Being gay or atheistic are incompatible with
Catholicism. The stupid would argue that to refuse to tick Catholic on a census
form and to leave the Church formally or get the parish to strike your name off
is polarising religion and sexuality/atheism!
Quick answer: "I am not turning my back on the Catholic Church but on the bad baggage that comes with it and the bloodshed." No Catholic bigot could fail to be in awe of such an answer.
Yet it is clear that if your beliefs and the way you live your life is against a
religion's required teaching you are not polarising but being true to yourself
by leaving the religion. If polarising happens that is not down to your
decision. It is still the right decision. If a religion is not infallible or the
truth it claims to be then you should not be in it. Your devotion to truth is
non-existent or poor if you stay.
"Refusing to check the box on the census or leaving the religion seems to be to
be running away from the problem and not embracing your true self at all. It is
only asking people to continue polarising religion and belief/sexual
orientation."
Is it running away from the problem?
Not necessarily. It is dealing with the problem by protesting with your feet.
Sometimes the only way to deal with a problem is to protest with your feet.
Would Fianna Fail supporters see giving up and voting for another party as
running away from a problem Fianna Fail has? It depends.
In the light of the Catholic doctrine that nobody must force themselves to be
members of the Church if they think it is man-made or has serious errors walking
is doing the right thing and not polarising.
What is running away from the problem is pretending that a religion's official
teaching that atheism or same-sex sexual activity should be warred against is
either changeable or just its current opinion which might change in time.
Catholicism vehemently denies that its teaching can be changed or that it is
mere opinion and up for debate. The Church has declared the war if there is a
war.
It takes two to polarise. Take the homosexual thing. The argument is saying then
that the Church will repulse gay relationships if the gays decide the religion
does not suit them and they walk away! To want to be in a religion like that is
internal homophobia. At least it is showing that it likes the bigotry of the
Church and regards it as bigoted. Whoever uses the argument is no true friend of
the gay community.
It is a free country. If you don't agree with your religion's teachings get
another religion. Or are you too sectarian to do that? If it is a free country
then stand up for that freedom by being consistent with it. If your religion is
about you and not God then you are just a hypocrite if you stay in a religion
that you think was not set up by God as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic
Church.
LGBT rights and rights as atheists are in conflict with the rights of
Christians. Don't try to paper over that. Whose rights should trump? I would say
sexuality is more important than one's religion. And should be. That is the
answer.
Catholic teaching says gay sex or atheism is a grave sin. A Protestant just has
the Bible condemnation of gay sex and atheism to focus on, but the Catholic has
more than that. The tradition of the Church is said to preserve the teaching of
Christ and that tradition condemns gay sex and atheism is seen as a form of
idolatry. In terms of the quantity of anti-gay and anti-atheist sources of
doctrine, it would be less homophobic or less bigoted to be a Protestant than a
Catholic. Christian teaching says that atheism is a grave sin which is probably
worse than homosexuality for atheism opposes a relationship with God which is a
fundamental principle for Christians.
People stopping going to Mass and vehemently criticising Church teaching has
forced the Church to be less forceful and strident. The Church and even the pope
pussyfoots around the Old Testament God's assertion that it's an abomination for
a man to abandon faith in God or lie with a man and that he who does this is an
abomination. Jesus remember said the whole Old Testament was written by God
through men and continually quoted it and put its teaching first. I'd rather the
Church be allowed to state its teaching and if people don't like it they can
find a new religion.
According to some, atheist or LGBT people who tick the No Religion box for the
sake of atheist or LGBT rights are running away from the problem. Maybe those
Catholics who defected from Scientology or Fundamentalist Christianity should
reconsider and go back to their faiths. They ran away from the problem - shame
on them! The worse the religion the worse it is then to run away from it. To try
to be a member of a Church with harmful teachings is really saying, "You are so
credible and so good that I need to be part of you." Outsiders see you as
indicating that the faith is true and they think you are a bit mixed up if you
live or preach in some way that differs from that faith. They take your
attachment as a strange testimonial in favour of the religion but still a
testimonial. And indeed they should! The Catholic religion after all sees itself
as a hospital for sinners and rebels. Dissent and disobedience then are expected
by the Church.
And is it a problem?
A problem is something with the potential to be fixed. A religion stands for the
concept of reason informed by faith. Even atheists have faith that there is no
God. The idea is that if a teaching seems absurd or even unfair it must be
accepted simply because faith is supposed to inform us on things we cannot know
or work out for ourselves. The gay activist or atheist who claims to be truly
Catholic does not have as much respect as he pretends when he wants to take away
the religious freedom of the Church and get it to alter its teaching to suit
him.
To stay in a religion to cause trouble for it and disagreement with its
authentic teaching is being a problem yourself for that religion. How does a gay
man or atheist expect staying in a Church while opposing its official teaching
will help with the problem of how the Church views LGBT sexuality or atheist
activism when he is a problem himself?
To refer to religious disapproval that leads to atheist or LGBT getting
depressed and perhaps committing suicide and suffering other ills as a problem
is a seriously insensitive understatement. It's more than a problem. It's worse
than that.
Some atheist or LGBT people kill themselves in the hope of going into oblivion
for they do not want to be part of an existence where there is thought to be a
God who opposes atheist rights and LGBT love and condemns the sex as sinful. The
Church has directly killed those people. If it is indirect then what does that
matter? Indirect or direct does not matter much when the result is loss of life.
The LGBT and atheists feel too excluded from the Christian society and that
poses grave dangers too.
There are those who see Christianity's opposition to homosexuality as an abuse
of religion. That is stupid. If religion were merely a system of ethics there
could be a fair point. But religion is not just a heap of ethics. It claims to
go beyond ethics to create further obligations. Religion comes from a word
meaning to bind or obligate. Sensible people would agree that having a code of
ethics is fine as long as you don't start adding in rules you can do without. It
is ethical for Catholicism to say we must not murder but it's unethical for it to
say that only priests can celebrate Mass or forgive sins. That's taking away
from the essentials.
The person who claims that being actively gay and Catholic are compatible and
even complimentary will get a lot of tolerance and even respect for his
sexuality from Catholics who don't know their religion well. They may think gay
sex is not a serious sin in the Catholic faith or they may think the Church lets
the individual Catholic decide for themselves. It is foolish of him if he
regards the acceptance as proving he fits in the Church. Acceptance that is
based on ignorance is artificial, dangerous and unsatisfactory. It cannot last -
its sneaky of him to welcome it for it means he is encouraging people not to be
their true Catholic selves. The reality is that the Church sees a gay person's
conscience as distorted if it fails to see that God's teaching that gay sex is a
sin is correct. Catholic respect for conscience does not mean the Church ever
accepts a Catholic conscience that endorses gay sex as sensible or acceptable.
Some people "stay" in a religion when they should not. Don't try to justify the
unjustifiable - if one sincerely disagrees with a religion one should not be in
it - for one has left it anyway in one's heart and mind - and no religion
however bad deserves people who class themselves as members though objectively
speaking they are unbelievers. Agreeing with the Church a lot does not make you
a true Catholic any more than it would make you a Mormon. The Church is either
infallible or it is not.
A person who takes a census form and declares themselves to be a member of a
faith and Church they have fallen away from is not being true to themselves. The
Catholic who accepts atheist or LGBT people as moral people has become his own
version of Catholicism but is not Roman Catholic.
If religious belief and practice do not matter, then why not declare yourself
any religion at random? There is no difference between a person who rejects the
Church and its faith declaring themselves Mormon on the census form or Catholic.
One is just as untrue as the other.
And what if you state that it would be polarising religion and sexuality?
How black and white! LGBT have rights. The Church does not recognise them. Who
is doing the polarising? Your statement implies that LGBT people who tick the No
Religion box are as big into polarising as the Church is. It is an insulting
statement.
Polarising whether slight or strong is a fact of life. If I drink tea, I
polarise the makers of all other kinds of drinks.
If LGBT people are right to assert LGBT rights and the Catholic religion objects
then the religion is what is doing the polarising. The argument that ticking No
Religion is polarising is taking the Church's side. If you believe that LGBT
people ceasing to declare themselves Catholic means they are polarising then you
need to think again. It is only polarising if the break is based on hostility.
This need not be the case. Again you slander my viewpoint and twist things. You
show that your truly loyalties are not with LGBT people who break with the
Church and you judge them.
If LGBT people want to enjoy their sexuality and the Church is against this, who
is doing the polarising? It is not LGBT people. If you think you are an LGBT
person who wants the Church to accept committed loving gay relationships, ask
yourself if you want to polarise LGBT people who don't adhere to or want to
adhere to this model. They will certainly never be accepted.
Many people who call themselves Catholic do not go to Mass, do not pay the
Church any money and hate Catholic beliefs and they are members of our
community. This terrifying polarisation you fear between LGBT/atheists and
Catholics is not going to happen just because LGBT's/atheists tick the No
Religion box or defect from the Church. It may happen for other reasons but not
that. I could attend a Mormon chapel despite being an atheist just because I
like the people and the service. Separating from Church membership need not
involve warfare.
There will always be strident homophobes and atheist haters in the Church and
involved in running it. Some were popes and some were saints. Some want the
church to accept LGBT and atheist rights and polarise them even if those
monsters become popes. Be honest. Jesus said that if a kingdom is divided
against itself it cannot stand so you are going against him in your
disobedience. The Church is commanded to be one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32).
How can it be and how can it be a Church and how can it teach if people like you
campaigning for it to change its doctrine to suit you? You say having the
honesty to walk away from the Church if you disagree with it is running away
from the problem. Unity in doctrine is the basic trait the Church must have in
order to be one in organisation and fellowship, holy, Catholic and apostolic.
Walking away can be a sign of respect for the Church.
That's the strident homophobes covered about what about the "milder" ones who do
not want Gay relationships encouraged or supported? In fact the homophobe who is
nice and refuses support to committed gay relationships is worse than the nasty
gobby homophobe. The niceness is just tactical.
The gay "Catholic" can have a seeming addiction to Jesus Christ and their
wanting others to be trapped into that assumes that Jesus was and would be
pro-gay. What comes first then if he wasn't or isn't? If it is not Jesus then
maybe this "Catholic" should quit the Church.
Some declare that LGBT Catholics who do not tick the Roman Catholic box are
polarising sexuality and religion and making the problems far worse. This is a
blatant lie because many LGBT people refuse to tick the box for reasons that
have nothing to do with their sexuality at all. Or at least there is little to
do. They might be unbelievers or born-again Christians or want to be
undenominational for example. Unless a person is required to state why they
don't tick the Roman Catholic box and they state then there is no problem. And
would it be a problem even if they did? Some want the LGBT minority not to
polarise their sexuality and the huge Catholic religion. In terms of size and
influence surely the Church will come out the winner? Or at least it has the
best chance. We don't know if in ten years the LGBT community will get less or
more acceptance than it gets today. Things can change quickly. Is it right then
to consort with a body that condemns LGBT people as sinners for exercising their
sexuality?
If one is worried about the polarising, is it because one thinks LGBT influence
will be taken out of the Church or reduced? But the Church might also say, "Let
us not exclude LGBT people for if we are nice to them they may come to see the
error of their ways and see that valid heterosexual marriage is the only moral
avenue for sexual activity." The only reason the Church might be nice is so that
it does not drive LGBT people further into a forbidden lifestyle and does not
anger people in the closet so that they will come out and join the cause. To be
at peace with that is to become as manipulative as the Church.
Most Catholics do not care if you leave the box unticked and tick no religion.
Despite their Church, they will not take it as an insult or see it as any of
their business. There will be no polarising at all unless LGBT go to Mass and
tick the No Religion box and make a ceremony of it. Most Catholics won't know or
ask.The objectordon't be so stupid - your desperation to bully those who don't
want to support an organisation that does not support them is horrendous.
Jesus said he came not to cause peace but to cause division and the father would
hate his son and the son his father. If Christianity fits modern secular
thinking - and to the extent that it starts to accept LGBT rights - then what
Jesus said made no sense. Jesus was saying his true followers go not with the
flow but against it.