“Oh, what the hell. Sign him up.”
In Barnesville, Minnesota, the Catholic Church has denied the religious sacrament of confirmation to two students who posted their support for gay marriage on Facebook.
Good.
The Catholic Church has been barely holding on to a dwindling membership by adopting the strategy of becoming an organized religion for hypocrites. Being a member of any church should mean the full acceptance of its core teachings. The students involved publicly expressed their disagreement with the Catholic Church’s opposition to gay marriage, and the Church was right to deny them confirmation.
Is the Catholic Church dead wrong to oppose same sex marriage as a sin? Of course. The way to make the Church enter the 21st Century is for double-talkers like John Kerry, Joe Biden and Mario Cuomo to show some backbone and integrity, and reject the Church or their upbringing because it doesn’t accept same sex marriage and abortion, while they obviously do. Instead, these and other faux-Catholics absurdly claim in public that they support diametrically opposed positions simultaneously. All three have piously stated that as Catholics they believe that life begins at conception (ergo, abortion is the sinful taking of innocent human life), but that as elected officials they feel it is inappropriate to “impose their beliefs” on the public. Of course, what elected leaders do is to impose their beliefs on the public, wherever those beliefs come from. What Cuomo, Biden and Kerry, as well as many others, have done, is to aggressively and pro-actively support policies, like abortion-on-demand, that they and their Church say they believe are wrong. Liars or hypocrites, take your pick.
The greatest hypocrites of all are churches that inflate their membership numbers (and contributions) by accepting individuals who don’t believe in the tenets that define those churchs. Imagine such a membership policy with other mission-based organizations: the KKK happily accepting members who believe white supremacy is an abomination, and sending out members running for Congress as civil rights advocates, explaining that their loyalty to the Klan and its objectives won’t affect their conduct in office at all. Imagine a PETA member opening a fur emporium while saying that, yes, he believes that killing animals for fashionable coats is an abomination, but he won’t impose his views on the public, and chinchilla stoles are 50% off this week. Meanwhile, PETA puts him in charge of public relations. Do the pacifist Quakers accept blood-soaked mercenaries into their ranks? If so, they would hardly be different from the the regular practice of other religions. Do Lady Gaga fan clubs admit members who think she’s a preening fraud?
The Assumption Church in Barnesville is doing nothing more remarkable insisting on the integrity of its organization, and the fact that this is newsworthy tells us much about the pathetic state of religion—and integrity—in the U.S. today. I cannot fathom why anyone would want to be a member of a philosophically and theologically-defined organization that accepts members who oppose its core teachings. That organization, be it a church, advocacy group or nation, isn’t dedicated to a purpose; it is only interested in continuing its existence. At the same time, accepting members who oppose a church’s most antiquated beliefs also eliminates much of the motivation to re-examine those beliefs, and to change them. When a meeting of the “real” Catholic Church, that is, the members who honestly believe what the Church teaches, can be held in an SUV, the legitimate options are limited; to re-think the mission of the Church so more people can embrace it, or to close up shop and start a cult, perhaps.
If belonging to a church does not mean embracing that church’s beliefs, then it doesn’t mean anything. Indeed, perhaps belonging to a church doesn’t mean anything anymore. This may be why fewer and fewer Americans belong to churches. Integrity is hard; hypocrisy is easy. And for both organized religions and individuals, an unwillingness to accept the limitations to your conduct that flow from your beliefs is an indictment of character.
[Note: On the Legal Ethics Forum, Richard Painter also points out that the Barnesville church’s conduct neither violates the First Amendment not implicates its tax-free status.]
_______________________________
Facts: D-L Online
Source: Legal Ethics Forum
Ethics Alarms 
No hypocrisy from that church. The hypocrisy comes when prelates endorse conduct that the Bible calls an abomination. That’s a pretty hard and unrelenting term.
Only if the prelates purport to follow the Bible.
Prelates from the Church of Sodomology or the Church of Buggerology can endorse same-sex “marriage” without being hypocrites.
Jack, Steven, happy Thanksgiving.
Jack, is it a pandemic of WoodyAllenosis, or somesuch viral mutation? Seems like, these days, with few exceptions, no organization would dare exclude someone who is unfit to be a member.
I’ll take most of humanity’s centuries-old organized religions and their hypocrisies, over the fluid, zombie herd-like coalitions of post-American urbandelusional idolaters – to whom history is virtually irrelevant, except as another tool for indulgent power trips – and the hypocrisies (if it can be said there are such) of their virtual anarchy. But I do hope they’ll succeed in banning the death penalty, so then I can murder a recognized champion of the “historic change,” and then taunt them, saying, “What can you legally do to me now? You owe me shelter, meals, health care, and maximum isolation from the likes of you, for the rest of my days – just what I want.” If they saw fit to waive their death penalty ban just for me, I would be partying to spite them more heartily than they could ever dream of partying to celebrate their “courageous, heroic” bestowal of their “justice” on me.
In case I am not being clear (with a tip o’ me hat to Cuomo, Biden and Kerry): I am personally opposed to genocide. But I could never deny or oppose the right of Israeli Jews (should they choose to exercise it) to exterminate every Arab and Muslim within 12,500 miles of Tel Aviv.
“Indeed, perhaps belonging to a church doesn’t mean anything anymore. This may be why fewer and fewer Americans belong to churches. Integrity is hard; hypocrisy is easy.”
Are you suggesting that not belonging to a church is hypocritical? It seems to me that rejecting the organizations that do not share your beliefs is the height of integrity.
And, by the way, the Catholic Church has never been about anything but power.
How could you or anyone read that statement to suggest that not belonging to a church is hypocritical? I think belonging to a church that you don’t believe in is hypocritical, and belonging to a church that pretends to stand for core principles but doesn’t require those principles of its members is dumb. “Integrity is hard; hypocrisy is easy.” refers to the institutions—that is, after all, the topic of the post.
Apologies- I think I read it that way because of the proximity of the statements- you seemed to be making an indirect argument that one implies the other. As it stands, I think without some form of segue, it represents such a drastic change in the course of the paragraph, that it is a non-sequitur. I apologize again for my misunderstanding.
One thing I’d like to add is that those who were seeking confirmation were likely youths and are doing so not necessarily out of their full belief in the teachings of the Catholic Church, but because it is a familial or cultural right. While this doesn’t alter my belief that you called this particular situation correctly, it explains why people could be seeking inclusion into a religious group that has teachings they don’t entirely believe in. Another example comes from personal experience. A good friend was about to be engaged to a man who was a Catholic (though there was premarital sex and birth control being used), it was important to his family that there be a Catholic ceremony. That entailed her going to classes and a confirmation. Did she believe in all of the teachings of the Catholic Church? No. She believed in God and Jesus, but disagreed with the church about homosexuality, birth control and sex before marriage (and likely a few other things), but went through with it for the sake of her soon-to-be husband’s family.
I was raised, for a good part, by my VERY catholic grandparents. I was basically a closet agnostic for a good time until my grandmother’s death, because I knew they took religion very seriously.
Many people never actually examine their faiths, or whether they should remain part of an organized religion- they are born into it, and indoctrinated into it as a child, and compartmentalize it as part of their identity unless something forces them to deal with the differences between the clear-cut teachings of their catechism and the much more messy realities behind religion. I think if enough people were convinced to have that inner battle, there would be a new Reformation. People just have to be willing to admit the Pope is naked.
Joe Biden, John Kerry and Andrew Cuomo may be hypocritical for not trying to impose their religious beliefs on others though legislation but I think this hypocrisy is necessary if religious people are to participate in public life (and I believe that it is important that they do so). Religious people believe many things that cannot be proven to people who do not share their religions, and if they were always to act on those beliefs, secular society would be impossible.
I’ll give you an example. Imagine that members of a religion believe that what non-believers would consider to be an inanimate object is in fact a living person. Should politicians who are members of this religion insist that the power of the state be used to protect the object and to punish those who destroy the object because the object is a living human, even though they have no way of proving to non-believers that the object is a living human? If the answer is no, then why should people who believe that a fetus is a living human act any differently?
I think its a difficult issue. But when for example, John Kerry aggressively supports pro-abortion legislation and measures, what are we supposed to make of that? Eschewing a position is one thing, aggressively seeking to do what you claim you believe is wrong is quite another.
I see no reason why religion-based beliefs should be treated any differently from any other beliefs. Do you believe this is right? Or not? If it’s right, then support it. It it’s wrong, don’t. Supporting what you believe is wrong? Get lost I don’t trust you.
I agree that aggressively supporting something you believe is wrong is unethical.
I think beliefs solely based on religion are different from other beliefs because it is impossible to convince non-believers that they should be followed. I don’t think it is right in a secular society legislate on the basis of religious beliefs unless you can also provide a non-religious justification that a reasonable person who does not share your beliefs would find plausible. Rules that are based on religious beliefs are also different because they can be enforced by punishments that are outside the mortal realm, thus making state-sanctioned punishment unnecessary
For example, I might believe based on my religious beliefs that it is wrong for people to work on a certain day of the week. I would be unable to convince someone who did not share my religious belief that it would be wrong for them to work on that particular day (I might be able to convince a reasonable person that workers should be given a day off work every week, but I don’t think I would be able to convince a reasonable person that it should be my religion’s special day off). I therefore think it would be wrong to impose my belief on others by passing a law that punishes those who work on my religion’s special day off.
Eric, I mostly agree with you and the example you cite is excellent. The ethical dilemma stems from the difference between the ideal versus the practical. I cannot agree that it is unethical for someone to support an organization that he believes is doing most things right, but a few things wrong. Generally, a single-issue voter fouls party politics, and foils party electoral success. Perhaps similarly (I am not really qualified to talk much on this), for example, it seems the long-term damage done to the aims of the Susan Komen cancer-fighting organization, stemming from (now former) supporters’ reaction to the Komen move to not provide funds to Planned Parenthood, is inconsistent with the ethics of many of those former supporters. However, I don’t think all offended supporters’ withdrawal of support from Komen was necessarily unethical. But, I also do not think that all supporters who have continued support for Komen despite strong objections to Komen’s move to disconnect from PP (even if only temporarily and abortively) are behaving unethically, or that they would have been behaving unethically to continue supporting Komen if Komen had stayed its course of disconnecting from PP.
I agree with you Eeyoure. I think it is perfectly fine to belong to an organization even if you do not share all of its core beliefs, values or objectives (so long as those beliefs, values and objectives are not odious). Many organizations, including some religions, acknowledge that some of their members do not share or even dissent from some of the consensus beliefs. The important thing is that the organization is okay with your membership despite the differences. I presume that the Susan G. Komen Foundation is happy to accept donations and support from people even if they do not agree with their position on Planned Parenthood.
There could even be an organization that is okay with having members who share none of their objectives (e.g. you could have a club or conservatives who are okay with non-conservatives joining as social members so long as they are respectful and are okay with the fact that many of the invited speakers will be conservative).
Where I think I agree with Jack is that it is unethical to belong to a club whose “core values” you do not share, where I understand “core values” to mean values that the club would not want you to be a member if you did not share them. I also think it unethical to aggressively support something that you believe is wrong (e.g. you could believe that it is wrong to increase defence spending and belong to a conservative club that supports an increase in defence spending, but I think it would be unethical to give fiery speeches supporting defence spending if you believed that it was wrong).
But “it is impossible to convince non-believers that they should be followed” is only true while they are non-believers and thus is a tautology. It’s also untrue in many cases. I think abortion is profoundly wrong, and religion has nothing to do with it—I have no religion. Why is my belief any more or less valid than the anti-abortion beliefs of a Baptist or Catholic?
I mean that it is impossible to convince people that your position is right if they do not share your religious principles. It might be possible to convince them of the correctness of your religious principles, in which case they would accept your position as well, but you cannot otherwise convince them of your principles. For example, I could not convince someone that it is wrong to work on Sunday unless I could convince them that a higher power commands exists and that that higher power commands them not to work on Sunday. I cannot make a case that working on Sunday is wrong on other grounds. In a secular country, it is wrong to impose views that are solely religiously based because it would lead to the imposition of the majoritarian religious view on those who don’t share it for no other reason that it is the majoritarian religious view. It also inhibits democratic debate to impose a religious view solely because it is a religious view (e.g. if I am told that I cannot do activity X because of the commands of a higher power, how can I argue or challenge the law).
I have no problem if someone believes that something (like abortion) is morally wrong for non-religious views and they wish to impose that view on others (I might disagree that it should be imposed, but that is a matter of debate). For example, you could argue that there should be a uniform day of rest because that is good for workers. In this way, you could support a prohibition on working on a particular day that is not religiously based (but why Sunday?).
I don’t even have a problem if someone desires legislation based on a joint religious and secular purpose, so long as they can justify it on secular as well as religious grounds. Your belief that abortion is wrong is no more or less valid than the view of a Catholic or a Baptist that abortion is wrong so long as your beliefs are based in part on the fact that abortion ends a human life, that that is wrong and that the fact that a fetus is human is not supported solely by religious grounds. If a Catholic believed that, but for his or her religion declaring a fetus to be human, abortion is okay, then I would say that your view that abortion should be prohibited by law is more valid (but not necessarily that your belief that abortion is wrong is more valid).
For an example, here is a quote from a post on another forum .
Link is here.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?style=4&p=3686094#p3686094
The issue here is that religious beliefs are, by definition, based on nonreality. If your belief is based on nonreality, it’s just as stupid as religious belief based on nonreality.
TGT: No one can take your views on Christianity seriously as you’ve made your hostility towards it so abundantly evident! You might as well just butt out.
That seems to be a personal problem on your part. Whether a person likes or dislikes a topic doesn’t change the validity of their arguments about that topic.
The “personal problem” is your’s, TGT, which was exactly my point. Your arguments lack validity due to your blind hostility to a faith that has, whether you like it nor not, shaped the nation and civilization to which you belong. It’s your’s to accept or reject as you will. But don’t expect others to accept your opinions as “objective” or “valid” on that basis. I have firm opinions on a number of issues myself… as you may have noticed! But I don’t demand acceptance on a basis of my sayso.
And Merry Christmas!
And a very Merry Christmas to you too, Jack. And TGT as well, if that doesn’t offend him!
Merry Christmas to all!
Where have I asked for someone to accept my position based on my say so? The closest is the Petraeus thread, but there I was just unwilling to explain fully why online. I can’t think of anywhere else. This is just another random attack.
don’t think it is right in a secular society legislate on the basis of religious beliefs unless you can also provide a non-religious justification that a reasonable person who does not share your beliefs would find plausible.
It’s fine to have theocracy so long as we have political cover!
You’re a fine one to talk about theocracy. Where has any Christian leader endorsed the church and state as one? That IS unconstitutional. But so is the suppression of public statements of faith. And when that suppression occurs in favor of the domination of those who are aggressively anti-Christian, then you have persecution and the establishment of a national church (in essence) of non-faith. You also have an essential ingredient of communism.
Where has any Christian leader endorsed the church and state as one?
First, that’s not necessary for my point. You fail at basic logic.
Second, it’s hard to name a tea party member who has not done such in their explanations of their positions, but I’ll go with someone who said it directly: “I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute.” That’s Rick Santorum.
But so is the suppression of public statements of faith. And when that suppression occurs in favor of the domination of those who are aggressively anti-Christian, then you have persecution and the establishment of a national church (in essence) of non-faith.
Where is this occurring? Where do you have government suppressing completely private speech?
You also have an essential ingredient of communism.
Communism doesn’t require atheism by any means. Hell, Christianity has more in common with communism than with capitalism. Christianity is about helping the poor and disadvantaged: social justice.
I explained it in my Usenet post
I can understand a Catholic politicians reluctance to criminalize idolatry or blasphemy due to the First Amendment. But for them to vote in support of public shrines or public blasphemy would violate their faith, as well as the First Amendment.
As someone who was raised Catholic , went to Catholic schools most of my life and one point was on track to join the Priesthood agree with your basic premise that the Catholic Church was right to not confirm these two boys but disagree that all meme era of the Catholic Church have to follow every rule and beleive everything the church teaches to belong to the church. The church’s beliefs and rules have changed over the years and those rules have been changed from within by people who stuck it out to change an organization they believed in.
Personally as an agnostic now I didn’t understand why anyone would stick with an organization like the Catholic Church. Also if the church is going to donate $50,000.00 to a political campaign then they should give up their tax free status. We should be taxing all churches.
As someone said at the beginning of Obama’s persecutions, “We’re all Catholics now”. I’m a Baptist, myself. But I’m a Christian first. As one, I understand that it’s only the doctrines and rituals that separate us into denominations. It’s our upholding of the virtues from the Gospels that make us all Christians. Unbelievers and “casual Christians” fail to understand this. Thus the concept that the Gospels (which are eternal) are on the same level of questioning with doctrines, which CAN change over time. The churches of America are the intended repositories of truth and virtue. Thus, they are vital to the moral health of our and any nation. The Founding Fathers were unanimous in acknowledging this. That’s why churches- which depend on the charity of their congregations to function- are untaxed… and must remain so. To tax something is to essentially control something. This is what Jefferson’s comment about “separation of church and state” actually conveyed.
How is it wrong to believe that same-sex “marriage” is a sin?
Are Islamic mullahs wrong in opposing drinking wine as a sin?
It’s hardly the same thing. Marriage and its sanctity is a (maybe THE) key ingredient to the very basis of civilized society. Without marriage, there is no stable family. Without a stable family, the State becomes the father and rules all. Thus, without marriage and its Divine blessing, no free nation is ultimately possible. Marriage is a gospel issue. Wine consumption is docrinal. In a Moslem society, it hardly matters!
That doesn’t really tie back to Michael Ejercito’s comment. He was suggesting that it’s ethical for religions’ to determine whatever they want to be a sin. That’s pretty obviously silly; it’s making the claim that if you believe X, then it’s not unethical to try to get other people to follow X, even if X is wrong.
What’s silly is that you still claim the right to determine whether an issue is right or wrong on your own recognizance . It’s also arrogant to the extreme. My prime source on these issues is a long recognized source of wisdom called the Bible… which, of course, you flatly reject. I’ll take the Bible’s wisdom over your’s, thank you.
What’s wrong with my argument? You didn’t list anything. You accused me of a nonexistent appeal to authority…and then committed an actual appeal to authority.
My son received the sacrament of baptism at Assumption Catholic Church in June 1979. We lived in Barnesville from 1978-1980. The football coach was a classmate of mine from the University of St. Thomas and policeman Al Kerscher was my golfing buddy.
Despite all the well-intentioned, eloquent comments perhaps an explanation of the sacraments is in order. The seven sacraments instituted by Christ and given to the apostles before there was a New Testament contains sanctifying grace to forgive mortal sins; that process is continued through the apostolic succession by priest and bishops.
Conditionally, if a soul is immersed in mortal sin the sacrament is not valid and cannot be until one accesses the sacrament of penance…the exceptions being baptism and the last rites.
For non-Catholics and Catholics who do not believe in this process “you have no dog in this fight, no horse in this race.” We are keenly aware that the numbers in the Church will decrease, just remember that the numbers went from one, Christ – to twelve, the apostles – to 1.25 billion.
In the Church sexual relations with anyone who is not your wife/husband is a sin. The natural law/natural right obligates one to do things that will perpetuate life…included in that obligation is the perpetuation of the species, namely human reproduction. The civil law/civil right is an exchange of the natural law/natural right in a society. A civil right cannot grant what a natural right does not endorse.
Doc Raven
The civil law/civil right is an exchange of the natural law/natural right in a society. A civil right cannot grant what a natural right does not endorse.
The “natural law/natural right” in your argument is a religious position. I don’t see anyone suggesting that the church must back same sex marriage because same sex marriage is legal.
Did your post have a point?
Was there a reason you put your PHD and “Doc” in that post other than to attempt an argument by authority?
You ignore the broader aspects of legalized “same sex marriage”… and the purpose behind it. It’s not a matter of any so-called “civil right”. It’s a matter of legitimizing perversity in all its aspects and forcing them on society, not to mention putting pressure on the churches to accept it or suffer persecution for their beliefs.
What does that have to do with what I called out in Raven’s comment? I don’t see it as explaining any point of his that I missed either.
I should leave it at that, but I can’t let the silliness of your comment go:
It’s a matter of legitimizing perversity in all its aspects and forcing them on society
The “perversity” comment is based on faith. Because it’s based on faith, the government must stay away from backing it. This protects the people from their government. I’m pretty sure that if we had a muslim dominated nation, you wouldn’t be complaining when the government repealed laws based only on Islamic faith positions.
not to mention putting pressure on the churches to accept it or suffer persecution for their beliefs
This reads like a complaint that churches can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas, so other people should have to be stuck with losing ideas to make church doable. It’s pretty entertaining.
My apologies on the bold. I accidentally mixed tags. The first bolded line was supposed to be a citation of SMP. Nothing was supposed to be bolded.
But we DON’T live in a Moslem society, TGT. We live in a Christian one- whether you like it or not. At least, until your buddies drive it underground- which is their evident desire. Comparisons between Christianity and Mohammedism are false, as they are based on fundamentally different concepts, human freedom being a key one. Whether one is a Christian or not, logic should be enough to grant one outlook enough to see that certain activities are not only abnormal to the human spirit, but destructive beyond the individual committing them. Unless, of course, one is also committed to a system that holds no actions right or wrong beyond the consideration of political expediency- a valueless society in truth. This latter is what you seek to impose on us. But to do so, you must tear the heart out of Christian America. This is what you find “entertaining”. I consider it an abominatiion. So there we are.
But we DON’T live in a Moslem society, TGT. We live in a Christian one- whether you like it or not.
We don’t live in a christian society.
Comparisons between Christianity and Mohammedism are false, as they are based on fundamentally different concepts, human freedom being a key one.
First, I didn’t compare Christianity to Islam. Second, they absolutely can be compared.
Whether one is a Christian or not, logic should be enough to grant one outlook enough to see that certain activities are not only abnormal to the human spirit, but destructive beyond the individual committing them.
If you can make the case without religion, then my comment wouldn’t apply.
—
The rest is mostly random accusations.
1. Yes, we do.
2. No, they can’t!
3. I can make such a case. It’s just that wiser men than I already have and in a book you reject as being beneath you.
4. Get off your cross, TGT. No one’s trying to take away YOUR religious freedom. It’s just the other way around.
1. We live in a society of majority Christians. We also live in a society that’s more white than anything else, that doesn’t mean we live in a “white society”.
2a. You’re an idiot. Any two things can be compared. I can compare oranges to orangutans.
2b. You skipped the spot where I pointed out that I didn’t compare Christianity to Islam. Are you trying to hide that you attacked a strawman?
3. Point to someone who has made the case without religion. The bible, which you appear to be hinting at, is religious, so it wouldn’t count.
4. Examples please. You still haven’t provided any.