM and anti-IVF efforts, not to mention they are subsidizing the RCC's penalties for shielding pedophiles.

If an individual Catholic disagrees with the way the RCC is spending money, it seems to me that the only rational action to take is to stop giving them money until they change their ways.

ETA: Personally, I refuse to give money to organizations that act in ways I consider to be immoral and unethical. For example, I never give any money to the Salvation Army because of their homophobic and discriminatory views. Fortunately, there's always a secular alternative.

[Regina]

I'm not interested in giving money to any "charity" that has a religious background to it. I'm not giving you money to send yet more Christianity to Africa, because that's the last thing they need.

[abaris]

I'm not interested in giving money to any "charity" that has a religious background to it. I'm not giving you money to send yet more Christianity to Africa, because that's the last thing they need.

Maybe not entirely.

[robvalue]

@all:

I agree, I only give money to charities that I am morally comfortable with. The church likes to think of itself as a charity, but it isn't. If it was, it would just qualify as one like everyone else. But that would involve opening its books and it refuses to do that, I wonder why...

Everything they do for charity can be achieved through secular means, through charities that don't also spend some of your money on heinous things.

Of course you can't literally know where every penny goes and be totally sure nothing immoral might happen, but in the case of the Catholic Church, you know bad things will happen with your money. Why not instead give it to charities which support the reasons you're giving the money to the church in the first place? That way it all goes to those causes.

The idea that God needs money and isn't providing for his own church is a special kind of irony

[Wyrd of Gawd]

@all:

I agree, I only give money to charities that I am morally comfortable with. The church likes to think of itself as a charity, but it isn't. If it was, it would just qualify as one like everyone else. But that would involve opening its books and it refuses to do that, I wonder why...

Everything they do for charity can be achieved through secular means, through charities that don't also spend some of your money on heinous things.

Of course you can't literally know where every penny goes and be totally sure nothing immoral might happen, but in the case of the Catholic Church, you know bad things will happen with your money. Why not instead give it to charities which support the reasons you're giving the money to the church in the first place? That way it all goes to those causes.

The idea that God needs money and isn't providing for his own church is a special kind of irony

But the Fourth Commandment in Exodus 34:19-21 says to bring cash (or a sheep) when you go to see God.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Honestly the word "bigot" is starting to annoy me because it's becoming another one of those buzzwords that people throw around, out of context, just to shut people up. I've probably said it myself on this very forum in the past (I'll admit before people clock me), I'm just writing how I feel right now.

At the end of the day, if Miss Thing believes sex is between a married couple, and practices such in her own life choices, that's her right. It only becomes "bigoted" (by definition of what "bigoted" actually means) when one tries to force their views onto other people and push for legislation that oppresses people, which from what I've read I've not seen CL saying.

I feel like if you want to argue with why homosexuality is not immoral, it's better to actually discuss the facts and give your well thought-out reasons, not just "you're a bigot". That's not aimed at anyone in particular here, just a general statement.

Exactly, she's not a bigot because she isn't intolerant of or think less of people who commit what she thinks are immoral acts. For a Christian, she is very tolerant of the presence of what she views as immorality. Contrast her with that spiteful ignoramus Kentucky County Clerk that's getting put in the slammer for being held in contempt in court, who invoked "God's authority" to attempt to justify abandoning her duty to issue marriage licenses because she didn't want to provide them for gay couples, then refused to not interfere with her subordinate clerks that were willing. That's a bigot wanting to strongarm her morality into her role as a public official and deny a certain demographic their rights. This isn't Cathy.

If you want to debate her on whether homosexual actually is immoral, be my guest, but calling her a bigot won't get you anywhere when she's demonstrated just the opposite.

[Catholic_Lady]

Honestly the word "bigot" is starting to annoy me because it's becoming another one of those buzzwords that people throw around, out of context, just to shut people up. I've probably said it myself on this very forum in the past (I'll admit before people clock me), I'm just writing how I feel right now.

At the end of the day, if Miss Thing believes sex is between a married couple, and practices such in her own life choices, that's her right. It only becomes "bigoted" (by definition of what "bigoted" actually means) when one tries to force their views onto other people and push for legislation that oppresses people, which from what I've read I've not seen CL saying.

I feel like if you want to argue with why homosexuality is not immoral, it's better to actually discuss the facts and give your well thought-out reasons, not just "you're a bigot". That's not aimed at anyone in particular here, just a general statement.

Exactly, she's not a bigot because she isn't intolerant of or think less of people who commit what she thinks are immoral acts. For a Christian, she is very tolerant of the presence of what she views as immorality. Contrast her with that spiteful ignoramus Kentucky County Clerk that's getting put in the slammer for being held in contempt in court, who invoked "God's authority" to attempt to justify abandoning her duty to issue marriage licenses because she didn't want to provide them for gay couples, then refused to not interfere with her subordinate clerks that were willing. That's a bigot wanting to strongarm her morality into her role as a public official and deny a certain demographic their rights. This isn't Cathy.

If you want to debate her on whether homosexual actually is immoral, be my guest, but calling her a bigot won't get you anywhere when she's demonstrated just the opposite.

Hey, thank you.