zelda2fanboy said:
I wasn't speaking from the perspective of how things necessarily are, but how they should be. The problem is in accounting for religious stuff that may influence people, it's automatically lent an air of credibility, which it shouldn't have.
Spoken like a true New Atheist, and I absolutely agree.
I think I bring these things up since we do have a significant religious demographic on
The Escapist forums, and I like to remind them where their churches are positioned, even if they, personally, are not, and especially if it's absurd. Since
faith traditionally has more to do with
loyalty than
belief (i.e.
If at noon the King declares it is night, behold the stars.) I would like to see people more selective about allying their name, their tithes (and according to the churches, their
soul) with guys who are going to push for criminalization of gays and the legitimization of reformation therapy. Those who are (for example) born again evangelists and yet don't accept these positions[footnote]Let alone accept more openly treasonous positions such as
dominionism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism]...[/footnote] might want to find out what their church actually represents before they feed its coffers.
As for the RCC[footnote]According to the Holy See, there are 406,411 priests and 1.12 billion Roman Catholics worldwide. I'd be more inclined to know their method of census before giving much credence to these figures.[/footnote], while I have respect for their position regarding scientific matters (The Vatican often going as far as sponsoring scientific advancement efforts directly), they are still behind times in sexual matters, to the point of discouraging contraceptive use in famine-torn countries and excommunicating a 12-year-old pregnant girl (and her mother and doctor) for aborting a pregnancy after she was raped for years by her stepfather.[footnote]Termination of the pregnancy was necessitated once it was determined the girl's body would not survive carrying to term. The stepfather, while convicted and imprisoned by the state, did
not face excommunication.[/footnote] Amongst Catholics, there are a wide sweeping range of beliefs, and they are encouraged generally to trust their consciences more than the word of the Church, but that doesn't stop the church from denying communion to those with whom they disagree, or pressuring, including threatening excommunication, when a public figure is too liberal for the Vatican's tastes.
But regarding the issue of gays staying closeted in seminary, it really depends on the individual. Those who are becoming a priest at the pressure of family and society are more inclined to conceal their inner nature than those who do it out of a spiritual calling. As the requirement for passing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_%28sociology%29] wore heavily on gay highly decorated officers in the US Armed Services during DADT, I suspect gay members of the priesthood would find themselves spiritually inhibited with time until they outed themselves. But given it's a new ruling, and the Church was a universal route for gays, intelligentsia and any other fringe subsection of the populace to find a place in Feudal society, its disappointing to see it implemented at all. Stupid, given the seminary is starved for new recruits. There's also the matter that it's about time that women be allowed into the priesthood, but it won't happen during Ratzinger's reign.
238U.[footnote]In the event that Escapist requires me to view a commercial before getting a code, I will simply not post. Depending on the frequency, this may temper or cease my future participation in the Escapist community. Apologies in advance, if this policy prevents me from replying to you when it is proper to do so.[/footnote]
Your OP will likely not be perfect, but just edit it a little where you need to. And this thread has been fine and created a crap-ton of discussion.
