h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Benedict is getting a lot of face time on TV news lately,
and one can see the aging process has taken its toll. The
clips from the days when he was Pope John Paul's rottweiler
seem so animated and vigorous compared to the latest footage
from his final public mass yesterday.

Watching him staring off into space with the same fierce
concentration one might see in anyone as old as he is has
reminded me that he may be totally focused on bladder and
bowel control. Sorry, I don't mean to sound disrespectful,
but incontinence is hardly compatible with any notions of
Infallibility. Can you imagine the impact it would have
if he was caught short in a public ceremony?

Christianity, in spite of its constant references to the body
of Christ and transubstantiation, is quite hypocritical about
displaying or discussing bodily functions.

Which leads me to wonder if his recent hospitalisation might
have included the attachment of devices to contain unexpected
discharges. And that leaves me quite satisfied that he really is
doing the right thing in stepping down. Images of an old man
standing in a puddle of his own pee or poo would do nothing
for the maintenance of Catholic institutions.

God bless 'im.

~jwf~

Or it could be dementure. You wouldn't want the spectacle of an old man climbing the steps to the St Peters pulpit at Easter, then forgetting what he went up there for.

And there's the main reason why they haven't invited me to take on the holy role.

"1) Where is the evidence that the cardinals would choose a
a) gay hater
b) sex hater
c) nutbar"

It is not 100% clear to me that anyone has clearly answered this. There have been some references to statements regarding equating homosexuality to moral evil but does this really equate to "gay hating" - surely it is a position of disapproval of homosexual activity and not a position of gay-hating?

Of course there are issues with regard to saying homosexuality is immoral but that is a morality issue and not a gay-hate issue. As soon as one uses the label of gay hater or sex hater - surely that it an admission that the person has stopped debating and is preparing for "war". However one can examine the morality issue, find exactly where it originates from, and then question that - and progress the debate.

So in summary I can disapprove of someone doing something but that doesn't necessarily entail hatred.

Similarly just because the catholic church doesn't allow females to be popes or cardinals doesn't mean they are sex-haters.

On a separate matter someone suggests I don't know much about the Catholic Church, and I would have to confess that to be a fair appraisal of the current situation. So how does one find out exactly the Catholic Church's position on something. Does it have one voice or many? Does it have a simple document that it publishes annually to explain its mission statement and code of practices etc.

"Of course there are issues with regard to saying homosexuality is immoral but that is a morality issue and not a gay-hate issue."

Stone Aart. I see from your profile that you are British. I have very strong feelings about people who are born British.

I think that being born British is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil. I think that you being British will seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people.

Because of something you have no control over, I think that you are inherently an evil person and a threat to society.

Would you say that stance is a) perfectly fine or b) an example of irrational hatred for a particular "out" group?

A link;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9873281/Pope-Benedict-XVIs-resignation-A-drama-that-beats-any-Dan-Brown-plot.html

with slight amendment
"Of course there are issues with regard to saying the homosexual act is immoral but that is a morality issue and not a gay-hate issue."

Maybe others can correct me: but as far as I am aware, the "Catholic Church" says that homosexual acts are immoral but that "homosexuals" as people are neither moral or immoral. In that sense it is not the same as calling someone immoral because they are black or British (etc). There is still a difference between disapproving an act and hating a person.

>>In that sense it is not the same as calling someone immoral because they are black or British (etc). There is still a difference between disapproving an act and hating a person. <<

No, there isn't. Since the attraction is inherently evil, and the attraction is the thing that makes people gay, hating homosexuals is exactly the same thing as hating gay people. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is one of the most offensive lies out there.

Take a read of the most recent bit of bigotry from David Jones, the Welsh Secretary. Gay people can't be parents, they are dangerous to kids and even he claims he's not being bigoted and that he has gay friends.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/15/gay-couples-children-welsh-secretary

Saying the Catholic Church is homophobic is so self-evidently true that it's mundane. A cursory Google search will bring up hundreds, if not thousands, of articles.

Stone Aart, if you want to know more about the Catholic church, the best advice I can give you is to actually just ask people who are part of it.

Put aside all preconceptions first, take what they say as what they actually believe without trying to pick holes in things, because faith does have a lot of holes. That's why it's faith in a way. You can't *believe* in a table, you can see it and you know that it exists. But you can believe in a god.

But pretty much everybody I know who believes in a religion will happily, openly discuss it with people that are genuinely wanting to know more about it. And they're not out thinking "Way Hey! A Convert!" Most people who follow a religion aren't really bothered about trying to convert people to their beliefs, but if asked politely, they will discuss them.

If you don't know anyone who's willing to chat about it, you can always just go along to a church. Priests aren't all scary stereotypes out for your blood on the sacrificial alter, not even the Catholic ones! And again they're not out to convert people, every priest I've met in the last twenty odd years since I stopped being a Catholic (was brought up one, found it wasn't for me) has happily chatted about multiple religions and then left the person to make their own mind up.

Most people who believe in a religion are actually a friendly bunch.

HonestIago, don't believe everything you read on the internet. It's people like us that write it

The Catholic Church *as an institution* is homophobic. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Individual Catholics vary. I know some who fully approve of the hierarchy, and are also homophobic (and will go to great effort to find excuses for the many other moral failings of the Church hierarchy). Others are very religious, but also strongly disapprove of much of what the Church gets up to. Still others still call themselves Catholic, and find that name meaningful to their self-identity, but are functionally atheist. Others don't even really associate even that much with Catholicism, but would still call themselves Catholic by reflex, if you asked them.

It's complicated. Any belief system is complicated. Any cultural identity is complicated. The Catholic Church is both, which makes it even more complicated.

TRiG.

This post has been removed.

Incidentally, at what point do we get to correctly identify the Catholic church as a cult?

The definition is

"A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister."

Is it down to size, ie when a cult gets above a certain size it becomes a religion?

The Catholic Church is not a cult.

While I think the exact definition of "cult" is up for debate, I'd say that the main difference between cults and religions is that cults are totalitarian. Typically, religious cults will seek to take over every aspect of a person's life, and separate them from non-cultist and from outside influences. Often they want communal living, and want members to disassociate from others who are not part of the group. If anyone leaves, they're cut off completely. Well, I left, and that didn't happen to me.

Other features that cults tend to have is that they're new, and that they're secretive about their beliefs. Neither is true of Catholicism.

Doubtless someone can attempt to put together an outline argument as to why Catholicism is a cult or has similar features, but the reality is that we need to keep the term "cult" for predatory psuedo-religions which represent a real danger to people.

There's enough that the Catholic Church can rightly be criticised for without having to exaggerate the case.

I see my above comment has been removed. The comment was asking whether anyone would like to support my suggestion that the Catholic Church is not a "gay hating" institution. But it seems rather than engage with the comment, the comment was removed. Hence I must conclude from the contributions so far given on this thread, that the Catholic Church is indeed a "gay hating" institution.

You could also conclude that from Catholic dogma, and the stated positions of the last two Popes.

The question now is - what can be done about it. Perhaps some announcement that the homosexual act is not a sin, followed by a new code of practice for the institution?

That'd be nice. Can't see it happening though.

The word /cult/ has many many meanings (not all of them pejorative), and it seems that one of them is "a religion I dislike". Anyway, what matters far more than that is where a religion stands on Bonewit's Cult Danger Evaluation Frame: http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html. I score the Catholic Church high on some of those scales, low on others.

TRiG.