Wow. So my Jewish grandparents, may they rest in peace, should not have gone to see the Sistine Chapel? They caught a glimpse of Pope John Paul II and thought it was pretty cool to see him, even though they weren’t Catholic. They were people who enjoyed learning about other religions and cultures. I miss them very much, but I’m kind of glad they aren’t around to hear, “If you have different ideas, go to a different location.” Happy Veterans’ Day to you too, Bishop.

try to go to a mosque if you are not Muslim

Ooooookay, so not only no to Teh Ghayz, but also to anyone who isn’t Catholic, apparently.

Ain’t no skin off my nose; the less money these fuckers have to play with, the better.

Administrator of Atyrau

Falcor is hanging his furry head in shame.

The Catholics have fallen into the same trap that the Republicans have—they think the only way to save the organization is to throw out anyone who’s impure. In the Bibble, Jesus says “Go and make disciples of all nations”—he doesn’t say “Git them foggorts and wimmins and non-honkeys outta mah church so’s we kin do our boy-wrasslin’ “.

Try to go to a mosque if you are not Muslim.

Yes.  I know that policy has served the Arab-Israel split over the last several hundred years.  Why not push the policy on all fronts?  Don’t stop with the gays, Bishop Kaleta.  Might as well drop the hammer.  Ban anyone who has ever had a divorce.  Ban convicted criminals - thieves, purgurers, murderers.  Ban anyone that has worshiped false idols.  That’ll be your Muslims, your Hindus, your Buddists, your Wiccans, your Taoists, and the like.  Kick out all the apostates and heretics - Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans - convert or no.  And, for the love of Jesus, no Jews.

I’m sure after you’re done covering your walls with all the people you don’t want visiting, you’ll have done the world a big service.

Of course, that would ruffle a lot of feathers.  Piss of a lot of people.  Seriously punch a hole in the tourist revenue stream.

So I guess they can go back to their heresy by convenience.

And the choirboy molestation thing.

You know, I’m not even Muslim, but I have pretty much had it with the “Look, we’re doing the same thing the scary intolerant beheading Mooslims are doing, so STFU” schtick. Enough with describing Muslims as the pits of humanity. And enough with the “As long as there’s one person or small group of people in the world who are even worse than we are, we ROOL!” business.

Geez, Bishop; it’s not like they’re trying to take pictures of the child-rape rooms or anything. Just the pretty buildings.

Geez, Bishop; it’s not like they’re trying to take pictures of the child-rape rooms or anything. Just the pretty buildings.

I’ll bet the Vatican’s child-rape rooms are freakin’ beautiful.

So they also won’t allow anyone in who has eaten a cheeseburger (Leviticus 17:10)? Has a tattoo (Leviticus 19:28)? Noone who’s shaved recently (Leviticus 19:27)? Nobody wearing cotton/poly blends (Leviticus 19:19)?

RickMassimo, it’s also not fucking true what he said. I spent five seconds googling up a bajillion helpful guides on how to be respectful as a non-Muslim when you visit a mosque (apparently, it is a good idea to ask first as some mosques will welcome you and some will not. CRAZINESS.)  Clearly this bishop needs to do some interfaith outreach and start teaching Muslims how to be bigger assholes, to come up to Catholic standard.

Sophonisba beat me to it by a minute or so. I am a non-believer and have been a welcome guest at many mosques in several countries.

I’ve been to a mosque.  And I’m not only not a Muslim, I’m Jewish.  Tourists were asked to be respectful, but otherwise we were totally welcome.

So nice job trying to justify your bigotry by appealing to the sense that Muslims are crazy.  It turns out they’re friendly folks, and you just look like a bigger jerk.

Hey, I’m an ex-Catholic and nobody tried to stop me from seeing The Sistine Chapel, and in fact, a Catholic librarian from Florence tried to pick me up at the Vatican.

Really. The attraction of a little, blonde 40ish American was such that the guy hit on me at the Vatican.  At the Vatican.

But nobody thought to ban him, or me, Eve the temptress, apparently.

But the gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaays! Oooooo, scary.

We wouldn’t want any gayness to get all over those Michelangelo paintings in St. Peter’s now would we?

What happened to trying to use the buildings to teach people?

Only preaching to the converted now?

My first thought is that this guy is crazy nutso if he thinks there haven’t been queers traipsing through tours of the Vatican since, like, ever. You can’t tell ‘em by their horns, dude.

My second thought is that I agree entirely with this:

<blockquote>“If we change this teaching, we will not be the Catholic Church. Don’t expect the Catholic church to change these issues, because it is our identity.”<blockquote>

which is why I have a really hard time with the “But I’m a NICE Catholic” people and the “That isn’t MY Catholicism” people (of which my mother in law is one). This is what the Catholic Church IS. Either y’all need to overthrow it from the inside, pronto, and loudly publicize that this kind of crap is unacceptable in the New Catholicism; or you need to get out and stop lending credibility to an organization this bigoted, heartless, dishonest and general hateful and scummy.

It’s like the old saying: when someone tells you what kind of person you are, believe them. The Catholic Church has been telling us.

What an unbelievable amount of horseshit.

Horseshit.

They love to have tourists come through and leave donations.  Even in Europe, they no longer have a shit fit if tourists enter in shorts and tank tops.  They used to get upset, but not anymore.

They change their teachings all the time.  They are in the process of revising EVERYTHING since 1967 with their unofficial and silent rollback of the Vatican II reforms.

As for what the Catholic Church is?  The Church is the people, the clerics are called to serve.  The clerics get really pissed off when they aren’t treated with reverence, b/c they would prefer to pretend Vatican II never happened.  They’re getting really good at it, too.

But as Princess Leia says, the tighter they hold their fists, the more slip through the cracks.  I really think the hierarchy, who mostly consist of assholes installed by JPII, an asshole himself, don’t care about losing the American Catholic…except for the money.  They want the money.  They want mindless followers who leave big donations and kiss their rings.  That is not remotely what the catechism teaches, but that’s what they want.

I still know good priests, but they are all at local levels.  The men who play the game and want to rise in the Vatican are heartless correctors who haven’t the faintest notion of the Gospels or what Jesus expected his followers to do.

You know, you never hear the American Museum of Natural History issuing statements that ignorant, sanctimonious, god-wads aren’t welcome near the dinosaur skeletons. The Tate Modern doesn’t ban cretinous, jeebus-jacked goobers from gawking at Rothko’s masterworks. My very own library doesn’t give a flying fuck if a bible-thumping, slack-jawed yokel wants to check out On the Origin of Species.

I guess it’s a good thing that the RCC hadn’t tried to take over the Anglicans back when my atheist ass got the thrill of a lifetime standing between Newton and Darwin’s graves inside Westminster Abbey.

“The men who play the game and want to rise in the Vatican are heartless correctors who haven’t the faintest notion of the Gospels or what Jesus expected his followers to do.”

Damn straight.

Man, that guy is going to be pissed when he finds out how difficult it is to detect Cylons.

RickMassimo, it’s also not fucking true what he said. I spent five seconds googling up a bajillion helpful guides on how to be respectful as a non-Muslim when you visit a mosque (apparently, it is a good idea to ask first as some mosques will welcome you and some will not. CRAZINESS.) Clearly this bishop needs to do some interfaith outreach and start teaching Muslims how to be bigger assholes, to come up to Catholic standard.

Yeah, no kidding.

Correct me f I’m wrong, but didn’t our non-Muslim president visit the Blue Mosque a few months ago?  Took his shoes off and walked around and did the whole gazing at artwork thing?

Also, this bishop doesn’t even seem to know his own church’s supposed teaching on the issue of homosexuals… as far as I know (based on 16 years of Catholic education), homosexuals aren’t actually barred from being members of the RCC or from visiting Catholic historic sites like the Vatican.  While I think the church teaching on the subject of homosexuality is completely repugnant, I had always been taught that homosexual orientation itself wasn’t considered a sin, just that “homosexual behavior” was sinful.  Which is still an absolutely disgusting stance to take, but the RCC has always tried to sell itself as “more tolerant” because they acknowledge the existence of homosexual orientation, they just expect homosexuals in the RCC to live loveless, celibate lives.  Basically, “It’s OK if you are gay, you just aren’t allowed to have any romantic relationships with same-sex partners in our church.”

Anyway, this ass isn’t doing much to improve his church’s relationship with the LGBT or non-bigoted communities… not that there’s much of a relationship there to improve.

Man, that guy is going to be pissed when he finds out how difficult it is to detect Cylons.

There are gay Cylons?

“Also, this bishop doesn’t even seem to know his own church’s supposed teaching on the issue of homosexuals…”

It seems like there’s been a steady push since Papa Ratzi took over to walk it back to “Screw gays, full stop.” It’s no longer enough to just be celibate.  Though I’m not sure whether the thinking behind it is “Being gay is a sin” or “Gays are incapable of being celibate.” You could probably get an idea if you really delved into the directive to kick homos and suspected homos out of the seminary from a year or two ago.

I love that the RCC is an unchanging church now…

...was an unchanging church 40-years ago…

...was an unchanging church 500-years ago…

...was an unchanging church 1,900-years ago…

And yet the church that existed at the beginning bears little resemblance to the church of today.

For an unchanging organization, it sure has changed a lot, whether Bishop Janusz Kaleta wants to accept it or not.  And if it changed once, then it can change again. 

Maybe they can add a little more NT Jesus and subtract a little bigoted OT smiting.  But as long as Darth Sidious is in firm control progress is verboten…

Though I’m not sure whether the thinking behind it is “Being gay is a sin” or “Gays are incapable of being celibate.” You could probably get an idea if you really delved into the directive to kick homos and suspected homos out of the seminary from a year or two ago.

I think it’s probably the former, based on the absurd belief in the church hierarchy that “homosexual orientation = penchant for pedophilia”.  They see no difference between GLAAD and NAMBLA.

“I think it’s probably the former, based on the absurd belief in the church hierarchy that “homosexual orientation = penchant for pedophilia”.  They see no difference between GLAAD and NAMBLA.”

I don’t know if I’d trust that it’s a belief and not a convenient excuse.  In their position, it certainly would be handy to be able to blame everything on gays and their unquenchable boy-lust and thus never have to look any further to explain the whole “rampant sexual abuse and organizational cover-up thereof” thing.  Kind of like abusers will claim that they were drunk or really high during episodes of battering when they actually could have passed a field sobriety test.

A further point on my last post…

The RCC pedophilia crisis is so out in the open now that the church is unable to deny it outright anymore, so in their misguided efforts to address the issue, they came to the conclusion that the problem was “too many gay priests diddling little boys” rather than “too many pedophiles attempting to deal with their pedophilia by joining a celibate club that frequently places the club members around young children”.  Being a survivor myself (it wasn’t a priest), I have absolutely no sympathy for pedophiles, but I do believe pedophilia to be a form of mental illness.

I believe a lot of pedophiles who may have never acted out their urges fool themselves into thinking they can just “pray it away” and they join the Catholic priesthood specifically because marriage is prohibited.  They mistakenly believe that they can run away from their untreated illness in a strictly celibate community.

Dammit, always wanting to add points to my previous posts… I also believe that a lot of pedophiles actively sought out the priesthood as a means to act out their pedophilia.

That doesn’t make sense, DTG, considering that they let pedophile priests stay.

“Also, this bishop doesn’t even seem to know his own church’s supposed teaching on the issue of homosexuals…”

There are more than a few of us who knew all along that the church’s “supposed teaching” was a load of shit. The “good” bishop shows us what the true attitude of the institutional RCC is toward queers.

This guy is not very worldly wise, put it that way. He’s a pious Pole in the backwater of Kazakhstan. He probably feels guilty whenever he touches his penis even if it’s only to shake the pee. He’s probably picturing some sort of Gay Pride assless chap parade through St. Peter’s.

The Grand Mosque in Mecca, housing the Qaaba, and the other Meccan sites that are specifically designated for the hajj, forbid non-Muslims from entering. But these are the exception. Average mosques, and lesser major mosques, generally allow non-Muslims to enter, as long as they follow protocol - shoes off, wash feet, women cover head and neck, all be respectful and quiet.

Mormon temples are off-limits for non-Mormons, and for Mormons not in good standing (late on tithes, publicly opposing Mormon doctrine as presented by the President/ 12 Elders and the bishops, public infidelity, gay, habitually drunk, etc). Mormon temples are used for high ceremony, not for weekly worship, which is done at neighborhood churches that admit all comers. Mormons get baptized and married in temple, and that’s about it - consequently, temples are regional and serve a whole state or more. Almost all non-conventual Christian churches of historical/ artistic interest will admit visitors outside the denomination and non-Christians, although the churches typically are open to art/history visitors only between services (for obvious reasons - poor form to chatter or walk around during services).

If the Vatican wants only heterosexual visitors and employees, they better resign themselves to letting the artworks disintegrate, and installing linoleum and fiberboard as repairs are needed.  I have to think that a significant percentage of art historians, art conservators, architect conservators, archivists, etc are gay.

This guy has been shuffled off to Kazakhstan.  Are there even any Catholics there?  I have no love for the RCC, but this guy is a peon and doesn’t speak for anyone.

I had always been taught that homosexual orientation itself wasn’t considered a sin, just that “homosexual behavior” was sinful.  Which is still an absolutely disgusting stance to take, but the RCC has always tried to sell itself as “more tolerant” because they acknowledge the existence of homosexual orientation, they just expect homosexuals in the RCC to live loveless, celibate lives.

They expect EVERYONE to live loveless, celibate lives.  Augustine was truly disgusted by the human body and considered it a separate entity from the spirit.  Anything that pleasures the body is distracting you from the spiritual, and is therefore sinful.

Since we need children, sex can be allowed (as in not be considered sinful) for that purpose.  But married folks shouldn’t use that sacrament too often.  Seriously.  It’s in my grandfather’s catechism.

Sex is just icky and gross and shouldn’t be engaged in by holy people.

So they are really enlightened to say that homosexuals aren’t sinful, just homosex is.  They acknowledge the humanity of homosexuals and expect them to avoid sinful, sinful sex like everyone else.

They just have a hard time acknowledging the full humanity of ANYONE.

Samantha, the hierarchy is attacking homosexuals in the priesthood b/c it’s an easy out.  It’s bullshit, b/c homosexuals are not pedophiles, but they can claim ignorance and knowledge at the same time.  The fact that many pedophiles abused the children they had the most access to, i.e., altar boys, makes it easier to claim that it was homosexuality, not pedophilia.

Then they don’t even have to talk about the priests who have children and deny them.  Or the bishops who moved the pedophiles around so they could keep abusing.  Or the hush money paid to keep the abuse quiet.

Or anything that has to do with reality.  It’s really much easier to strawman homosexuals loudly than to deal with the reality of how corrupt the hierarchy is.  No reason to deny Bernard Law his cushy luxurious retirement, since he’s not gay.  No reason to go after bishops at all!

There are gay Cylons?

There are other kinds? ...Clearly I should stop getting all my information about pop culture from the slash fandom. :D

Almost all non-conventual Christian churches of historical/ artistic interest will admit visitors outside the denomination and non-Christians, although the churches typically are open to art/history visitors only between services (for obvious reasons - poor form to chatter or walk around during services).

Though they won’t necessarily kick you out, either.  Every time my (obviously tourist) family was walking around a church shortly before services began, somebody official would invite us to stay.  Because religious people who aren’t total idiots *want* well-behaved visitors.

If the Vatican wants only heterosexual visitors and employees, they better resign themselves to letting the artworks disintegrate, and installing linoleum and fiberboard as repairs are needed.  I have to think that a significant percentage of art historians, art conservators, architect conservators, archivists, etc are gay.

Undoubtedly.

Not to mention that the most famous Vatican artist, Michelangelo, was gay.

It is kind of sickly ironic that they want to ban homosexuals from viewing the world’s most valuable art collection, quite a bit of which was created by homosexuals.

the hierarchy is attacking homosexuals in the priesthood b/c it’s an easy out. 

It’s not an easy out—it’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to the third power. An average of informed estimates makes a third of priests gay. Any gay purge would wipe out the depleted ranks of the clergy—average age already around 60—even more.

“This guy has been shuffled off to Kazakhstan.  Are there even any Catholics there?”

Yes, but neither of them are particularly observant.

@Caren @32:
Augustine only found the human body squicky after he renounced all the sex, drugs, and rock’n'roll he’d enjoyed for himself: it’s just the zeal of the convert. And he was such an eloquent bastard about it, the church’s infatuation with him is entering its 3rd milennium.

“And he was such an eloquent bastard about it, the church’s infatuation with him is entering its 3rd milennium.”

I don’t think it’s that he was so overwhelmingly eloquent about it so much as his opinions appealing a great deal to a certain particular type of joyless, judgmental, controlling prick.  And of course, once an organization hits a critical mass with those types in membership or leadership, it becomes very difficult to track away from it, because nobody else wants to be around that level of constant, flaming assholery.  He just got pride of place by being one of the earliest of the ascetic douchebrigade to sign on.

The church teachings are from the Bible. If we change this teaching, we will not be the Catholic Church. Don’t expect the Catholic church to change these issues, because it is our identity.”

Jesus Christ changed the teaching about Samaritans. He flatly contradicted previous teachings when he said, “Love thy enemy.” So, I guess Jesus wasn’t a Catholic.

Augustine only found the human body squicky after he renounced all the sex, drugs, and rock’n’roll he’d enjoyed for himself: it’s just the zeal of the convert. And he was such an eloquent bastard about it, the church’s infatuation with him is entering its 3rd milennium.

No, he always intended to be a saint; he totally expected to be forgiven for his youthful indescretions, which included fathering a daughter, whom he ditched along with her mother when it was time to get serious about being a Saint.

He’s a dick, and his ideas have poisoned the church and the Church for centuries.  He is simply a model for the overly entitled, selective rule enforcing bullshit of today.

Whaaa? Gays aren’t welcome in The Vatican, the place Betty Bowers herself describes as looking as if it were decorated by a New Jersey florist who won the Lottery?

The last time I wandered into a Catholic church, Carl Orff’s ‘O Fortuna’ started blaring from nowhere, and the building collapsed.

I need to go to more churches.

Stampeding cattle . . .

that’s not much of a crime!

through the Vatican?

oooh, kinky . . .

I say cut the guy some slack - he’s a neanderthal.

Hector B’s comment about an assless chap parade make me think of the following exchange from Blazing Saddles:

“I stampeded cattle.”

“That’s not very bad.”

“Through the Vatican?”

“Ooo, *kinky*.”

Damn, Mathpants beat me to it….

This guy should keep the noise down and just stick to moving diagonally.

Try to go to a mosque if you are not Muslim.

Umm, I’ve done this.  I visited several mosques while I was traveling in Egypt.  Because I’m a woman and I was wearing shorts, they made me cover my legs with a robe that they provided.  But I was certainly welcome there.  Several years earlier when I was still just a kid, I actually tried to visit the Vatican while I was in Italy, but they wouldn’t let me in because my skirt didn’t completely cover my knees.  They turned me away at the door and I had to wait outside.

Don’t stop with the gays, Bishop Kaleta.  Might as well drop the hammer.  Ban anyone who has ever had a divorce.  Ban convicted criminals - thieves, purgurers, murderers.  Ban anyone that has worshiped false idols.

This is what gets me.  Even thought he thinks homosexuality is bad, does he think it’s the worse sin possible?  What’s the point of excluding gay people if you allow murderers in?

Seize FTW!

Hmmm ... so I should take my kids to the Vatican so they can see what a bunch of Pharisees looks like?

Hm. And then there’s this. They really don’t like the gays so much, do they?

Shorter Catholic Church: If the District of Columbia legalizes gay marriage, we’re going to stop helping DC’s homeless people, rather than extend employee benefits to (hypothetical!) same-sex couples employed by Catholic Charities.

Yup, that’s pretty much WJWD.

I’d like to predicate this by saying that homophobia is gross and that the Vatican is a depressing residual from one of history’s saddest low points.

That said, they’re right. Their religion does condemn all sorts of things, including most forms of sex. It seems silly to ask them to modify themselves now. It seems that gays taking offense at the Catholic church is comparable to people being angry that someone else’s imaginary friend won’t play with them.

I understand that the underlying problem is the desire for recognition and respect, but to create that you can’t ask the church to modify its views. They can’t allow it. A placebo doesn’t work if you call it a placebo, anymore than a faith works if you acknowledge it’s fallible. If gays want Catholicism to modify itself to modern society, what they’re actually asking is for a medieval belief system to become something completely different - essentially, to eliminate itself. It’s not a bad idea, but it is that concept that has the Vatican frightened, not the concern that a gay person might flip off Jesus or form a fifth column movement.

The DC Catholic Charities policy on partner benefits advantages employees in traditional marriages at the expense of those for whom traditional marriage is pointless. It is no skin off their ass to offer every employee partner benefits—unless they propose to discriminate against the unmarried—so why are they being assholes about this? If a straight couple has a gay kid, they don’t cut off benefits to the little homo guy, correct? Cannot the third of the priesthood that is gay advocate for fairness to their gay employees?

It seems silly to ask them to modify themselves now.

It’s not silly at all, since they’ve been modifying themselves constantly for the past ~2000 years.

A placebo doesn’t work if you call it a placebo, anymore than a faith works if you acknowledge it’s fallible.

Comment #54: joshuarupp on 11/12 at 12:42 PM

Holy shit, Joshua, all on ehas to do is look at the RCC annulment bs to realize that the thing that looks like an M&M;on the left is not the Tylenol that clearly says “Tylenol” on the right.  The RCC is so hypocritical and their mealymouth excuses and theo-legalistic bandaids machinations to cover up how they have indeed changed over the past 500 years to keep the wealthy filling the pews so obvious, it takes a phenomenal effort of even the most unaware pious wannabe to remain in belief.  There’s @ a $1000 per hit the RCC would take if it didn’t offer annulments and a definite decline if the odds of those granted were lower. No tot mention the pewfiller donors who wouldn’t give if they couldn’t marry in the church. C’mon, pre-Cana hoops, 20+ years of marriage multiple kids and it wasn’t a marriage?  WTF?

Shorter post:  the RCC has changed whenever its coffers are threatened.  They learned the lesson of Harry 8 quite well.
Shorter post:  the Catholi

They’re certainly hypocritical, and I imagine many of them actually realize that. But I don’t see why that means they would give up their last psychological recourse, which is exploiting the fear of the dogmatic. Their money-laundering, corruption and double-speak are bad, but I think the faithful chock up financial misconduct as the price of bureaucracy more than a threat to their core belief system. Even if you were to back them up to the wall with all the evidence of their treachery, they could still respond that just because mistakes were made, doesn’t invalidate the assertions of their magic book.

And the problem is, some of the meanest statements of the Catholic faith are also the most impossible to misread. They’ll just say, “Yes, over the last five hundred years we’ve been bad. Also, god hates gays.” Then they’ll show you the passage. Right next to where it says you shall not eat the three-toed sloth. Which is the tenderest and most delicious sloth there is.

I guess this is a little nihilistic. After being told by everyone that the shroud of Turing was crap, people still show up to worship it. I think even the church itself said it was crap, and it didn’t make much of a difference. I’m not sure what one does in the face of that kind of stubborn ecstasy. Anyway, so long as the church still has control over that admittedly tenuous belief in simple statements, they can’t risk giving it up. And if gay worshipers want to modify those beliefs, than they are, in fact, a fifth column that the Vatican should be afraid of.

These are the days I remember why I quit practicing. Jesus fucking Christ—no pun intended—oh faith of my heart. Way to fail some more.

So, I guess Jesus wasn’t a Catholic.

ummm, no. he was jewish.

That said, they’re right. Their religion does condemn all sorts of things, including most forms of sex. It seems silly to ask them to modify themselves now. It seems that gays taking offense at the Catholic church is comparable to people being angry that someone else’s imaginary friend won’t play with them.

only if that imaginary friend controlled access to some of the world’s most important art and architecture. only if that imaginary friend had a voice at the united nations and sought to harm gays, women and children… only if that imaginary friend was part of one of the richest organizations in the world.

and yes, their religion does condemn many forms of sex, and other “sins”. in fact, the church teaches that ALL people are sinners.  but they aren’t trying to ban ANYONE else from their buildings—just homosexuals.

I for one, would like to hear more about the Shroud of Turing.

Joshuarupp, history and identity aside, the RCC isn’t saying it would like to ban from its grounds adulturers, people who eat meat on Fridays, masturbators, covetors, atheists, etc. Just Teh Gaze. If I remember my church days correctly, everyone has sinned and remains a sinner, even if their saved or in good with the church. It’s their basic concept of human nature, so singling out one type of sinner should make no sense to them. That it doesn’t is just further proof that they’re all a bunch of bigots.

“...even if they’re saved…” Dammit. That’s so embarrassing.

#62, Egnu:

If anything, that’s probably why they’ll need to come down harder on gay people then ever before. It’s not that different than Hitler selecting out the Jews (and, now that I think about it, the gays ... hm ...) in order to keep everyone’s attention focused on a “common enemy” and away from the depredations of the powers that be.

Though that said, in answer to Sophie in #61, although I think it’s weird to talk about an invisible giant as though he were a real person, I still say that the placebo effect comes into play. People are comforted by the apparition precisely because it is implacable. If it changed to suit the times, then it would be too difficult to ignore that it was all bullshit. It seems to me that the church’s willingness to manipulate isn’t as scary as the population’s need to be manipulated.

Joshua—The Church’s anti-gay policy is not a medieval tradition.  It’s all of two years old.  It was established by the current Pope in a bigoted effort to cover the Vatican’s ass about the sexual abuse scandals.  Before that, homosexuality was regarded as sinful, but no more sinful than sex performed for any purpose other than making babies within wedlock.

Recently, though, the Church has changed its doctrine, elevating homosexuality to some kind of special category of sin—and, even more disturbingly, claiming that gays are born more “disposed to sin” than straight people.  As Andrew Sullivan wrote in Time at the time of the Pope’s election:

Gay people are often born homosexual, Benedict has argued. But they are beset by an inherent tendency toward an “intrinsic moral evil” and are thus by nature “objectively disordered.” A whole class of human beings naturally more disposed to evil than others? Don’t ask the obvious questions. Just accept the answers. And if the result is enormous human suffering, as women and gays labor under discrimination, condescension and prejudice? Suffering brings them closer to Christ.

Not that the Church’s policy toward homosexuality was ever enlightened, but lately it’s taken a turn toward outright bigotry and hate.

I say cut the guy some slack - he’s a neanderthal.

Well, he is a Roman Catholic Bishop. Not a lot differentiates the two categories.

These people aren’t very good Christians, really, for all their purple robes.  What—ban sinners from entering churches?

While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

I don’t believe this stuff myself, and evidently they don’t want me loking at their art work, but at least I’ve read their darn book, which apparently most of them haven’t.  Jesus would tell them that if gays are really sinners, the Vatican ought to be welcoming them with open arms.

Concerning the Bishop Janusz Kaleta of Holy See, the Apostolic Administrator of Atyrau (Kazakhstan):
Bishops are supposed to be responsible for the believers of a geographically defined region (diocese). In order to elevate a priest to Bishop, a diocese has to be found for him. Vatican Curia (administration) officials raised to the bishopric are often given dioceses that have no known Catholic presence and thus no responsibilities that would require their presence outside the Vatican. There is no system for promoting administrative officials outside the priest, monsignor, bishop, archbishop, cardinal hierarchy.

Concerning the Bishop Janusz Kaleta of Holy See, the Apostolic Administrator of Atyrau (Kazakhstan):

Kaleta’s on the ground in Kazakhstan. Although he’s the titular bishop of Phelbes, wherever that is.

It appears that an Apostolic Administration is a Diocese in its larval stage. Other AA’s in Kazakhstan are now dioceses.

http://www.catholic-kazakhstan.org/Atyrau/index.htm

It’s all of two years old.  It was established by the current Pope in a bigoted effort to cover the Vatican’s ass about the sexual abuse scandals.

Remember when we, the other-than-Catholic, weren’t supposed to have an opinion on the choice of a Pope, because after all, what business was it of ours?

Um.

Though that said, in answer to Sophie in #61, although I think it’s weird to talk about an invisible giant as though he were a real person, I still say that the placebo effect comes into play. People are comforted by the apparition precisely because it is implacable. If it changed to suit the times, then it would be too difficult to ignore that it was all bullshit.

joshua, you are conflating the catholic god with the catholic church. god may very well be an “invisible giant”—i am an atheist, for whatever that is worth.

but the catholic church is real. and the harm it does is real. to both catholics and non-catholics. and that is why it is important to call out the bigotry and the hatred and the evil that the catholic hierarchy perpetuates.

if the church only harmed consenting adults who needed to be “manipulated”, i would not have such a problem with it. wouldn’t like it much, but would not be all that worried.

but the catholic church continues to be an amazingly powerful institution that harms men, women and children all over the world, large numbers of whom do not share that faith.

Indeed.  one local parish here participated in signature collection to protest a Planned Parenthood health clinic moving in from a neighboring area - not one that did abortions, but a fricking HEALTH clinic.  And the priest proudly presented them at the town meeting.  Damn right they do a ton of damage outside thier congregation, sophiefair