Is there a place for gays in the Catholic Church

[Shadow]

I don't think anybody follows all the teachings and doctrines of anything they've ever done truth be told ...

... it's like I always used to say to my best friend, "everybody breaks the law, every day of their lives". He and I have been at loggerheads over those words for years (in a nice way), but I'm still adamant I'm right.

I said it to demonstrate to him that laws can be restrictive as well as protective, and the same argument can (I believe) be applied to religious doctrine as well, particularly as religious "laws" are not updated like our conventional legal system ... so many of their tenets are either stuffy or outdated, and so what may have really been (and I mean this sincerely) good, common-sense logic back then, may be more than a little outdated now ...

!?!?! Shadow !?!?!

[marshlander]

I don't think anybody follows all the teachings and doctrines of anything they've ever done truth be told ... religious "laws" are not updated like our conventional legal system ... so many of their tenets are either stuffy or outdated, and so what may have really been (and I mean this sincerely) good, common-sense logic back then, may be more than a little outdated now ...

As usual, Shadow, you look for the good in the situation, but I'm just not convinced that the truth isn't a whole lot darker. Creating, maintaining and enforcing religious belief is an exercise in power. Any organisation has to have something ruthless going on at the top in order to survive. I think this is particularly necessary where

• the organisation is large
  
• it has a long and sustained history
  
• it maintains its influence by manipulating the guilt response
  
• it claims to offer certainty where doubt exists.

Religions have another task that they also require that followers suspend logic and accept what is essentially unprovable. The follower who is able to do that clearly then has an investment in supporting the aims of the organisation. Any move to the contrary is an admission of error. Who willingly puts themselves through that kind of pain? Any leadership worth its salt lets the middle management do the enforcment and often turns a blind eye to methodology. Bullying breeds bullies. Bullying can become a purpose in itself.

The history of the leadership of the Catholic Church, as with many such monsters, is bound up with blood, deceipt and the accumulation of wealth and power. What is it that makes people hang on to the last vestiges of faith in these organisations when faced with overwhelming evidence against such undeserved loyalty?

The programme posted by Voice featured people who spoke of their "personal relationship with God". Although that phrase strikes me as a fundamental contradiction (ie how can one have a relationship with an entity that cannot be proven to exist) these people are obviously sincere in expressing a need for elevating mysticism to formal religious faith. In the face of so much opposition it is extraordinary that these people still require the vehicle of institutional religion. I believe that religious leaders understand that need better than most of us and exploit it shamelessly and ruthlessly.

[Shadow]

Scathing, but I take your point my friend.

I think that historically-speaking, religious leaders served to gather and unite, under one banner (for a multitude of reasons I will give you that) the great unwashed and, as such, the power OF organised religion was learned from an early age of man.

With it, you could play the Pied Piper and lead people en masse down whatever path you chose, or fuel wars, extort information, OR (if we were to turn the coin on its flipside) attempt to work for the betterment of large groups of people by promoting education, literacy, more civilised conduct, and so on.

Whilst I will be the first person to back you up in saying that organised religion has a lot of evils to answer for, from forcing itself upon other "less civilised" (who gets off saying that anyway !?!?!) cultures, to arranging for the assassination of dissenters and far far beyond, I don't think it's fair to completely slate organised religion as being evil or twisted, as I think even WITH the barrage of allegations (many of which are justified) that people throw at it, a fair share of good has also come from organised religion.

Look at the number of great scholars and philosophers who have historically used organised religion as a springboard to then go on and do great things, and make great advances in other areas - art, etc.

I do agree (as I've said before) with XRIMO's perspective that it seems WOEFULLY unjust of organised religion to come along and try and sweep away, or demonise, homosexuality - a much OLDER and more time-honoured aspect of humanity than organised religion itself ... and I take your view that it is a breeding-grown for powerplays and much MUCH evil ... but even in the darkest of places there can be the occasional guiding light.

In answer to your question :-

What is it that makes people hang on to the last vestiges of faith in these organisations when faced with overwhelming evidence against such underserved loyalty?

The answer's in the question. It's their faith. It's not necessarily their faith in the institution itself, inasmuch as it's their faith in the message that it's broadcasting ...

*Shadow goes off to hunt for more goodness in things* mile:.

.

xx

!?!?! Shadow !?!?!

[marshlander]

Thanks, Shadow, for reminding me that there are many good and sincere people in the churches. I have actually met some of them Do you think, though, that it is necessary to buy into the whole package to "improve" behaviour, literacy, living conditions and so on? I find it easier to accept that humanitarian concern for others exists readily without the need for a religious seal of approval. My nastier comments were directed at ecclesiastical leaders and I am struggling to think of many (or even any at this time of night) who have put the needs of others above themselves. No doubt you'll be able to help me out here?

Theological scholars and intellectuals may have been able to use the facilities of their church to pursue their interests, but it's interesting that many have had their privileges withdrawn when they uncover empirical knowledge that challenges established belief.

[Shadow]

No I don't think you have to buy into it in order to appreciate the black and white of it, but then that's an attitude I have adopted for many things in life ... including politics, religion and (to be truthful) people's attitudes over most things in general ...

As the saying goes "motives are rarely unselfish", and this is particularly so when great amounts of power are wielded. Whilst the guise under which most organisations (religious and otherwise) operate are benevolent, quite often there are benefits which make their apparently positive actions worthwhile, and Churches often fall within the remit of that model.

Insofar as religious leaders that have championed positive causes, I would offer Ghandi to you as an example - he was an educated man who read the teachings of many other religions, and made a HUGE historical impact by forging out on his own ... and, to the best of my knowledge certainly, there have been no slurs against his name ...

Other examples might include Leonardo da Vinci, or other Renaissance artists who have made what have been considered significant religious contributions.

!?!?! Shadow !?!?!

[marshlander]

... As the saying goes "motives are rarely unselfish", and this is particularly so when great amounts of power are wielded. Whilst the guise under which most organisations (religious and otherwise) operate are benevolent, quite often there are benefits which make their apparently positive actions worthwhile, and Churches often fall within the remit of that model.

I can accept that this is might seem to be so sometimes. The reservations I've already listed still apply, though.

Insofar as religious leaders that have championed positive causes, I would offer Ghandi to you as an example - he was an educated man who read the teachings of many other religions, and made a HUGE historical impact by forging out on his own ... and, to the best of my knowledge certainly, there have been no slurs against his name ...

I wondered if Ghandi might be mentioned in this connection. To the best of my knowledge though, while his life was deeply influenced by his Hindu background, he was not a religious leader in the sense that we are discussing here. When asked once whether he was a Hindu he answered that he was also a Muslim, a Christian and a Jew. As you point out he was highly educated. He was trained as a lawyer in London and his achievements were ostensibly in the political arena. No slurs? Perhaps, but you may want to have a look at some of his stranger personal "experiments", such as bramhacharya. Not to take anything away from his importance and his other achievements, but I wonder how his wife felt about living a life of enforced celibacy while he tested his own resolve by sleeping next to naked girls!

Other examples might include Leonardo da Vinci, or other Renaissance artists who have made what have been considered significant religious contributions.

This is not really relevant. While he was, arguably, the world's greatest polymath, he was by no means a religious leader. I've just checked through my copy of Vasari's account of Leonardo's life (written about thirty years after his death). I don't know how accurate this might be, but Vasari reports that da Vinci was laying on his death bed before he resolved to learn about God and the church. As was common at the time the patron called the tunes to be played by the artists. Da Vinci was in the employ of various patrons who sometimes demanded works depicting religious themes. Presumably had Leonardo been employed by penguins he would have been famous for his Antarctic landscapes You probably know that he was also charged, alongside other young companions, of sodomy. He was acquitted.

That you've mentioned these people as examples of positive religious leadership is interesting. These were outstandingly high performers in fields other than religion. They did useful stuff! Could it be that religious leaders can only, after all, seek and exercise power?

Since the discussion started with the Roman Catholic church I wonder that Pope John-Paul II hasn't been mentioned. It could be claimed that he played a part in emancipating Poland from communist rule. Under his leadership liberation theology also played an important part in changing the lives of many in Central and South America. As an uninformed outside observer though I also see a man who fed homophobia and misogyny through his brutal stance on issues such as homosexuality, divorce and abortion. There is no way he could not have been complicit at some level in covering up child abuse. Where do we balance the scale?

[Shadow]

I wondered if Ghandi might be mentioned in this connection. To the best of my knowledge though, while his life was deeply influenced by his Hindu background, he was not a religious leader in the sense that we are discussing here. When asked once whether he was a Hindu he answered that he was also a Muslim, a Christian and a Jew. As you point out he was highly educated. He was trained as a lawyer in London and his achievements were ostensibly in the political arena. No slurs? Perhaps, but you may want to have a look at some of his stranger personal "experiments", such as bramhacharya. Not to take anything away from his importance and his other achievements, but I wonder how his wife felt about living a life of enforced celibacy while he tested his own resolve by sleeping next to naked girls!

... as I said mile: ...

... it's like I always used to say to my best friend, "everybody breaks the law, every day of their lives". He and I have been at loggerheads over those words for years (in a nice way), but I'm still adamant I'm right.

Ghandi may not have actively led a religious group during his time, but a great many people have become more enlightened through his teachings, to the extent where I would be quite content to attribute him many of the characteristics one would attach to a religious leader ... at least within the checklist-definition I have in my head of what one's job description entails ... he heavily influences the lives of other people during his time and others, he sets an example by which other people strive to live their lives, his background is religious (although multi-cultural as you have pointed out). Just because he saw fit to draw from multiple cultures to spread his word, doesn't really make any difference to him in my mind ...

[Of Leonardo da Vinci] This is not really relevant. While he was, arguably, the world's greatest polymath, he was by no means a religious leader. I've just checked through my copy of Vasari's account of Leonardo's life (written about thirty years after his death). I don't know how accurate this might be, but Vasari reports that da Vinci was laying on his death bed before he resolved to learn about God and the church. As was common at the time the patron called the tunes to be played by the artists. Da Vinci was in the employ of various patrons who sometimes demanded works depicting religious themes. Presumably had Leonardo been employed by penguins he would have been famous for his Antarctic landscapes You probably know that he was also charged, alongside other young companions, of sodomy. He was acquitted.

I wasn't referring to Leonardo da Vinci as a religious leader - you're absolutely right, had I been I would have been wrong - but rather as part of my earlier quote :-

Look at the number of great scholars and philosophers who have historically used organised religion as a springboard to then go on and do great things, and make great advances in other areas - art, etc.

Leonardo was a well-educated man - the (illegitimate) son of a Notary, who is accredited amongst other things with the painting of the Last Supper - a profound piece of religious artwork.

Whilst he may not have used it as a professional springboard per se, that he was commissioned to paint it (on behalf of Santa Maria delle Grazie) does not detract from its impact on the religious world, and nor do his other works to my mind ... but if he had to be discounted, can Michaelangelo not also be considered ? I can't readily accept that neither man had an association with, appreciation for, or influence from, organised religion.

If I asked you, my friend, to compose me a piece of music in an area that was either close to your heart, or simply within a style of music that you considered your speciality, I am sure it would be beautiful. If I asked you to compose me a track I could rap to, it might be otherwise ? Unless you're into rap of course mile:.

I'm just meaning that you have to have at least some appreciation of the subject matter, to produce a work of such beauty ...

That you've mentioned these people as examples of positive religious leadership is interesting. These were outstandingly high performers in fields other than religion. They did useful stuff! Could it be that religious leaders can only, after all, seek and exercise power?

That was one of the points I was making ... insofar as when I was saying that organised religion has been responsible for its fair share of good, I didn't necessarily mean through direct action on its part, as a fair share of our development as people comes from real-life examples of the teachings that it dishes out. Almost like ripples on the water I guess - they reach far further than the body that causes them to start, and can lead to positives of their own.

The messages that organised religion dishes out are in no small part good - as I say, regardless of whether people believe in a higher power or not, many of the more basic teachings (like some of the 10 Commandments - thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit murder, etc.), are just good, simply lessons in how to interact in society.

Ghandi is a good example of this (again) as, whilst he was not, as we've established, the leader of a large religious sect during his lifetime (as far as I'm aware at any rate), he drew on the teachings of others to deliver a revised, and enlightened, message to people.

Don't get me wrong I appreciate that you and I are effectively talking almost cross-purposes, in that the sharp edge of your tongue is aimed predominantly in this thread at (unless I'm mistaken) the puppeteers as it were, rather than the entire system itself (although I know you also do not hold that in high regard either) - I'm just saying that not everybody that observes the system buys into it 100%; not everybody that observes the system is brainwashed by it; and that the system is not inherently evil, although it is often controlled by people who's motives are less pure than the guise behind which they hide their actions.

I'm a good example of somebody that observes organised religion, and respects the teachings and the messages, but who is not drawn into the larger body that is the church - I respectfully decline, and seek to become more enlightened on my own path.

I think many of the problems stem not from the message, but from the belief that one message is better than another, or that other people need to have the faith of others pushed onto them ... I cannot STAND people trying to convert me to their religion - it just gets under my skin something chronic !!

Since the discussion started with the Roman Catholic church I wonder that Pope John-Paul II hasn't been mentioned. It could be claimed that he played a part in emancipating Poland from communist rule. Under his leadership liberation theology also played an important part in changing the lives of many in Central and South America. As an uninformed outside observer though I also see a man who fed homophobia and misogyny through his brutal stance on issues such as homosexuality, divorce and abortion. There is no way he could not have been complicit at some level in covering up child abuse. Where do we balance the scale?

Best not get me started on him xx.

!?!?! Shadow !?!?!

[marshlander]

Thanks, Shadow, particularly for your closing remarks. I've said pretty much what I want to say, so I shan't repeat myself. We both knew all along where we stand on these issues.

At the risk of going completely off-topic I was interested in

... Leonardo was a well-educated man - the (illegitimate) son of a Notary, who is accredited amongst other things with the painting of the Last Supper - a profound piece of religious artwork.

Whilst he may not have used it as a professional springboard per se, that he was commissioned to paint it ... does not detract from its impact on the religious world, and nor do his other works to my mind ... but if he had to be discounted, can Michaelangelo not also be considered ? I can't readily accept that neither man had an association with, appreciation for, or influence from, organised religion.

I'm just meaning that you have to have at least some appreciation of the subject matter, to produce a work of such beauty ...

Granted, a familiarity with the references, context and artistic conventions in representing these characters would probably satisfy the requirements of the commission. I'll readily admit to being on shaky ground when discussing theories relating to visual art, but I'm going to make a wild guess here and suggest that creative expression in both the visual and sonic arts have some similarities. With regard to music I often think of Stravinsky's assertion that "music of itself has no meaning". This is not the place to go into this in depth, but that statement along with some of the ideas of Susanne Langer and others suggests to me that it is the observer of, or a listener to, a work of art who ascribes meanings, perhaps as a way of simply making sense of the work. If one is raised with a stock of experiences, culture and mythology it is to those resources we turn when faced with something new. The human imagination is amazing. Emotional responses can be triggered by quite unrelated experiences. The composer Hindemith even went so far as to suggest that skilled composers were able to use the materials of music in ways most likely to evoke particular emotional responses. We all know how music has been exploited by politicians, churches and advertising executives. Something I once read by Langer unravels that by suggesting that the stuff of music has direct parallels with aspects of life such as tension and release, conflict and resolution, pace, change ... you'll be glad to know I can't remember any more detail

I'm not sure that da Vinci, Michaelangelo and others set out to create profound religious artwork. While they may have worked with passion and undoubtedly with astonishing skill, craftsmanship and imagination the profound religious experience is surely what you would bring to the work as you study it, if you are steeped in those traditions? If I did not know the story of the last supper I would have no chance of being touched emotionally by the work. As it is, after being knocked out by the beauty of the composition and the skill of the artist I tend to wonder, rather irreverantly perhaps, how could someone build such a long table and if everyone is only sitting along one side of it wouldn't conversation be a bit difficult?

If I asked you, my friend, to compose me a piece of music in an area that was either close to your heart, or simply within a style of music that you considered your speciality, I am sure it would be beautiful. If I asked you to compose me a track I could rap to, it might be otherwise ? Unless you're into rap of course mile:.

Never underestimate the power of a decent fee to elicit a decent composition. I'm as much a tart as anyone in this regard.

I think many of the problems stem not from the message, but from the belief that one message is better than another, or that other people need to have the faith of others pushed onto them ... I cannot STAND people trying to convert me to their religion - it just gets under my skin something chronic !!

Amen to that, brother

Now, where is voice? He lit the blue touchpaper on this one and I think I'd like a little more interference from him in this rather free-ranging discussion!