🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <238@isl1.ri.cmu.edu> cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu.UUCP writes:
>them. For one thing, the Church's stance on sex does not really have as
>strong of an effect upon Catholics he he implies. The majority of Catholics
>in the US, Canada, and (I believe) most of Europe, esp. Netherlans (and
>including Italy) use birth control (outside, of course, the so-called
>Rhythm method). The Church is rather split on the issue of abortion, but
>then so is the population as a whole. As far as being anti- gay, I think that
>within the Church there is a considerable range of opinion. I'm from a

MOST OF IT NEGATIVE !!!

>diocese where the bishop was quite supportive of gay rights; the one
>in San Diego, on the other hand, is a real slime about it. Dignity,
>interestingly enough, recieve the Paternal Blessing of the Holy Father
>last year. I don't know why, but that's something. Homosexuality is
>an issue which is still pretty hot in the Church, though I doubt it
>will ever be decided in our favour (so to speak) while the current pope
>is in power. By the way, the current official stance on homosexuality 
>is that it is okay to be homosexual, but not to practise it. This is
>a little strange (well, okay. a lot strange), but it's a step in
>the correct direction. And, as I say, it's not a unanimous position.
>But compare this to the Southern Baptists or Orthodox Church (Greek,
>Russian, etc.) or a number of other churches, especially fundementalist
>ones. The Lutherans have problems too. The Catholic position is hardly
>the worst.

Though you are certainly entitled to your opinion, many find these "strange"   
restrictive patterns intolerable. Some feel that it is a sign of spiritual
masochism to continue belief in the church dogma in spite of the high level
of rejection that is USUALLY present.
I for one wonder if the church is really taking those "steps in the right
direction" on their own power or if they are being dragged screaming and 
kicking  into the next millenium.

LUX .. on
Owen Rowley