I suspect that the only reason that gay adoption has become an issue in the past few decades is not because the Church happily gave children to cohabiting gay couples for almost two thousand years and randomly decided to discriminate; it was probably because, before the ’60s or so, gays got married to people of the opposite sex. That’s a “duh.” (According to The Boston Globe, Catholic Charities of MA placed 13 – approximately 1.5% – children with gay couples over the past decade.)

You misunderstand moral relativism. Properly defined, moral relativism is the inverse product of the morality of one’s relatives. My relatives are moral and yours aren’t, so you’re a moral relativist and I’m not. Needless to say, as a moral absolutist I’m qualified to judge whose relatives are moral and whose aren’t, and as a moral relativist you’re not.

Therefore, if a photographer doesn’t want to shoot the wedding of a lesbian couple, she may have her own reasons, but saying that their catholic faith prevents them from doing is just false. Furthermore, according to the interpretation, no catholic priest should ever have to worry about any hate crimes law, since he would never engage in any speech that would be violently malicious. The church should in fact applaud laws that prevent discrimination against gays because that is clearly part of the mandate.

So, Theo, the church has directed in language clear and plain that, as a fundamental tenet of the church, to accept gays and not discriminate against them. That doesn’t mean that they *have* to allow place children in gay household or support SSM, but it does mean that the church should support, not oppose, anti-discrimination laws.

So I guess you are arguing that the church doesn’t have as one of its top priorities to stop gay rights legislation, but that *should* be?

But I like your tactic. You complain that I have singled out just a few people and then used it to paint an unfair portrait of the entire church. And then you do the same. Touche.

“As “hate crime” legislation proliferates throughout this country, and as much of it could be read to encompass Christian activities, should any religion really stand idly by while people attempt to claim that its members are engaging in a crime by expressing their faith?”

Nope. And when that happens, I’ll be on your side. Until then, you are engaging in nothing more than fear mongering against gays.
As for the present: one only need to look northward to Canada to understand that churches, priests, and nuns may not be forever exempt from the laws put forth today.

“Randy, it’s a bigger issue than just whether or not churches will have to perform a gay marriage. To pretend otherwise is wrong.”

Sure is. So I am utterly perplexed when you go so defensive when I say that the church is fighting every single gay rights legislation. Apparently, you approve. But you don’t like the fact that I said it. Please explain.

No. I specifically stated that they do a lot for the poor. What I said was that they have as one of their top priorities is to stop gay rights.

“What you have not done is to prove your sweeping generalisation that Catholics (or the Church in general) does not give a fig about the poor or the disadvantaged. ”

I didn’t do that because I had no interest in doing so. I never said that the church ‘doesn’t give a fig about the poor.” What I said is that discriminating against gays is one of their top priorities. And you haven’t given any evidence to the contrary.

“Your criticisms of the Church’s actions with regards to same-sex adoption in Boston is beyond asinine; they would be required to ignore the fundamental tenets of their religion to comply with the law.”

Really? So preventing gays from adopting children is one of their fundamental tenets? I thought fundamental tenets would be those things that define the church since it’s inception. Since stopping gay adoption is something that has occured only within the last few decades, I can hardly see where that is a ‘fundamental tenet.’

And if it really is, then why did the church actually allow the Catholic Charities actually place children in gay households for many years *prior* to the imposition of SSM in Massachusetts? Yes, they did. So either it isn’t a ‘fundamental tenet’, or it isn, and they choose to ignore for some reason. Either way, it doesn’t speak well for them.

But no one asked them to go against their ‘fundamental tenet.’ There were merely told that either they comply with the law, or if they choose not to, then they must forfeit public funds for their adoption plan. Those were the two choices. Instead, the Bishop decided on his own to shut down adoptions altogether. And this, despite the fact that the Board of the Catholic Charities voted to continue to place children in gay households! (I guess those Board members didn’t get the memo about their fundamental tenets).

So the bishop of Massachusetts preferred to shut down all adoptions of all sorts than continue to place children in any household, gay or straight, as they had done for many years, or to continue to place children but rely only upon private funding. Who is hurt by that decision? The children who need a good home.

So please spare me your lectures.

Careless: I believe Islamic scholarship holds that the houri, not being human, have virginity as an inherent part of their being, so it’s virgins forever.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I mean, really? And this is *heaven*? Is hell that, plus the mothers-in-law?

Yes, you should think about being on the same side of culture war issues as Shiite fundamentalists. Note that doesn’t mean that one can’t conclude, after thinking about it, that the Shiite fundamentalists are right. But you still should think about it.

Seriously, I don’t think that homophobes think about their prejudices, I mean actually evaluate them, much at all. They just revulse and mistake revulsion and prejudice for rational thought. There’s certainly no self-awareness whatsoever in the Guam Catholics’ statement that some commenters are defending.

Dilan Esper: No, I made an important point, which is that when you see people who are wrong about a whole bunch of things advocate violence and discrimination against a group of people because of who they are, it might cause you to think about whether your similar beliefs are based on the same hatred and sorry history as theirs.

Okay, I get it. If one is for an issue, say, universal health care or government ownership of automobile companies, one must be particularly wary if one’s view is shared by really bad people, such as Stalin and Mao and the greatest mass killers and oppressors in human history.

Leo Marvin:
“Screw virgins in the afterlife” raises an interesting question.Does he only get to do it 72 times, after which he has 72 regular wives, or do they stay virgins forever?And how many suicide bombers think to pin something like that down before committing to the deal?I smell clients.

I believe Islamic scholarship holds that the houri, not being human, have virginity as an inherent part of their being, so it’s virgins forever.

No, I made an important point, which is that when you see people who are wrong about a whole bunch of things advocate violence and discrimination against a group of people because of who they are, it might cause you to think about whether your similar beliefs are based on the same hatred and sorry history as theirs. Or maybe that you don’t want to end up on the wrong side of history.

This seems to be pretty much the same thing to me, just with a slightly different slant. It still boils down to “bad guy Muslims do it, so that should be our reason to “think about” avoiding it”.

No, I made an important point, which is that when you see people who are wrong about a whole bunch of things advocate violence and discrimination against a group of people because of who they are, it might cause you to think about whether your similar beliefs are based on the same hatred and sorry history as theirs. Or maybe that you don’t want to end up on the wrong side of history.

theobromophile: Leo: wouldn’t you (or any man) want a combination?Some that you can teach and some who have sort of a Promethean liver thing going on, just with virginity?

As someone with an unshakable commitment to monogamy and a girlfriend who sometimes reads this blog, I have no idea. My curiosity is strictly professional.

they would be required to ignore the fundamental tenets of their religion to comply with the law

Which fundamental tenets?

As to the Church’s good works, I’ve known quite a few dedicated Catholics, both religious and lay people, who worked hard for the poor and for the Church. A good quarter of them were gay or lesbian. Sneaky folks, us homosexuals, tearing down Western Civ from within…

There hasn’t been a single gay rights law, no matter how mild or limited in scope, that hasn’t been fought by the catholic church anywhere in the US. And these laws almost always exempt churches!

Churches, Randy, and only churches, and only in the present.

What about women like that photographer in Arizona who was sued for refusing to photograph a gay wedding? Should the Catholic Church ignore its millions of members and their right to practise their religion because it does not affect the diocese itself?

As “hate crime” legislation proliferates throughout this country, and as much of it could be read to encompass Christian activities, should any religion really stand idly by while people attempt to claim that its members are engaging in a crime by expressing their faith?

As for the present: one only need to look northward to Canada to understand that churches, priests, and nuns may not be forever exempt from the laws put forth today.

As for the past: my alma mater got itself involved in a lawsuit when an openly gay woman was denied the presidency of the student Christian group. Even ten years ago, student groups came under fire for expressing their faith.

Randy, it’s a bigger issue than just whether or not churches will have to perform a gay marriage. To pretend otherwise is wrong.

Yes, you can point to a handful of people within an institution who have not acted, first and foremost, to protect the poor. That does not demonstrate your point, which was a lack of caring about the poor by the entire institution.

What you also fail to understand is that their religion also involves fighting social injustice. That you happen to disagree with their definition of “social injustice” does not mean that they are elevating homophobia above caring for the poor; it just means that they actually take their faith seriously.

Your criticisms of the Church’s actions with regards to same-sex adoption in Boston is beyond asinine; they would be required to ignore the fundamental tenets of their religion to comply with the law. Cripes, Randy, are you that bigoted that you rail on people for actually following their religion?

What you’ve done thus far is to criticise a few members of a religion, ignore the vast amount of good done by the super-majority of them, and rail on people who refuse to let the State interfere with their religious practises. What you have not done is to prove your sweeping generalisation that Catholics (or the Church in general) does not give a fig about the poor or the disadvantaged.

You’re getting called out. Take it like a man.

Hate crime legislation is triggered only if there is violence targeting a someone because of their membership of the following groups: Race, Color, Religion, National origin, Gender, whether female, male or intersexual, or Disability. Sexual orientation is now included in that list. I understand some people have a problem with hate crimes legislation as a concept. But if you have no problem with hate crimes for these classes, then surely you have no problem to have gays included.

“Could this bishop’s letter trigger “hate crimes” sanctions?”

Nope.

“The root of the catholic teaching on homosexual behavior, divorce, and other sexual sins is similar. Should a teacher NOT try to communicate what he believes to be true when it is politically out of style?”

He can preach whatever he likes. The bewildering part is that he implies that only opposition to homosexuality is what Catholics and Muslims have in common. But they have plenty more, such as treatment of the poor, the ill, divorce, and so on. Why doesn’t he limit the discussion the homosexuality? Perhaps the muslims are blowing themselves up because of the numerous divorces we have in the US, but he doesn’t even consider that.

Theo: ” Catholics do a tremendous amount to help the poor, disadvantaged, and homeless.”

Absolutely. And on that, Catholics and Muslims have a lot in common as well. So why didn’t the bishop mention that when he talks about the commonalities between Islam and Catholics? This observation only make these comments so out of place.

“Given both the empirical realities and that the Catholic mission is to help the poor and disadvantaged, your canard is just that.”

Well, that depends. In Maine, the bishop there just spend $500,000 fighting gay marriage while closing down several churches due to lack of funds. He has called for an extra passing of the plate to fight gays, but won’t do it for to keep his own churches open. Clearly, his priority is to prevent gays from marrying, even non-catholic ones. In Boston, the bishop shut down the Catholic Charities adoption program rather than comply with a secular law to allow gays to adopt. There hasn’t been a single gay rights law, no matter how mild or limited in scope, that hasn’t been fought by the catholic church anywhere in the US. And these laws almost always exempt churches!

Of course, that is their right. But it’s also my right to point out that fighting gays is consistently a top priority of the church, so much so that they take funds away from other worthy programs to continue the fight.

Leo Marvin: “Screw virgins in the afterlife” raises an interesting question

Interesting question? Pah. Ben Franklin had it right- better to go with the more experienced lasses. I can think of few things worse than 72 virgins. Sounds suspiciously like hell to me.

I smell clients.

Ambulance chaser.

theobromophile: Last time I checked, killing innocent people so that one can screw virgins in the afterlife is the very antithesis of “self-sacrifice.”

“Screw virgins in the afterlife” raises an interesting question. Does he only get to do it 72 times, after which he has 72 regular wives, or do they stay virgins forever? And how many suicide bombers think to pin something like that down before committing to the deal? I smell clients.

Believing supernatural stories is largely a benign issue, and I understand why children would accept their parents’ guidance to become Catholics. But I find it difficult to understand how an adult could abide the Catholic Church’s ugliness.

I also fault our society for subsidizing this nonsense. Those who prefer to get their entertainment, child care, education, social life and moral guidance in church should stop shirking and start pulling their fair share of the tax load.

If the church were just half as concerned about the poor, the disadvantaged, and the homeless as they are about gays, then they might actually have some moral authority to speak on other aspects of life.

Randy: while I agree with most of your criticisms about the Church’s take on homosexuality, this particular argument is just plain wrong. Catholics do a tremendous amount to help the poor, disadvantaged, and homeless: in concrete measures, they set up things like Catholic Charities (the slogan of which is “Working to Reduce Poverty in America”). (Here is a link to an overview of what Catholic Charities does.)

Furthermore, something like 1/3d of hospitals in the country (or maybe just MA; can’t remember right now) are affiliated with the Catholic Church. Many or all of them provide low-cost care to those who cannot afford it.

Internationally, many Catholics, through their churches, go on mission trips to other countries, teaching literacy and building facilities for people over there.

Finally, I’m not sure what you think the Jesuit Volunteer Corps does, or if you’ve even heard about it, but, in conjunction with the above, it does a lot to disprove that canard of yours that Catholics don’t care about the poor. Given both the empirical realities and that the Catholic mission is to help the poor and disadvantaged, your canard is just that.

Could this bishop’s letter trigger “hate crimes” sanctions?

The root of the catholic teaching on homosexual behavior, divorce, and other sexual sins is similar. Should a teacher NOT try to communicate what he believes to be true when it is politically out of style?

Of course. And executing gays is just what the Lord ordered. So what’s the problem?

any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice

First of all, blowing up other people is not self-sacrifice; it is murder. Second, if this person understood anything about the Islamic religion, he would know that suicide bombers blow themselves up because their current lives are crappy, their families will be provided for (often), and they will get 72 virgins in heaven.

Last time I checked, killing innocent people so that one can screw virgins in the afterlife is the very antithesis of “self-sacrifice.”

Gamalian: “His point about homosexual behavior IS a subject of catholic moral doctrine. As is just about every facet of life.”

But of course, the bishop didn’t talk about other every other facet of life but limited his comments to homosexuality. If the church were just half as concerned about the poor, the disadvantaged, and the homeless as they are about gays, then they might actually have some moral authority to speak on other aspects of life. But that’s just me. Why they seem to fixated on people like me, I really don’t know.

Not exactly a shocker that your source, titled “Catholic Education” wouldn’t be willing to admit that the empiricism of Classical Greece or the Enlightenment had anything at all to do with the ascendance of Western civilization. Nope, for them it’s all about sex.

I’m appalled that he’s appalled.

The concept that homosexuality is harmful to society is hardly risable:

“When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah’s prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity”

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html

Have you ever been to Guam or looked on a map? It’s a pimple on the rear end of nowhere. There’s hardly anyone there and it’s not exactly a place to understand American culture or, for that matter, Catholicism.

So someone out in podunk writes a silly article correctly stating Church doctrine but in a very poor way, with some very questionable reasoning, and a top law blog in the US is debating it?

Compared to the sort of rhetoric directed at Christians on a daily basis, by mainstream American media personalities, this is pretty tame (if equally dumb) stuff.

Randy: Let me take a guess. Perhaps he is appalled that a person, anyone, would actually say that terrorist muslims have a good point in complaining that gays are undermining their culture?

I simply don’t understand this. If traditional Islamic culture teaches that homosexuality is wrong, wouldn’t public tolerance of gays by definition “undermine” that culture? And if you believe that gays “undermine” our own culture, what does adding this particular reference to the “religion of peace” add to the equation?

Seems to me the arguments are getting very mixed up here. Why not just say that discriminating against gays is evil? That would be a much simpler point to disagree over.