Catholic Mission, Religious Freedom & LGBT Rights: Part I | National Catholic Reporter

Catholic Mission, Religious Freedom & LGBT Rights: Part I | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: I can see why that article was upsetting.  I ignore such garbage and its purveyors.  They make us look a little bad, but themselves they make look like intolerant idiots - as if they could go to Canada or Europe to avoid gay marriage.  Maybe Moscow? Authoritarianism and anti-homosexuality seem to go hand in hand.



I also don't believe that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman. This is the practice in the Catholic clergy, but not at all the truth.  The truth is that marriage is the basic adult right - the right to leave the family of origin and create a new family - and make no mistake, gays and lesbians can have kids - either through inheritance or more scientific means - and I also don't care that this is frowned upon by the Church - they are wrong about that too.  There is nothing illicit about medical procedures upon pre-embryonic cells, including termination.  The term potenital human life was valid back when I was hanging with the Minor Seminarians at Loras, the only reason it is not validT now is politics. Morality contributes to politics, not the other way around.



The 2003 document is interesting.  It seems less concerned with the moral cases and more concerned with the loss of teaching authority on these matters by the CDF.  They did not lose it, they gave it away by trying to save it.  Humanae Vitae was so important not because every sperm is sacred, but because to not take that position endangers papal infallibility.  The 2003 document is of the same ilk.  They don't seem to get it that preaching the truth, including revisions, is much more important than consistency will all other teachings, even the ones that are silly (anyone read the condmenation of Moderism lately.  I was the Church v. Darwin.  Darwin won).  The Church's problem is that it believes it is essential to Christendom (which has not existed for a long time) and that Christendom is essential for civilization.  No.  The Masons, maybe, but not the Church.



The counter point to Notre Dame's action is morally suspect and indeed, bigotry.  Church institutions hither and yon did not question honoring civil marriages which it still considers immoral (it could not do so, because marriages are made by the partners, not the priest or judge).  The only difference between tolearting one sort of civil (or religious) marriage and not the other is the aversion people who are strongly in one sexuality have for the other (ooooo icky) or covering up their own homosexuality.  Either way, its bigotry and that is sinful. As for Notre Dame, it is now singled out for scorn by the right wing because of Barack Obama, seemingly over his stance on what is literally a non-issue - outlawing abortion or reversing Roe - issues have movement and options, abortion has neither).



The Church should hire the best people and pay the benefits required.  That should include benefits to religiously married gay couples (yes, they do exist - and when such couples get married, go to the wedding if invited).  Drunk driving and messing with kids will and should get you fired. Its interesting that many diocese follow the law without question.  One wonders if this is because they are loaded with liberals or gay clergy or whether those who do not have some self-loathing going on.



One thing, I think the Pope was talking about lepers and spiritual lepers, not those whose sexuality varies due to what is called epigenesis and it means it is not a choice. Intolerance, however, is a choice - a spiritual leprosy that Francis was talking about. The authors should go to Confession while it is still Lent.