I am neither a lesbian nor a Buddhist, and I can't take Catholic communion either. But you know what? That doesn't hurt my feelings. Like you, I'm not a Catholic. Which means I get to do whatever I like. Except share in Catholic religious rites.
I never saw it as a big issue before. Apparently I was wrong.
What's with all the anti-Catholicism in the news lately? I'm pretty sure if I were a progressive and wanted to find something to complain about, I wouldn't have to make stuff up. What's next? They gonna write a bunch of whining op-ed pieces about how they can't join the Shakers and still have sex?
If you don't want to follow the rules, all you have to do is not join the club. That's why religions are better than governments.
Throw Uncle Joel Under the Bus!
The Scroll of Jeremiah
The Last Faithful Man
Walt's Gulch
Songs of Bad Men and Good
Blog List
-
-
Jimmy Buffett - Mele Kalikimaka13 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
THE OPPOSITE of conservative...10 months ago
-
Quote1 year ago
-
ultimate revenge2 years ago
-
-
Light blogging4 years ago
-
Read It And Weep5 years ago
-
Yang Dough5 years ago
-
When hip waders just aren't enough...5 years ago
-
Hello world!5 years ago
-
-
-
-
Fourth Chemo6 years ago
-
Crime? Pfffft!7 years ago
-
-
Thank You.7 years ago
-
Redirect: WTF?8 years ago
-
-
-
Click Bait Manifesto10 years ago
-
Hittin it quick.10 years ago
-
Damn you John Denver!11 years ago
-
Deer hunting in Alabama11 years ago
-
Ted Kennedy: Three Years Sober12 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
Oleg Volk
I SAW WHAT YOU WROTE!
Why the hell did you scroll all the way down here?
8 comments:
That's the way I see it. I wouldn't dare present myself to participate in practices verboten to non-members/non-rule-followers of any religion.
If I said I was a vegan, "But I eat meat, wear leather, and go hunting," I'd be nothing but a terrible hypocrite or a blatant liar. Same goes with someone who wilfully, unrepentantly and publically engages in homosexual behavior, or doesn't go to Mass, or believes abortion is a "right." You want to call yourself a millionaire? Good: but you'd better have a million dollars, or else you're a liar.
Point of order: Government *is* a religion insomuch as it is a belief system created by 'man' to tell others how to live their lives.
what a crock.
if you read the article, she introduces herself to the priest before the service as a practicing lesbian and a Buddhist. And then she participates in a ceremony that is exclusively Catholic and was announced before the ceremony as such.
What I DONT understand is why on Earth did she even try to participate in a ceremony that she obviously didn't believe in.
Looks like she just wanted to make a big public stink.
Looks to me like she was looking for a fight wherever she could create one, and damn the consequences. What a sad waste of time and energy.
The worst part, IMO, is she took the focus off of her mother-in that it was her mother's funeral-and made it all about her. "Oh no, don't grieve the death of this woman, this ceremony is ALL ABOUT MEEEEEE!"
Phssthpok,
Granted, but it's my blog and I get to twist the definitions any way I like. So there.
Once upon a time, my statement would have been completely untrue because the religion WAS the government. But we're not in the thirteenth century anymore, so I can afford to be more benevolent.
Of course there are those who would change that back. Apparently because medieval life was such a joy, or something.
I'm a Buddhist & a lesbian & I was raised Catholic & I sincerely, truly, w/deep conviction hate women like that. 100% agreement w/wolfsongc...
I went to my mother's mass, I didn't even consider taking communion. It's a sacred right to a Catholic, to anyone else it's just a little piece of wheat. I went to share the grief of the ending of a life, to support others (who actually liked the woman) & to gather w/family I haven't seen in ages.
Kindly don't judge all Buddhist lesbian ex-Catholics by that little spoiled drama queen. Some of us would much rather use a priest for target practice than communion.
Just sayin'.
Phss,
Difference: governments (states) are physically coercive. Despite the atrocities (torture, burning for heresy) that clerics have perpetrated in the name of the Church (and wrongly so, as Luke 9:51-56 shows) the Church is an institution of convincing, not coercing. It teaches that heaven and hell exist as realities, so even if you consider "the threat of hell" to be a form of coercion, I'd say you're wrong, because the members of the Church believe in hell as much as they believe in the law of gravity, and no one says, "'elp, 'elp, oi'm bein' coerced" when someone says, "If you walk off the cliff, you will die." Its existence is a reality, like any other. It's not being presented as coercion, but as a real danger and consequence for certain actions.
I agree with you. If you want their blessings, you have to follow their rules.
Post a Comment