I rather agree with you on this aspect. I think this was done with a fair amount of class. Myself being a lesbian parent, I do believe the Catholic Church's stance to be rather uninformed. But rather than throw stones and cause an uproar, they made their decision, advised the affected parties of the timeframe involved, and are making an organized withdrawal from the sphere where their rules do not mesh with the legal requirements involved.
I could argue the evils of the Catholic Church (as opposed to ideal Christianity, which is a durned good thing) all day long. But this was handled by them as well as it could have been, I think. Kudos to them.
"Myself being a lesbian parent, I do believe the Catholic Church's stance to be rather uninformed. But rather than throw stones and cause an uproar..."
Thanks for this.
I think a major problem with contextualizing disagreement as the other party being corrupt monsters is that it limits relations to the mutual opposition of force. Arguably, this has been the problem to begin with -- in almost any issue. When disagreement is contextualized as both parties having the capacity for sense and the desire for good, relations are not so limited, and communications of facts, ideas, arguments, and so on are possible.
With this in mind, it seems that, if people want others to change their position, they can either take the first route, become more powerful than the others, and force them to; or take the second route and not need to be more powerful or coercive. Of course, there are problems with the second route as well.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2006-03-11 01:24 pm
no subject
I could argue the evils of the Catholic Church (as opposed to ideal Christianity, which is a durned good thing) all day long. But this was handled by them as well as it could have been, I think. Kudos to them.
no subject
Thanks for this.
I think a major problem with contextualizing disagreement as the other party being corrupt monsters is that it limits relations to the mutual opposition of force. Arguably, this has been the problem to begin with -- in almost any issue. When disagreement is contextualized as both parties having the capacity for sense and the desire for good, relations are not so limited, and communications of facts, ideas, arguments, and so on are possible.
With this in mind, it seems that, if people want others to change their position, they can either take the first route, become more powerful than the others, and force them to; or take the second route and not need to be more powerful or coercive. Of course, there are problems with the second route as well.