(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

Everyone must read this now: 14 Thoughts for the New Pope: Condoms. Female priests. Stop Gay Bashing. And Dammit, Do Something About Christian Rock.

Relatedly, Russell Brown asks What Would Jesus Have on His Ipod? And his readers, including Margaret Mayman omgwtf, tell him (scroll down. A lot.)

I love that man's blog. I do, I do.

Comments

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

*raises eyebrows* Would you let me kick Winston Peters out of Parliament? He's smug and condescending.

I don't think it's more smug or condescending that a conservative Catholic, or other religious, telling that "Jesus loves me" while simultaneously demonstrating against the Civil Union Bill, for example. In fact, I don't think it's smug or condescending at all. I think it's a genuine plea- made funny- to the Catholic Church to reconsider.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

Yeah but to me it says "hey kids! Come sneer with me at those weird Catholics!! And let's be as irreverent as possible because that's FUNNEE!!11!11!1!!!1"

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

*frustrated* You know what? I have friends who are Catholics who are
-pro-homosexuality
-pro-abortion
-believe condoms prevent the spread of AIDS
-etc, etc.

So you know what, he's not sneering at "those wierd Catholics", because those opinions are not ones all Catholics share. What he is sneering at- if you like; I don't actually think the tone was sneering at all, but whatever- what he is sneering at is the position of the Catholic administration.

As I said, though, I don't think he was sneering: he was looking at and saying "I don't like this. Please, won't you reconsider? Because this bothers me."

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

PS: do you think that the message to the Pope- please modernise, change your stance on homosexuality and women and condoms- is inherently bad or wrong? It's no more bad or wrong than a message to, oh, I don't know, anyone, asking them to change their opinion or do something for you. People write to their MPS and say "Please, I agree/disagree with this thing that is happening now in Parliament and this is why- won't you act on it?"

Of course you can't force people to act on it, and shouldn't be able to. But sending that message in the first place, by whatever means, that is not a bad thing unless you insult people, which he didn't. He didn't say "Catholics are bad" or "Catholics suck" or even "Catholic religious practices suck", he said "The Pope sucks and what he says sucks and I don't like it and I want him to change and this is me asking him to."

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

do you think that the message to the Pope- please modernise, change your stance on homosexuality and women and condoms- is inherently bad or wrong?

No. But I think he's taking it too lightly and not considering that for SOME of the things the theology runs too deep for the Vatican to be able to change their minds just like that.

And at one point he does insinuate that Christians are bland and boring people.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

But it doesn't, because if it did Catholics really would all be like that. That's like excusing Destiny because "what the Bible says runs too deep, they can't help it." It's blatantly not true, because there are many, many other churches who totally disagree with Destiny. Similarly the Catholic church is using their theology as an excuse for beliefs that quite frankly I find repellent. They're entitled to them, but I do not have to like them and I do not have to not even ask them to change because, oops, it might be difficult. Change is difficult. That's just the way it is.

Also, er, it wierdly enough wasn't a totally serious essay, so maybe he is taking some things a little bit lightly. In a satire? No! Shock! Horror!

Finally: QUOTE.

[nzlemming.livejournal.com]

As someone who *almost* studied for the priesthood, and has read an awful lot in this area, there is no biblical teaching against condoms, none against women and some really confused stuff about homosexuality. Church teachings on the first two are based around sex being a Bad Thing (hell, enjoying yourself at anything other than prayer is seen by some as a bad thing) and women being responsible for the Fall (as Adam couldn't have been at *all* responsible -Eve held a gun to his head and *made* hime eat that apple!). The dogma around homosexuality is based on some heavily disputed translations. For what is believed, check out

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] </a>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

As someone who *almost* studied for the priesthood, and has read an awful lot in this area, there is no biblical teaching against condoms, none against women and some really confused stuff about homosexuality. Church teachings on the first two are based around sex being a Bad Thing (hell, enjoying yourself at anything other than prayer is seen by some as a bad thing) and women being responsible for the Fall (as Adam couldn't have been at *all* responsible -Eve held a gun to his head and *made* hime eat that apple!). The dogma around homosexuality is based on some heavily disputed translations. For what is believed, check out <a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html"</a> <i>Persona Humana</> (1975 but not rescinded)</a> .

Basically, the RCC believes the only reason for having sex is to produce more Catholics. Anything that gets in the way is B - A - D bad, including women having jobs instead of babies, (or abortions instead of babies) or men having sex with each other, as they definitely can't have babies.

[nzlemming.livejournal.com]

That should have read:
Persona Humana (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html)
but there you go (still getting used to the Mac keyboard)

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

I've seen an interesting interpretation of the homosexuality verse, saying that what is sinful is "substitutional homosexuality" or something along those lines - having sex wioth another man when you are straight O_o Interesting thought but it seems a bit unlikely. Convenient though ;)

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Why does it seem so unlikely?

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

It's a really convoluted way of looking at it. Did people 4000 years ago even have a concept of heterosexual vs homosexual vs gay out of desperation because there are no women around?

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I have no textual evidence to confirm this, but I'd say a semi-tentative yes, because I'm fairly sure that it's been moderately well-documented in the navy & seafaring ships since ages and ages and ages ago.

Plus, also, the greeks and the spartans. ;) Or something.