"Expressions of Anarchic Freedom"

According to the Washington Times, that's Pope Benedict XVI's take on gay marriage:

Pope Benedict XVI, in his first clear pronouncement on homosexual "marriages" since his election, yesterday condemned same-sex unions as fake and "expressions of anarchic freedom" that threatened the future of the family.

Gotta love the Times' house-style scare quotes around "marriage" whenever they mention gay marriage. (Should the "Times," which I enjoy immensely, get similar treatment, I wonder?)

Don't mistake Pope Ratzi for just another dress-wearing fag-basher, though. He laid into all sorts of other things, too:

The pope, who was elected in April, also condemned divorce, artificial birth control, trial marriages and free-style unions, saying all of those practices were dangerous for the family....

"The greatest expression of freedom is not the search for pleasure," he said, adding that society seemed to want to tear down the moral goal posts he said were needed for its future.

Gotta love the details: "artificial" birth control--as if the Church-sanctioned rhythm method is "natural". Whole thing here.

One quick question for the pope: Isn't the desire for marriage among gays precisely an acknowledgement that they want something from a relationship beyond the sybaritic pleasure that many conservatives--and, to be fair, many gay activists--claim defines homosexuality?

Benedict is a classic short-timer pontiff; picked at least partly because he was a long-time Vatican apparatchik who would stay the course until a youngblood (relatively speaking) comes along. As my fellow mackerel-snapping colleague Tim Cavanaugh put it, he's not so much the anti-pope as an anti-climax. Yet in his out-of-the-box excoriations of modernity, Benedict seems to be doing his damnedest to nugde Roman Catholics on to the losing side (e.g. Orthodox/Muslim) of the clash of civilizations.

Comments

Jennifer | June 7, 2005, 11:29am | #

Awesome! I've figured out Gaius Marius' real-world identity.

Jeff | June 7, 2005, 11:31am | #

It amazes me that Christianity in general and Catholicism specifically still make no provisions for those in society who don't want families.

Jason Ligon | June 7, 2005, 11:32am | #

This guy doesn't seem, er, terribly bright. I mean, there are principles that a guy can have that I don't share, but he keeps making unintelligible arguments in favor of those principles. Marriage = anarchy?

Jeff | June 7, 2005, 11:35am | #

Before anyone suggests that the unmarried/ childless can, in the eyes of the church, find sanctuary in the clergy, remember that the proest and nunhood require (according to Catholic doctrine) a calling from God.

Serafina | June 7, 2005, 11:38am | #

According to the 700 Club's new indulgence prices, under what they term their business partnership with the Vatican, gay marriage is five times worse than practicing Judaism and more than seven times worse than bearing false witness, but sodomy is just a little worse than adultery.

Serafina | June 7, 2005, 11:45am | #

(From the URL, I'm pretty sure that's parody.)

Evan Williams | June 7, 2005, 11:50am | #

The pope, who was elected in April, also condemned divorce, artificial birth control, trial marriages and free-style unions, saying all of those practices were dangerous for the family....

"The greatest expression of freedom is not the search for pleasure," he said, adding that society seemed to want to tear down the moral goal posts he said were needed for its future.

Artificial birth control? I suppose the good pope favors "natural" birth control, i.e. overpopulation leading to starving leading to population decline. All that suffering, because, um, pieces of rubber are evil. What a sadistic motherfucker! Oh, wait, wait, he favors futile faith in the good judgment of horny teens.

Trial marriages? WTF? Not sure exactly what that is. Though, it sounds to me like it might be a good thing, considering that incompaitibility and hasty marriage often leads to divorce, which he also abhorrs. Seems you could cut down on the number of divorces, and strengthen the union of marriage, if people were able to make sure that said marriages would work before entering into them.

Free-form unions? Oh, yes, god forbid two people are together without being married. Holy shit, I had a conversation with a woman the other day, I guess I should have married her prior to us engaging in said "relationship".

This guy's idea of unions sounds like a fucking Third Reich issue. 1) Meet woman. 2) Marry woman immediately. 3) Live with woman for rest of life, no matter how horrible it makes both of you.

And then this fool has the nerve to invoke "freedom" in his little rant against individual freedom? "Freedom" means that you have the freedom to what I give you permission to do. No, sorry, popey, that's not "freedom". That's subservience.

David | June 7, 2005, 11:54am | #

That's a pretty good parody.

thoreau | June 7, 2005, 12:03pm | #

As happily married Catholics, my wife and I have yet to figure out how our marriage will be harmed by what 2 guys in San Francisco do in the privacy of their own home.

fyodor | June 7, 2005, 12:04pm | #

Obedience is freedom.

Jennifer | June 7, 2005, 12:06pm | #

It amazes me that Christianity in general and Catholicism specifically still make no provisions for those in society who don't want families.

I guess they're saying people who don't want families don't belong in society.

Matt | June 7, 2005, 12:08pm | #

Awww... but I like anarchic freedom.

bart baldridge | June 7, 2005, 12:09pm | #

The Church is not like North Korea,if you don't like the way things are run you can leave.

Jeff | June 7, 2005, 12:11pm | #

Marriage, like every other Gov't license, should be subjected to renewal periodically. I think every 5 years would be sufficient. Each partner has to take a test about the other. Favorite color, food, etc.
Any wife who takes advice from the works of Dr. Phil or the Venus/Mars guy gets an automatic failing grade on the test.

Jon H | June 7, 2005, 12:12pm | #

"Benedict is a classic short-timer pontiff; picked at least partly because he was a long-time Vatican apparatchik who would stay the course until a youngblood (relatively speaking) comes along."

So, basically, Pope Palpatine is the Bob Dole of the Cardinal College.

anti-jeff | June 7, 2005, 12:12pm | #

Well Jeff, you aren't required to marry and have a family. But you are required to remain "chaste", which for a single person is equivalent to being celibate.

If you're looking for a vocation that allows to you fuck around without having a wife and kids, I'm afraid you won't find that within the boundaries of Catholic orthodoxy.

anti-jeff | June 7, 2005, 12:20pm | #

Also: people read the freaking Cathechism of the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict is being villified for doing his _job_. Everyone is behaving as though Papa Bene could sweep into his office and change the Church's teaching on divorce, birth control, gay marriage, etc. by fiat. It doesn't work that way.

If you think the Catholic Church's doctrines are stupid or backward that is your perogative. But why do people have to ascribe an evil character to Pope Benedict?

Jeff | June 7, 2005, 12:30pm | #

I concur with Anti-Jeff. I'm sorta relieved that this Pope is holding the line. When JP II got the big hat, the early footage of him skiing sent many catholics I know into convulsions.
The Catholic church CANNOT change. It's whole schtick is that it has primacy on spirituality and has direct authoritative lineage from Christ. Admitting that Galileo was right took centuries.

I need the church to remain deeply idiotic and irrelevent so I can maintain a healthy contempt fot it.

Jon H | June 7, 2005, 12:31pm | #

" But why do people have to ascribe an evil character to Pope Benedict?"

It's written on his face.

He shouldn't have used that last jolt of force-lightning on John Paul II.

guy in the back row | June 7, 2005, 12:33pm | #

anti-jeff's got it.

If Kerry had won in November we would still be in Iraq, there would be dumb SCOTUS decisions regarding medical marijuana, and the TSA would strill be frisking paraplegics in airports.

Just because he's got a bully pulpit doesn't mean the head guy can change all the rules!

Jennifer | June 7, 2005, 12:36pm | #

Jeff-
What is your favorite food? What is your favorite color? I need to do some studying before I go home tonight.

Not David | June 7, 2005, 12:36pm | #

Oh well, at least he's not wishy washy. I appreciate a guy who just lays it on the line. And really, what would we do if the Catholic Church suddenly became the Unitarians with candles and genuflection? Where would the fun be in that?

I would think though that more conservatives would pick up on the obvious conservative argument for gay marriage, i.e. that it ought to tame the rampant promiscuity and irresponsibility that allegedly defines the gay experience. Can't you see Pat Robertson on a crusade to "Domesticate the Homosexuals"? And then gays would drop their push for marriage, they'd be so horrified by the whole idea, and the conservatives would win. It's brilliant, I tell you, brilliant.

Rhywun | June 7, 2005, 12:55pm | #

I would think though that more conservatives would pick up on the obvious conservative argument for gay marriage

That would require them to admit that homosexuality actually exists, i.e. that it's more than "behavior".

Jeff | June 7, 2005, 12:59pm | #

Ah, Jennifer, but we need not renew a license. We pay as we go, like a cell phone.

(a tie betweem authentic jambalaya, spiced over-the-top, and a good strong curry. I'm partial to most shades of red, but have recently been appreciating greens a lot more.)

Jennifer | June 7, 2005, 1:08pm | #

Figures it would all be spicy stuff. Ketchup's about as spicy as I care to go, and I hitch my wagon to a man who thinks Tabasco is a beverage.

For me it's crab alfredo pasta, and indigo.

Jeff | June 7, 2005, 1:10pm | #

Oh, those Italians and their views on homo-sexuality:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3305633a4560,00.html

mk | June 7, 2005, 1:11pm | #

If I wasn't in a constant slow burn over eminent Domain abuse, individual liberites, medical marijuana laws etcetera, I would probably stop reading H & R so much and get more work done. So, in a way, the evil "they" keep me interested in reaffirming my own libertarianism. The catholic church has a similar problem. Without the evil "They" (homos) how will they keep the faithful interested?
Nothing gets fundies and their ilk more hot under the collar than the notion that someone somewhere is having a really good time and getting away with it. If you want to test the theory, spend some time with a fundie explaining to them that most gay people aren't as permiscuous as they think and see what reaction you get. It is imperative to them that they believe that gays are incapable of settling down.

wellfellow | June 7, 2005, 1:16pm | #

"a tie betweem authentic jambalaya, spiced over-the-top, and a good strong curry."

Wow! You said it! Some of the best things in life...

I'm not sure why people who aren't Catholic care about what the pope says. He's not making public policy.

a | June 7, 2005, 1:18pm | #

I suppose the good pope favors "natural" birth control, i.e. overpopulation leading to starving leading to population decline.

May be he had "sexually molesting young boys" as a form of natural birth control.

mediageek | June 7, 2005, 1:18pm | #

I guess they're saying people who don't want families don't belong in society.

As a general rule, society sucks anyway.
/randroid mode

Not David- It's fairly easy to just lay it on the line when you've got several centuries of precedent backing you up. Of course, the fun part of most religions is that it's like having a treehouse. You can arbitrarily exclude people. Not that I begrudge the Catholics, or any religion for doing this. You're right, there's not much fun in belonging to a religion that is all warm-n-fuzzy and open to everyone.

ralphie | June 7, 2005, 1:23pm | #

MK,and homosexuals need "fundies" and Catholics to reinforce their whining sense of victimhood.

dhex | June 7, 2005, 1:31pm | #

well, there is that whole "weight of the state" thing going on. then again, i can see how that's just whining...if i inform on the los alamos nuke lab and get my head kicked in outside a titty bar at 3 in the morning.

once we get around to legally limiting the rights of christians, we can all sit around in a bitchy circle...the homos, the jesus freaks and the papists. then we get to start a band, though the band will break up because of a fight over who gets to sing. the jesus freaks have no rhythm, the homos are unreliable guitar players and catholics just can't sing. terrible scene, really...

Jennifer | June 7, 2005, 1:31pm | #

Wellfellow-
No, the pope is no longer allowed to set public olicy, but a lot of the people who DO spend a lot of time listening to him.

wellfellow | June 7, 2005, 1:40pm | #

Jennifer,

True, a lot of voters/policy makers have stupid ideas. I'm guessing the pope isn't the problem, though. Perhaps the problem is that we have a system where one group can vote over the rights of others.

fyodor | June 7, 2005, 1:41pm | #

ralphie,

If you drop the "s" at the end of "homosexuals" and add the word, "activists" after it, I would agree. But otherwise, you be full of sheet. Homosexuals don't need a sense of victimhood to be homosexuals the way the Catholic Church likely thrives on a demonized other to attract members, without whom it does not exist.

Jeff | June 7, 2005, 1:44pm | #

Has anyone made an article of clothing called a Victim Hoodie yet?

Tim Cavanaugh | June 7, 2005, 1:51pm | #

Without the evil "They" (homos) how will they keep the faithful interested?

Exorcisms. And saints. Two more reasons why they should have gone with Arinze.

Herman | June 7, 2005, 1:56pm | #

Has anyone made an article of clothing called a Victim Hoodie yet?

I think you can get them from Major League Baseball. Just go to their store and look for "Chicago Cubs."

Evan Williams | June 7, 2005, 2:01pm | #

Jeff:

Has anyone made an article of clothing called a Victim Hoodie yet?

[nerd] Is that a reference to San Andreas? [/nerd]

mk | June 7, 2005, 2:04pm | #

Ralphie,
Oh yes, fundies and catholics also need to use ad hominem attacks.
thanks for reminding me.

anti-jeff | June 7, 2005, 2:08pm | #

"without whom it does not exist"

You guys have a very odd perception of what attracts people to religion. Hint: it's not about hating on the homos. Yes, there are religious haters, but they are hardly representative of the whole.

Why is it so hard to understand that many, many heterosexual people would find it "disordered" or "unnatural" for Jimbo to put his Tab A into Joe Don's Slot B? Those attitudes have held sway for millenia; but I'm sure that you will vanquish them with your superior appeal to "reason". Fuck Yeah...

Jeff | June 7, 2005, 2:09pm | #

Evan,
Sorry, I'm not a gamer. My blazing nerdity stops at comics, SF, and frequent posting on libertarian chat boards.
"Blazing Nerdity" would also make a great band name.

Jeff | June 7, 2005, 2:10pm | #

Herman,
Sorry, not a baseball fan either.

The Captain | June 7, 2005, 2:12pm | #

Ha! Ha! You can attack the Catholic Church in as many ways, and as many times as you want to, however, it isn't going to make one damn bit of difference. The fundamental dogmatic principles of the Catholic faith will never be changed. "Simon, I name you Peter, and you will be the ROCK upon which My Church is founded, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." Your statements, and those of the above commentators only serve to identify you, and they, as the primary "problem" that we have in this country today. The word "moonbats" comes to mind, but if I say that, then I am guilty of an "ad hominem" attack and I will not do that. Instead, I will classify you and the afforementioned commentators as belonging to that misguided, woefull, and wholly disgusting body of "citizens" who belive in the principle of "freedom without responsibility". I could throw biblical quotes at you all day to irrefute everything you say but that would not matter. You simply have chosen to not belive in the bible, or God, and instead, would rather mistakenly believe in your own "intelligence" and that of anything spiritual, your back is turned. Hey, it's ok, we don't want people like you in the Catholic Church, or any where near it. Your useless puling about the tenents of the Catholic faith, or your childish attempts to ridicule an entire religion because of the sins of predators who used our faith to attain posistions of attack upon defenseless members of our faith, is laughable, and sad. In regard to your statement that NFP or to the layman, the "rhythm method" is anything but natural, I conclude that you are speaking "tongue in cheek" and have absolutely no idea what NFP really is. As one who has practiced it for years, I can tell you there is nothing "unnatural" about it. The greatest thing about the Catholic church is that it WILL NEVER change it's doctrine. If you believe in something that goes against it's dogmatic principles, there is a VALID MEANS of voting your displeasure with it. You can vote with your FEET, and walk away, and go join the Episcopalians. KEEP YOUR STINKING LIBERAL DICK BEATERS OFF MY CHURCH!

Jeff | June 7, 2005, 2:15pm | #

What I great letter. Catholics are fun.

Evan Williams | June 7, 2005, 2:15pm | #

Jeff,

My blazing nerdity begins and ends with Grand Theft Auto. [nerd] In San Andreas, there are various clothing stores, which carry various clothing articles for purchase. One of those stores is called "Victim", and its product line includes a hoody. So, you can see why I mistook your "Victim Hoody" line for a nerd reference. [/nerd]

Jeff | June 7, 2005, 2:17pm | #

And, Captain, JP II's declaration of primacy states quite clearly that we CANNOT walk away from Catholicism, as it is universal, and we are all Catholic whether we acknowledge it or not.

Jeff | June 7, 2005, 2:19pm | #

Evan: That's funny. I thought it was a cute liberal-esque pun. Like something Rush Limbaugh would run on one of his fake commercials.

kwais | June 7, 2005, 2:20pm | #

fydor,

Homosexuals might require organized religion to exist. Well not require it, but I have a theory that homosexuality is much more prolific in very religios societies, or at least in societies with very strict religious rules.

Rhywun | June 7, 2005, 2:23pm | #

You guys have a very odd perception of what attracts people to religion.

I don't. For the vast majority, it is something they are raised with from birth. "Attraction" plays little role in it. Therefore, appeals to reason make perfect sense. As for attitudes towards gays, it's hard to see them as anything other than learned from parents and peers. When I was five years old, I had no idea what a "faggot" was, but thanks to my peers I knew it was the worst possible thing you could be.

dhex | June 7, 2005, 2:25pm | #

"Ha! Ha! You can attack the Catholic Church in as many ways, and as many times as you want to, however, it isn't going to make one damn bit of difference."

you may want to mention that to the protestants. they did not get the memo!

scottorrell | June 7, 2005, 2:29pm | #

I hate to jump in at the end, but The Captain is a little over the top. And wrong in some instances. Of course we want all people in the church even if they disagree with us. Why do their opinions matter? It's their souls that matter. Recognizing sin is important but not integral to salvation. God will provide for the ignorant. All the Pope is doing is his job. Pointing out sin. If you don;t think it's a sin, fine, don't confess it. But that's not what the church believes. The Captain is correct about NFP, however. My wife and I love it, and I would encourage people to research it. It's an amazing way to connect physically and spiritually to yourself and your spouse.

Evan Williams | June 7, 2005, 2:29pm | #

I agree, Jeff...what a fabulously fun little tirade!

Jon H | June 7, 2005, 2:31pm | #

anti-jeff:"Why is it so hard to understand that many, many heterosexual people would find it "disordered" or "unnatural" for Jimbo to put his Tab A into Joe Don's Slot B?"

Many, many heterosexual people would find it "disordered" or "unnatural" for Grampa to put his Tab A into Grandma's Slot B.

But we don't require people to divorce when they start sagging, do we?

Rhywun | June 7, 2005, 2:31pm | #

KEEP YOUR STINKING LIBERAL DICK BEATERS OFF MY CHURCH!

Your church has done more than enough to make me unwelcome without any help from you, thanks.

The Captain | June 7, 2005, 2:32pm | #

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517. (he left because of nooky) and was a rabid anti-semite.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

Jon H | June 7, 2005, 2:32pm | #

dhex...

Hm "Jesus freaks ain't got no rhythm...".

Wasn't that a George Michael song?

scott orrell | June 7, 2005, 2:32pm | #

Evan,
One would think that after your horrific little tirade kicking off this comments section (calling the pope a sadistic little motherfucker), you might hang back from commenting on someone else's angry frothing.

mk | June 7, 2005, 2:33pm | #

anti-jeff,
Are you saying I should hate the game, not the playa.
Popin' aint easy.

Jon H | June 7, 2005, 2:35pm | #

The Captain writes: "If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church."

Yeah, and just like the Catholic Church, Jesus wore obscenely expensive frocks and pranced around obscenely gilt palaces.

Er, not.

scottorrell | June 7, 2005, 2:35pm | #

The Captain,
God bless you and please shut up.

Jennifer | June 7, 2005, 2:39pm | #

The greatest thing about the Catholic church is that it WILL NEVER change it's doctrine.

Which is why you still go to Hell for eating meat on Friday, and celibacy for priests has been mandated for over 75 percent of the church's history.

Syd | June 7, 2005, 2:43pm | #

"you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church."

And if you're Greek Orthodox or Coptic, you know the same thing.

kwais | June 7, 2005, 2:48pm | #

Anti Jeff,
GG has already pointed out my very limited knowledge of history. But didn't Christ bring the Jewish dislike of Homo's to the non Jews? I mean the Romans were all about little boys and stuff like that, as were the Greeks before the Roman empire became the Holy Roman Empire.

The Captain | June 7, 2005, 2:52pm | #

Why should I shut up Scott? Is it because I've intruded into your childish little prats against something that I hold very dear? Is it because, as my Irish Catholic mother used to say, "The truth hurts?" Could it be that I have used the crow bar of truth to pry open, even the least little bit, that hard gate of lawlessness and moral turptitude that many people have in this country? I suspect it is. Should I just lay down, and cringe in fear when someone attacks what I PERSONALLY believe? You have all had a lot of fun attacking my Church on this post, and have I told anyone who has expressed THERE BELIEFS regarding this article to as you so calously put it "shut up?" I read this site everyday. I find it to be enlightening, acerbic, and straightforward in its scope, and content. That, however, does not stop me from putting my OWN 2 cents worth in when I feel it is nessecsary. All I ask is that you take your "liberal progressive" agenda and go hug a tree or something.

Jennifer | June 7, 2005, 2:53pm | #

Kwais-
Jesus said nothing about gay people, one way or the other. Paul was opposed to all sex (if you expect the world to end at any second I suppose it makes sense not to want to bring a baby into it), and especially vilified homosexuality, so when Christianity took over the Roman empire the anti-sex attitudes went with it. However, the idea that sex was for procreation ONLY came fromone of the "A" saints--I think Aquinas, but possibly Augustine.

Lowdog | June 7, 2005, 2:53pm | #

I'm not worried about my soul because as far as I can tell, there is no such thing. I walked away from the church (the catholic church) at precisely the time I was supposed to further embrace it (confirmation) and have never looked back. Actually, I did look back to find out a way to be excommunicated, but I lost interest.

Anyway, I have no real problem with the pope, other than the fact that he is "doing his job". And his job is to be the mouthpiece for some invisible, angry, sky-god that doesn't exist, but who's backwards and twisted rules still do thanks to the man-made institution.

As Jennifer said, it's not that the pope makes any public policy, but unfortunately we have politicians who listen very closely to the pope. It's a problem for freedom-lovers in this country.

Of course, this is all just my opinion, and so I expect some people to ignore me. Luckily this is still a semi-free country, and they are free to do that. :)

free form | June 7, 2005, 2:54pm | #

Jesus originated Catholicism? Who knew!

I'm no expert, but my limited reading of the Bible never gave me the impression that J.C. would have established all those rules. Aren't they derived from Old Testament?

free form | June 7, 2005, 3:01pm | #

And another thing. I don't have a problem with religious people practicing their faiths. I wish Christians would quit trying to convert everyone else, though. I realize their faith requires them to make the attempt, no matter how fucking annoying they get about it, but really. How 'bout if you believe what you believe and leave me out of it? I'll be responsible for my own "sin," thanks.

mk | June 7, 2005, 3:01pm | #

Accusations
UNNECESSARY CAPITALIZATION
claiming persecution
logical fallacies
pouting

I love these reasoned discourses on the topic of faith. It's like visiting my sister, but without the expense of a plane ticket to Montana.

bill b | June 7, 2005, 3:03pm | #

Captain,you have to have been a Marine,semper fi.

anti-jeff | June 7, 2005, 3:03pm | #

mk,

Exactly. If you think the Church is bollocks, then make an argument, but please stop disparaging Pope Benedict as an Emperor Palpatine because he follows and promotes the tenets of the philosophical system that he subscribes to... For one thing, it's infantile, and for another, it's boring.

kwais | June 7, 2005, 3:03pm | #

Captain Sir!

You are aware, I'm sure, that there is really no such thing as free will?

I believe in God, I believe that it is a mathematical inevitability that God exists. And God is all powerfull, and there are no Gods below God, only men.

However, everything that you believe, and every choice that you make, and everything that you want, is a direct result of; Your genes, your experiences and your environment. None of which you had a choice on.

Therefore, God determines if you are going to be a Pope, or a Hitler. God determines if you are going to be straight or gay. God determines if you are going to be determined to not be the Antichrist, or if you will accept the position if it were offered to you.

I only mention that because you talk about who you want in the Catholic church and who you don't.

Anyhow, your posts are pretty cool. I love me some fire and brimstone. Keep it up.

Rodney | June 7, 2005, 3:05pm | #

But...but...weren't Saints Serge and Bacchus married?

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/serge.html

kwais | June 7, 2005, 3:13pm | #

BTW, thank you Captain and Jennifer for the history lesson. I was not aware of when all those religions started, nor how the whole anti homosexaul part got put in.

But the way Captian, you should have mentioned when the Jewish religion started, as the son of God was a Jew and all.

I think that it was started sometime before the year 0, either by Moses, or Abraham. I'll have to look into that one.

The Captain | June 7, 2005, 3:18pm | #

@ Jon H Hmm, I've been a Catholic my entire life and I have never seen a priest, as you say, "prance around" The priests frocks are not obscenly expensive, and if some churches are as you say "gilt" it is because the glorification of God is something that is extremly important to the Catholic religion and the temple wherein we worship that same God, should be contructed in accordance with that concept.

@ Jennifer No, what you said is a fallacy. You do not go to hell for eating meat on Fridays, and yes, Celibacy for priests was not something that the church mandated at it's beginning. The point you miss is that to a Catholic, it is all about imitating Christ's sacrifice for us, by sacrificing things from our own life. People in todays society are not apt to want to sacrifice anything. It's all about Me Me Me, More More More, Now Now Now.

Christ was very adamant about eliminating sin from a persons life. He didn't tell the Magdalene "Ok, I saved your ass from that rabid bunch of do gooders, so, how much do you charge?" He said in no uncertain terms, your faith has saved you, go and sin no more. He also, in direct contravention to old testament teachings said that, "even if you think it, so have you done it" People think Yeshua ben Nazarate was some kind of hippy, running around with flowers in his hair and preaching that everything was sunshine and roses. This is a false interpretation of His ministry. Are we to love our enemies? Emphatically, YES. Are we to forgive those who do wrong against us? Again, emphatically, YES! But are we to embrace sin as a result of this? You know the answer to that even if you deny that it is true.

PintofStout | June 7, 2005, 3:20pm | #

Started with Jesus Christ, huh...or was it Zarathustra/Zoroaster of Persia...or was it Baal of Phoenicia..semantics, semantics. I guess it could be all of these and more.

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/ancient.html#origins
(scroll down)

Jennifer | June 7, 2005, 3:25pm | #

Captain-
Until 1964 or so (whenever Vatican II took place) you WOULD go to Hell for eating meat on Fridays. And the early Catholic Church allowed priests to marry; the celibacy thing only got started basically to protect property rights.

dhex | June 7, 2005, 3:26pm | #

"The priests frocks are not obscenly expensive, and if some churches are as you say "gilt" it is because the glorification of God is something that is extremly important to the Catholic religion and the temple wherein we worship that same God, should be contructed in accordance with that concept."

i believe the comment refers to the vatican. which is, as we must all agree, quite exquisite and ornate.

otherwise, let he with the oldest religion win! [p.s. you're losing to the hindus real bad, dude]

mk | June 7, 2005, 3:31pm | #

Anti-jeff,
It seems that the gist of the article is that the new Pope is defining his papacy so far through what he is against. He has framed the discussion that way, not I. Other than that, I agree with you. He certainly isn't behaving in any way that I didn't expect.
My limited understanding of the church that the Captain speaks of is through my limited readings of Aquinas' Summa Theologica, which I found to be terribly dry, and Augustine, who I found lacking.

scott orrell | June 7, 2005, 3:34pm | #

Captain,
I said God bless you, because you were defending OUR church.
I said shut up, because you are doing it badly. You are angry (justifiably) and alienating people instead of enlightening them. Maybe you should read all of my posts above before you take off on me?
Most of the posts here are silly, but the power of God is recognized by the church as a mystery. We even acknowledge the supreme being as the Mystery of the Trinity. Being a Catholic means being able to say that we don't know everything. God, in his infinite mercy, judges all and no man should claim sole ownership of the truth. My French Catholic grandmother taught me that.
I agree that today's culture cannot accept even the idea of sin, but that does not grant us the right to call them sinners and reject them. We can only enumerate sin and embrace the sinner, not the sin.
In short, chill, for the love of Christ.

The Captain | June 7, 2005, 3:48pm | #

Hindus? I did not say that Catholocism is the "oldest" religion in the world. Read what I wrote, and stop "spinning" it. The belief that the Christ is the Son of God, and also, IS God is what I am talking about. My treatise is specifically pointed at the formation of all other sects of Christianity. Copy that? "Christianity." That Christ is a Jew is non debatable. That the Jews are Gods chosen people is also non debatable. That I am a Gentile, being fed "scraps from my masters table" is also non debatable. My treatise serves to enlighten those who are not aware of when such sects as the Lutherns, or Protestants in general, came to be formed. It is also meant to convey the authority of the Catholic Church as being the OG's if you will. Or more specifically the OCR. (the original Christian religion) That some have taken a dislike to it's teaching, and branched out to their own houses, is an imutable fact, however, it does not change it's intrinsic truth.

@Jennifer Well, you are correct in that assesment and I would submit to you that, indeed, then, the Catholic Church IS progressive in a way, hmmm?

dhex | June 7, 2005, 4:05pm | #

you got it backwards, man; i'm rooting for the oldest religion.

anyway, you clearly put stock in age as proof of authority. which raises the question as to whether the catholic church of today can claim that mantle, not only in having changed several times in response to social, political and military pressure, but the sort of murky 300 years or so of transition from heretical jewish sect to the dominant force of rome.

in other words: who is more correct? a dead trinitarian or a dead arian? which one is more OCR?

scott | June 7, 2005, 4:11pm | #

Isn't the desire for marriage among gays precisely an acknowledgement that they want something from a relationship beyond the sybaritic pleasure...

Yes... and that something they want is other people's money.

mediageek | June 7, 2005, 4:16pm | #

Oh man, do you think The Captain goes down to the local college campus and rails and hollers at all of the students going to class?

I had no idea there was any such thing as a Catholic Pentecostal. (Pentecostal Catholic?)


El Capitan, I just have to say that you, sir, have been wonderful entertainment.

Jon H | June 7, 2005, 4:19pm | #

"Yes... and that something they want is other people's money."

Well, hell, even Mary Kay LeTourneau and Vili were allowed to register for gifts at Macy's.

What is marriage about, if not free stuff?

metalgrid | June 7, 2005, 4:20pm | #

Isn't Christianity just an evolved/hijacked form of Osirianism? So it's debateable whether Hinduism is older than Christianity.

dhex | June 7, 2005, 4:26pm | #

"Yes... and that something they want is other people's money."

clearly venality is at work here. clearly.

Randolph Carter | June 7, 2005, 4:28pm | #

Metalgrid - If we're talking archetypes of sacrificed hero-god, then... um... sort of. Christianity is somewhat unique because of the somewhat wussy incarnation of it's hero-god. The Osiris myth and the Jesus "myth" (I hesitate to call it that... residual fear of pitchforks) are similar, but only in a meta-sense.

The Captain | June 7, 2005, 4:30pm | #

Scott, I apologize for misinterpreting your beginning comments. I will never, however, appologize for offending the people who want to twist our Church's teachings, or more specifically our Church's leaders' comments on the state of moral health of this world to demonize our Church as "intolerent" or "hateful". Those that would use those teachings as a means of self-aggrandizment for the cause of immorality, are dangerous to the concept of this countries 1st amendment guarantees of the freedom to practice religion. Many cases are already taking place whereby the "champions of immorality" are using our Church's teachings to establish laws prohibiting us from believeing, and speaking out that things such as homosexuality, abortion, contraception, divorce, etc. etc. and to be subservient to the pervasive idea of "political correctness". Even though I rant and rave, I realize that this is only one more "sign of the times" and that, what I fear in the near future, we will have to take our beliefs "underground" for the time leading up to what our Church teaches will happen in the end times. The "champions of immorality" will continue to chip away at our freedom to practice any religion, or to believe the things that we believe because they say that it is only out of hate that we do or say them.

dhex | June 7, 2005, 4:35pm | #

captain, do you seriously think christianity is going to be forced "underground" in america?

[p.s. trinitarian or arian?]

Randolph Carter | June 7, 2005, 4:38pm | #

Captain,
Preface: I am not making fun of you and I respect Christanity and Catholicism a great deal.
Do you really think that the government is driving religion underground? Churches have never been more alive. Witness the "megachurch" phenomenon, the success of evangelical programs like Alpha and Emmaeus (I know, it's a wierd catholic HS thing, but it's wildly successful), and the growing dominance of Christanity in the non-white world. I don't think the church is dying in any way, America's just letting go of some of it's official, gov't sponsored love affair with Christianity. As a Christian, you can look at this as a great thing. Leviathan's off your back! You can finally honor God and ignore Caesar. So lighten up a little, it's not the end times yet.

Fighting Back in Self-Defense | June 7, 2005, 4:40pm | #

The Captain said (at 2:12):
"Hey, it's ok, we don't want people like you in the Catholic Church, or any where near it."

Ah, if only all Christians were of that opinion! Then we could all agree to a "live and let live" philosophy. But too many Christians work themselves into a lather over the state of my non-existent soul, and since they are butting into MY business, it's fair game for me to butt into their business.

Spread the word, Captain. Call off the missionaries and I'll call off the criticism.

Jennifer | June 7, 2005, 4:45pm | #

Captain-
Yes, the Church has evolved, and good for it, I say. But doesn't that contradict your statement that "the Church will never change it's [sic] doctrine?"

metalgrid | June 7, 2005, 4:46pm | #

RC: Lacking any concrete evidence for either myth (there's about as much evidence of christ as there is evidence of a re-incarnating osiris), I am forced to address it in terms of archetypes. Then again, I did some digging into several Hindu myths and one can see facets of the same (re)incarnation of the divine in human form there as well. At this point, I'd have to say man has just about exhausted their imagination in inventing contrivences for the manifestation of the divine as a truth. Given the 'enlightenment' and having failed to mainfest the divine with faith, humanity has stumbled upon a new way to search for truth in the form of reason and science.

SPD | June 7, 2005, 4:54pm | #

"That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular." --Abe Lincoln

Same here, from a lapsed Catholic. Peace be with you all, religious and non-religious alike.

Adam | June 7, 2005, 4:55pm | #

re: the rhythm method...i thought it was church policy that all non-procreative sex was undesirable and/or sinful

dhex | June 7, 2005, 4:57pm | #

"There is no bigger enemy to religion faith than providing security to man."

then why is it so popular in america?

i mean, c'mon. you gotta do better than "it's a crutch, bro!"

PintofStout | June 7, 2005, 4:57pm | #

mealgrid,

Refer to the site I linked above. It has a thorough examination of the existance of a man called Christ and origins of the Christ myth.

PintofStout | June 7, 2005, 4:59pm | #

missed a "t" there. Sorry, metalgrid.

The Captain | June 7, 2005, 5:03pm | #

The Bride Groom departed for a time, and after some time had passed, they began capering and dancing joyously about the place, for they had looked upon themselves and truly, believed THEMSEVLES to be Gods, to be the masters of their own destiny. They marveled at their own INTELLIGENCE, and, maliciously scoffed at the WEAK FOOLS who put their trust in an INVISIBLE MAN IN THE SKY because they were much, much, to concerned with the copious pleasures of the world, and indeed, in their own godhood. "What need have we", they laughed as they danced, "in trusting this myth, this fable, this man-made story?" "Are we not gods ourselves? Shall we not 'Do what thou wilt', in keeping with our supremecy?" "You Christian lot, you believers in myth, away with you! Bother us not with your beliefs, your intolerence of worldly pleasures. We have no time, nor need of sacrifice!" And they turned their faces away from God, and were given unto wanton celebration of their denial. But, alas, in their merry making, they did not see, nor did they choose to see, the Bride Groom returning to to the ceremony, they did not believe in the Bride Groom, nor in His mercy, nor His Love. In His righteous anger, the Bride Groom eschewed the merry makers, for they had not believed that He would return and as is the Bride Groom's right, He cast them out from the ceremony, He banished them from the celebration forever. Forever.

scottorrell | June 7, 2005, 5:06pm | #

Captain,
I will only say in response that I disagree with your characterization of what's happening in our current culture, though I do agree that the cult of relative truths is spreading. Funny that I've never heard a catholic reference the "end times."
Remember Captain, that our faith has faith in both God and man. Man is following God's plan whether he likes it or not. Our job is to emulate Christ and evangelize through our actions. I don't mean that you shouldn't defend the church. But, personally, I always think of how my favorite priest might respond and try to communicate the same warmth and compassion.

Jennifer | June 7, 2005, 5:09pm | #

Captain-
So has the Church changed its doctrine or what? Apparently this Friday I can eat steak with impunity, but my great-grandmother, who had the misfortune to die before the Second Vatican Council, is burning in hell for that same crime. Or did she only burn until Vatican II, at which point she was promoted out of hell?

scott orrell | June 7, 2005, 5:14pm | #

Adam,
Good question. The answer (as I understand it) is that the Church recognizes that sex is important for a married couple to truly remain one body. Pleasure is not the end goal, but the mechanism by which the holy sacrament of marriage is consumated. Sex is important to keeping a man and woman in love and therefore keeping the family together. Contraception interferes with this holy bond by creating obstacles between husband and wife, and disassociating a woman's body from her natural self.
Natural Family Planning actually increases a couples association with their body by contemplating and relying on the woman's natural self.

metalgrid | June 7, 2005, 5:19pm | #

"There is no bigger enemy to religion faith than providing security to man."

then why is it so popular in america?


I would venture that we haven't gotten as far in nanny statism as the rest of Western Europe and Canada. After all, we're still far behind the Middle East, Africa and Asia in terms of the percent of our population that are devoutly religious. Many of the people I know who define themselves as christians are christians in name only, and go to church for the social aspects - including the catholics, so it's not just reserved for episcopalians.


i mean, c'mon. you gotta do better than "it's a crutch, bro!"

How much clearer does it need to be? Blame it on god, abscond from responsibility - seems to be the theme of the religious. They're not doing something because they have a rational basis for it. They ask themselves WWJD, and then try and do the same thing. That is a crutch. They screw up, and then say, god didn't want it to happen, god must have other plans. WTF. Take responsibility, say - I fucked up, I did x and y and z wrong, and I know how to correct it.

The saddest part is, you can't argue with the religious using reason and fact because their minds are attuned to faith. As a result, there's no way to get through to them without resorting to faith yourself. Then when faith X and faith Y collide, you have the nice bout of bloodshed that history is packed with. I wouldn't mind that so much if they decide to kill themselves off, other than for being caught in the crossfire.

scott orrell | June 7, 2005, 5:24pm | #

Jennifer,
No one went to Hell because they ate meat. Canon Law does not determine that. I'm sure many catholics thought that it did, but it doesn't. In Catholicism, Hell is actually very hard to get into. Also, I don't believe that Friday penance was ever removed from canon law, just explained.

Mark | June 7, 2005, 5:28pm | #

re: the rhythm method...i thought it was church policy that all non-procreative sex was undesirable and/or sinful

Catholic Catechism 2370:

Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

The Captain | June 7, 2005, 5:29pm | #

@ Jennifer, no, I do not think it contradicts my statement that the Churches doctrines will never change in that, immorality as defined by the Church remains the same. Changing teachings on such tennents of the faith as eating meat on Fridays being a cause to be cast into Hell is merely realigning doctrine to reflect a more personal choice of sacrifice in ones life. Some of these teachings, along with the practice of selling indulgences in the early Church, were what Martin Luther was so adamant about. Martin Luther was a very true Catholic, and I agree, that I would have been just as appalled by those selfsame practices. Where Luther went wrong, and I truly believe that God put the spirit of reform into him, is that when faced with excommunication, he chose to leave the Church, instead of accepting his chastisement, and continue to use his abilties to reform the Church from within insofar as the abuses such as selling redemption. It's no secret now, that I am a Catholic, but I am a divorced Catholic and subject to what the Church teaches in regard to it. Does this make me angry? Does it make me want to change it? NO! I accept it. If I didn't agree with it, or accept it, then I could just become a Luthern or some other Protestant denomination. I am an Irish Republican Catholic, and I could never turn my back on my faith. No matter how oppresive it might seem to an outsider. What drives me absolutely stark raving mad, is that people in this country are so rabid about changing everything, that they have to try and change my Church, when what they really need to do is just mind their own business. We will sort out the things that need to be sorted out, and we will leave the things that need to be left alone, alone.

metalgrid | June 7, 2005, 5:31pm | #

Comment by: PintofStout at June 7, 2005 04:57 PM


Very educational reading Pint. Thanks!

The Captain | June 7, 2005, 5:35pm | #

You cannot deny, that in the very beginning of the comments on this post, that the Catholic Church, and it's primarch, were being demonized. This isn't the only site on the web where this occurs, and while it may seem that more and more people are turning to religion, I submit to you, that as that is happening, more and more people who hate religion, are doing everything they can to stop it.

Mark | June 7, 2005, 5:39pm | #

So has the Church changed its doctrine or what? Apparently this Friday I can eat steak with impunity, but my great-grandmother, who had the misfortune to die before the Second Vatican Council, is burning in hell for that same crime. Or did she only burn until Vatican II, at which point she was promoted out of hell?

From Changing The Law Of Abstinence (much more on this subject via that link, in particular regarding the consequences for non-abstainers prior to the change):

The universal norm is still that Catholics are to abstain from meat on Fridays (all Fridays of the year), but the American bishops' conference judged that a more restricted program of abstinence (only Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, the the Fridays of Lent) would work best for Catholics here in America. They requested a variance from the universal norm and the Vatican granted it. Thus here in America there are a smaller number of days on which abstinence is required.

David | June 7, 2005, 5:46pm | #

This isn't the only site on the web where this occurs, and while it may seem that more and more people are turning to religion, I submit to you, that as that is happening, more and more people who hate religion, are doing everything they can to stop it.

I think you're wrong about that, Captain. An atheist can no more prevent a Catholic from believing what he will than a Catholic can imbue an atheist with faith. One might be able to prevent the other from expression of his beliefs, but not from truly hnolding them.

The Captain | June 7, 2005, 5:54pm | #

Scott, my friend, I do not know what parish you attend, but "end times" has been a constantly taught subject throughout my life. Yes, peace and love are the highest things a person can aspire to, I will not disagree with you, but scripture says that if you are lukewarm in your faith, then God will spew you from His mouth. Yeshua said that, "if you are ashamed of me in front of your bretheren, then so shall I be ashamed of you before My Father." It's no secret, I'm pretty fired up.

Randolph Carter | June 7, 2005, 5:56pm | #

What's the chapter and verse on that Bridegroom scripture you quoted earlier, Captain? I'm very very rusty on my revelations (it's the book I'd always read while the service was going on while I was a kid. That and Bel and the Dragon).

Randolph Carter | June 7, 2005, 6:01pm | #

P.S. that is a serious question - I'm working my way through the Bible again and Deuteronomy is killin me, I need some excitement.

The Captain | June 7, 2005, 6:01pm | #

Ok, which one of you guys said "Zealot"? LOL

The Captain | June 7, 2005, 6:03pm | #

Randy, may I call you Randy? Nah, not from the bible, just from my own "mythologically challegened" brain using some artistic license.

Rowdy Randy Carter | June 7, 2005, 6:06pm | #

That's why it didn't sound familiar! The style was more or less spot on though - I always loved the part when the harlot of Babylon comes out of the freakin dragon's mouth (or something like that). Wierd, wacky stuff.

scott orrell | June 7, 2005, 6:08pm | #

Mark,
Lay it on us, man, my catechism is at home.
My understanding is that the Church takes a dim view of Revelations as an un-interpretable prophecy not yet revealed to us.
Captain,
Well, I attend St. Charles Borremeo in LA. I think I will defer to Mark, and hope he has something for us. As for ashamed, there should not be shame but there should be humility.

The Captain | June 7, 2005, 6:18pm | #

Scott, your right, Mark is on the money! I have my Catechism right here but have been flying by the seat of my pants which is what I am more apt to do. I attend Our Lady of Guadalupe in South Dakota. My family came to the United States from Ireland just over 20 years ago. Where I grew up, being Catholic automatically put a bullseye on your head, and was leading me down the path of hatred and violence. I bear no hatred to my Protestant brothers as the primary differences being that the places we pray just have different names. I know a wee bit about what it's like to live with religious intolerence, and hatred of my faith by others, and so, apologetically I will say that I get very worked up about it happening here. God Bless this wonderful country!

scott orrell | June 7, 2005, 6:25pm | #

Captain,
That's funny. I grew up in Alabama, soI know exactly what you're talking about. And it's why when I hear "end times" the hair goes up on the back of my neck. Protestants (ok, some Southern Baptists) love to preach Revelations and claim that the Catholic Church is the church of the Anti-christ. Anyway, glad to see you've calmed a bit. And know that the only reason I could be so calm myself is because someone else was raising hell.

Steve | June 7, 2005, 6:51pm | #

Cap'n,

You mentioned a bit ago that people here were "demonizing" the Pope. I'm not sure "demonizing" is right. I think we were mocking him, the way we'd mock any powerful person we disagree with.

But either way, that doesn't mean we were trying to "stop" his religion. It's a stick-and-stones thing -- if I disagree with the Pope on these issues, and I think he's being a silly old fool, I'll say so. They're just words. It doesn't mean I want to ban Catholocism. I try to persuade people to abandon Catholocism, because I think it's often harmful, but again, it's persuasion. No one here, that I know of, wants to ban anything.

Lowdog | June 7, 2005, 6:54pm | #

Good, everyone's calmed down.

Look, I understand that a lot of people are quite condescending when they talk about religions, myself included.

I just can't understand how, in this day and age, and knowing what we know about how the bible came together, and what we know of the universe (admitting that there is still a lot to know), that people still have what I consider an irrational belief in any of it. Especially the catholic church, which again, if you've studied even a little medieval history, is such a convoluted mess full of scandals, power grabs, inconsistency, and corruption.

So I'm sorry if anyone's offended by my comments about their faith or their belief in an invisible, angry, sky being. (For the record, though, while I agree that religion is, for many, a crutch, I never said anyone was a weak fool.)

Finally, I have no problem with someone believing and worshipping as they wish, whether I agree with it or not. That's what's still great about this country. But please don't preach to me about your faith. Or if you feel you must, don't get mad when I laugh at you.

kmw | June 7, 2005, 7:07pm | #

Fundamentalism is the natural progression of a perceived threat against any way of life. It was bound to happen in Catholicism too.

I imagine that succeeding generations of Catholics will find themselves having less and less culturally in common with the RC Church. Either the Church will change to keep up with modern culture, or the only parishioners left will be those who hold steadfast to the traditional teachings.

Given how things have changed since Galileo's time, I think the RCC tends to be at least a little democratic, in that they eventually bow to social norms. Every few popes you get a JPII, who makes attempts to modernize things. The RCC has proven amazingly resilient in the face of cultural changes.

Remember that Pope Benedict XVI was ordained a full 20 years before homosexuality was decriminalized anywhere in the US, and a good while before contraception was commercially available. It will take a few decades, but eventually the RCC will make peace with gays, just as they made peace with Muslims at the Second Vatican Council.

crimethink | June 7, 2005, 7:21pm | #

Non-procreative sex being considered sinful, goes back at least as far as the Jewish Torah. Genesis 39 details the story of Onan, slewn by God for pulling out before ejaculation.* Male homosexual activity, though strangely not lesbianism, is condemned in Deuteronomy. In fact, the Torah goes even further than Catholicism in its aversion to non-procreative sex, forbidding men from having sex with their wives during the infertile period of menstruation.

* While some revisionist theologians claim this was merely because he broke the law of the levirate, this makes no sense, since that law was given by Moses, centuries after the death of Onan.


Gotta love the details: "artificial" birth control--as if the Church-sanctioned rhythm method is "natural".

Birth control that uses man-made barriers or ingested chemicals to prevent conception is artificial. Birth control that takes advantage of the fact that women naturally have regular periods of infertility is not. This should not be hard to understand.

Jennifer | June 7, 2005, 7:34pm | #

In other words, it's okay to have sex when you're LESS likely to conceive, but it's not okay to have it when you're UNlikely to conceive.

crimethink | June 7, 2005, 7:41pm | #

Leaving aside the question of relative effectiveness of NFP (which is not Rhythm method) vs condoms/thePill/etc, the difference isn't the probability that the method will succeed.

The difference is that in one case, one or both participants actively attempt to prevent conception; while in the other case, they do not.

grylliade | June 7, 2005, 8:08pm | #

And really, what would we do if the Catholic Church suddenly became the Unitarians with candles and genuflection?

What would we Episcopalians do? They'd be stealing our niche!

Mo | June 7, 2005, 8:30pm | #

I though Onan was punished for pulling out when he was told not to, not for the act of pulling out itself. An lighthearted example of this applied to H&R. Gunnels was banned for spoofing names, being a dick, blocking discourse, etc. after Tim had warned him and he was punished. However, many people continue to do these acts without being banned. For the mighty Tim did not order them to stop being Gunnelesque.

My Biblical theology is quite weak, so I could be wrong.

Lowdog | June 7, 2005, 8:38pm | #

From Wikipedia: "...whenever he had sexual intercourse with his brother's wife he spilt his seed upon the ground (Genesis 38:7-9); the Bible says that he did this because (under the custom of levirate marriage) the child would not be considered his, but his late brother's. In response to this transgression, God killed Onan."

"Most modern Biblical scholars, however, say that Onan's sin was to violate the rules of levirate marriage, the Biblical law which states that a childless widow must marry her late husband's brother."

Lowdog | June 7, 2005, 8:39pm | #

Oops, that last paragraph shoulda been italicised, too.

Tim Cavanaugh | June 7, 2005, 9:25pm | #

Come on, people. Even in the strictest Tridentine days, nobody went to hell for eating meat on Fridays. Abstinence days were a "discipline" and failing to observe them was not regarded as a violation of natural law. Deliberately eating meat on Lenten Fridays was considered "grave matter" because it was disobedience, and an exceptionally legalistic interpretation could extrapolate from that to the idea that it was mortal sin and grounds for damnation. In reality, nobody outside of Society of Saint Pius X types and (in much greater numbers) protestants and secularists looking to poke fun at arcane Catholic rules ever claimed that the Church said you'd go to hell for eating a hot dog. Even the legendary Baltimore Catechism advises readers to consult your parish priest or confessor with meat-abstinence questions—and given that the average reader of the Baltimore Catechism would have questions like "My dad took me to a Senators game on Friday night and they were only serving hot dogs so I ate one; am I going to hell?" this is as sure a sign as there is that this was not to be regarded as a life-or-death matter.

I can understand Jennifer, who's mainly looking to poke a little fun, harping on this point, but Captain, if you're going to set yourself up as the defender of the faith you shouldn't allow yourself to get tripped up by legalistic quibbles like this. In fact, if you're going to set yourself up as a defender of the faith, you need to can the fightin' Irish blarney. Haven't you ever seen an episode of Search and Rescue? Witness with a charitable heart or don't witness at all!

passing through | June 7, 2005, 9:35pm | #

The Catholic Church is against artificial birth control because they want more Catholics. It would be nice if they would just be honest and say that.

I am pretty certain there is a god; he, she, or it (whatever) just doesn't subscribe to any of the petty, mind-controlling rules religions make up. But let's give Christianity it's due. It gave us the Golden Rule, and if people followed that one simple directive, the world might be a better place.

My final word.
If you don't like what a religion teaches, then don't try to be a member of the church. Form you own.

Stevo Darkly | June 7, 2005, 9:57pm | #

Male homosexual activity, though strangely not lesbianism, is condemned in Deuteronomy.

Just like on the Howard Stern Show!

crimethink | June 7, 2005, 10:39pm | #

Lowdog,

As I said, the law of the levirate is given by Moses, who wouldn't be born for hundreds of years after the Onan incident.

In any case, until modern times, the sin of Onan was understood in both Jewish and Christian scholarship to be coitus interruptus, not violating the levirate. If the interpretation favored by Wikipedia and "modern scholars" is correct, it was the best kept secret of the past few milennia.

It's just coincidence, I'm sure, that quote-whoring biblical scholars changed their mind on the subject at the same time as society at large did (as with abortion).

Phil | June 7, 2005, 10:55pm | #

What drives me absolutely stark raving mad, is that people in this country are so rabid about changing everything, that they have to try and change my Church, when what they really need to do is just mind their own business.

Then can you petition church leaders to stay the everlovin' fuck out of American lawmaking? I mean, after all, they should just mind their own business, and according to you, if they don't like the laws, they can just leave, right?

Yeshua said that, "if you are ashamed of me in front of your bretheren, then so shall I be ashamed of you before My Father."

He also said, "Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." I'm not sure whether "KEEP YOUR STINKING LIBERAL DICK BEATERS OFF MY CHURCH!" falls under that warning, but there you have it.

crimethink | June 7, 2005, 10:56pm | #

The Catholic Church is against artificial birth control because they want more Catholics.

How many Catholics have left the Church since Paul VI reaffirmed the teaching on contraception in 1968? Looks like the master plan to increase the ranks backfired.

crimethink | June 7, 2005, 11:03pm | #

Phil,

It's funny how libertarians are all for free political speech as long as it's not tied to religion. Does an American citizen forfeit his 1st ammendment rights by becoming a church leader?

Stevo Darkly | June 7, 2005, 11:35pm | #

As I said, the law of the levirate is given by Moses, who wouldn't be born for hundreds of years after the Onan incident.

This is interesting.

BTW, "The Onan Incident" would be an absolutely marvelous name for a band.

Russ R | June 8, 2005, 12:25am | #

The Captain writes: "If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Ch