INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

For topics that are more about faith, religion and religious organisations than anything else.
Message
Author
User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#21 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » March 6th, 2012, 5:14 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Nick wrote:In some ways, it is strange, as marriage was not such a major part of the church, in England at least, until Tudor times. After all, weren't marriages conducted at the church gate, rather than inside? I must see if I can find some references....
Yes, I remember the Wife of Bath saying that she'd had five husbands at the church door.

Ah, here's another one:
[R]eligion has had a strong involvement in the wedding ceremony only since the twelfth century.

It was not until the reign of Edward VI (1547[--][/--]1553) in England, and later in Europe, that weddings were allowed to take place within the church. Before that time, the important part of the marriage ceremony took place at the church door or in the church porch (Charles I of England, 1600[--][/--]1649, married Henrietta Maria, daughter of Henry IV of France, by proxy at the door of Notre Dame Cathedral), with perhaps a nuptial mass inside the church afterwards. Between the seventh and the twelfth centuries, the church began to establish its authority in questions of matrimony. Although efforts were made in the twelfth century for marriage to be included in the seven sacraments of the church, it did not have the status of a sacrament until 1439, which allowed it to be included in the Book of Common Prayer. It was only in 1563, after the Reformation, that the Catholic Church required a priest to be present at the marriage ceremony. James (1933) noted that Christianity was dealing with an established institution and had to incorporate established custom and law that had been observed by many generations into its own sacraments in order for the Christian marriage rites to be accepted.

In the Middle Ages, there were two distinct ceremonies. The first part, the sponsalia, in which the couple consented to contract the marriage, and the subarrhatio, which involved the delivery of the ring by the bridegroom to the bride and the promise of the dowry before witnesses. The second part was the priestly blessing of the marriage (the matrimonium), providing the sacramental and spiritual element ...
(From Marriage Customs of the World: From Henna to Honeymoons, by George Monger)

Emma

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#22 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » March 6th, 2012, 5:20 pm

Lifelinking wrote:First blog on latest 'evidence' provided by John Deighan http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=1532
Excellent!

Emma

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#23 Post by animist » March 6th, 2012, 8:07 pm

all this is fine about the ceremonies, but surely the more important point is that marriage has not always been about one man and one woman, as the Xians seem to want us to believe: there are many polygamous societies, mainly polygynous but sometimes polyandrous. It is just the name for a common arrangement for raising children, though concubinage has been another one

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#24 Post by Dave B » March 6th, 2012, 8:31 pm

but surely the more important point is that marriage has not always been about one man and one woman, as the Xians seem to want us to believe:
What the hell has that to do with it? Let's go back to when Ug grabbed hold of Ugette's hair and dragged her off to the back of the cave - from then they were partnered, and anyone who denied this might get a hand axe in the back of the head!

Is it not, as usual, a case of words and the legal meaning we put on them? What really matters is that same sex couples joined in a legal union should have the same social and legal standing as a straight couple. If all people, however and where-ever "bonded", had to sign the same form of legally binding contract that gave them the same rights and benefits what does it matter what you call it?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#25 Post by Alan C. » March 6th, 2012, 8:36 pm

animist
but surely the more important point is that marriage has not always been about one man and one woman, as the Xians seem to want us to believe:
"Christians" know very little (if anything) about their professed "religion"

Chronicles.
13:21 But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives, and begat twenty and two sons, and sixteen daughters.
Whenever I bring up something like this, I'm always told (by the "devout") I'm taking it out of context, the problem is-the religiounuts can never offer me the correct context, probably because they've never read the books.

Cross posting with Dave.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#26 Post by animist » March 6th, 2012, 8:39 pm

Dave B wrote:
but surely the more important point is that marriage has not always been about one man and one woman, as the Xians seem to want us to believe:
What the hell has that to do with it? Let's go back to when Ug grabbed hold of Ugette's hair and dragged her off to the back of the cave - from then they were partnered, and anyone who denied this might get a hand axe in the back of the head!

Is it not, as usual, a case of words and the legal meaning we put on them? What really matters is that same sex couples joined in a legal union should have the same social and legal standing as a straight couple. If all people, however and where-ever "bonded", had to sign the same form of legally binding contract that gave them the same rights and benefits what does it matter what you call it?
yes of course that is the issue, ie that same-sex couples should have the same rights as heterosex couples; but Xians talk as though monogamy (as well as heterosexual unions) were the natural order of things. There is no natural order, that's all I am trying to say: human society has featured all sorts of connubial arrangements, including children being brought up by the the brother of the mother rather than by the biological father.

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#27 Post by Lifelinking » March 6th, 2012, 10:38 pm

Thank you Emma Woolgatherer for the kind comment and to all for the lively discussion. Compassionist, I am delighted to see you so active on TH again.
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#28 Post by animist » March 6th, 2012, 10:46 pm

Lifelinking wrote:Thank you Emma Woolgatherer for the kind comment and to all for the lively discussion. Compassionist, I am delighted to see you so active on TH again.
sorry, LL, I also thought what you've done is great

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#29 Post by Lifelinking » March 6th, 2012, 11:05 pm

No need for apologies Animist. To see a thread generate ideas, discussion and debate is terrific. All good.
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

Finca.
Posts: 29
Joined: February 21st, 2012, 10:33 am

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#30 Post by Finca. » March 7th, 2012, 12:27 am

The men I've known were not all of a piece.
Not at all.
Same with the women.
The one thing they have in common is that they're all different.
Then there have been the women in men's bodies, their lives a journey to become who they feel they are.

The church recognises men and women, but finer distinctions are surely overdue - and reincarnation offers another way of looking at the situation.

Many souls favour a particular gender, and reincarnate exclusively in that sex for many lives. Eventually, the realisation dawns that balance should be restored, and an incarnation in the other gender becomes necessary. This excursion into an unfamiliar gender can be difficult, and presents a critical challenge to the soul's progress.

This analysis of the complexities of human sexuality is not complete ...
But it does encourage the adoption of a tip-toe approach.

Finca.

phalarope
Posts: 63
Joined: February 19th, 2012, 3:35 pm

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#31 Post by phalarope » March 7th, 2012, 7:38 am

Perhaps Finca your observations about the 'soul' and reincarnation are somewhat off-thread in a discussion around the pros and cons of marriage, or rather of the 'morality' of kinds of marriage forms.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#32 Post by Tetenterre » March 7th, 2012, 8:14 am

Dave B wrote: If all people, however and where-ever "bonded", had to sign the same form of legally binding contract that gave them the same rights and benefits what does it matter what you call it?
+1
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

Finca.
Posts: 29
Joined: February 21st, 2012, 10:33 am

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#33 Post by Finca. » March 7th, 2012, 10:46 am

You may be right phalarope, and I may be wrong, but I feel that a more complete understanding of gender and sexuality would benefit the Church, and society in general, and that to bring a globally common, yet locally rare point of view into the picture might be useful.
Even relevant to this thread.
Perhaps I failed to link my thoughts to the morality of marriage forms, I was meaning to say that morality comes from within, not from religious or secular ceremonies. If that is still irrelevant, then I'm sunk. Sorry.

The Church wishes to guide and control our thinking, and we will not find enlightenment by rearranging its dictums, nor peace of mind through finding a more benevolent cardinal. To look in that direction for moral guidance simply strengthens the ecclesiastical grip.
We just need to leave it behind us.

I have found that few "ordinary" people have an awareness that the soul is not the body, which can compare with that of the transgender people I've encountered.
Talking with them made me realise what a wide spectrum of sexuality exists beneath the surface, and that some people have difficulties we don't even have words for in our post-industrial, materialist culture.
I think we have much to learn from wisdom which has been built up over the centuries - and though it is foolishness with knobs on to many, I have personally found reincarnation theory a great help.
I realise this may put me in a minority on this forum, and if I annoy anyone by frequently wandering off into the metaphysical long grass, I can only apologise ...
But I find so much to fascinate me, in the long grass.


Finca.

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#34 Post by Lifelinking » March 7th, 2012, 10:59 am

Hi Finca :wave:

I do disagree with your ideas of the soul, but find great resonance in other things you are saying about human sexuality, difference and religion in your comments. Lovely to 'meet' you on TH and thank you for your responses.

Best,

LL
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#35 Post by animist » March 7th, 2012, 12:16 pm

Finca. wrote:You may be right phalarope, and I may be wrong, but I feel that a more complete understanding of gender and sexuality would benefit the Church, and society in general, and that to bring a globally common, yet locally rare point of view into the picture might be useful.
Even relevant to this thread.
Perhaps I failed to link my thoughts to the morality of marriage forms, I was meaning to say that morality comes from within, not from religious or secular ceremonies. If that is still irrelevant, then I'm sunk. Sorry.

The Church wishes to guide and control our thinking, and we will not find enlightenment by rearranging its dictums, nor peace of mind through finding a more benevolent cardinal. To look in that direction for moral guidance simply strengthens the ecclesiastical grip.
We just need to leave it behind us.

I have found that few "ordinary" people have an awareness that the soul is not the body, which can compare with that of the transgender people I've encountered.
Talking with them made me realise what a wide spectrum of sexuality exists beneath the surface, and that some people have difficulties we don't even have words for in our post-industrial, materialist culture.
I think we have much to learn from wisdom which has been built up over the centuries - and though it is foolishness with knobs on to many, I have personally found reincarnation theory a great help.
I realise this may put me in a minority on this forum, and if I annoy anyone by frequently wandering off into the metaphysical long grass, I can only apologise ...
But I find so much to fascinate me, in the long grass.


Finca.
well, you are fascinating, Finca, I give you that

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#36 Post by animist » March 7th, 2012, 12:27 pm

animist wrote:yes of course that is the issue, ie that same-sex couples should have the same rights as heterosex couples; but Xians talk as though monogamy (as well as heterosexual unions) were the natural order of things. There is no natural order, that's all I am trying to say: human society has featured all sorts of connubial arrangements, including children being brought up by the the brother of the mother rather than by the biological father.
to develop this point, you do not have to search far on the Net to find opponents of gay marriage claiming that it either is, or will lead to, polygamy, and so I think we should emphasise that gay marriage is MONOGAMOUS:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/T ... m-with-GOP

Finca.
Posts: 29
Joined: February 21st, 2012, 10:33 am

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#37 Post by Finca. » March 8th, 2012, 9:45 am

Hello and thank you Lifelinking, how pleasantly you disagree!
I'm sure we have both travelled long winding roads to get where we are, and to think our views are not too similar will surprise neither of us. However, a little resonance goes a long way.
I don't "do" blogs as yet, but I think I'll start with yours.

Having tried this gentle forum for a short while, after the extreme nature of the last forum I followed, I did wonder whether my views, and perhaps more importantly the way I present them, might be an upsetting influence. I now think they are.

Had anyone really shared my explorations, noticing where we agree, rather than where we differ, perhaps creating another structure which pleased us both ... then the irritation of others might in some degree be justified, and even dispersed.
But that's not my call.

Should anyone wish to communicate individually, please send me a PM.

Peace and love,
Finca.
Last edited by Guest on March 8th, 2012, 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited to remove personal info - it's safer to send Finca a PM for email address!

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#38 Post by animist » March 8th, 2012, 9:58 am

Finca. wrote:Hello and thank you Lifelinking, how pleasantly you disagree!
I'm sure we have both travelled long winding roads to get where we are, and to think our views are not too similar will surprise neither of us. However, a little resonance goes a long way.
I don't "do" blogs as yet, but I think I'll start with yours.

Having tried this gentle forum for a short while, after the extreme nature of the last forum I followed, I did wonder whether my views, and perhaps more importantly the way I present them, might be an upsetting influence. I now think they are.

Had anyone really shared my explorations, noticing where we agree, rather than where we differ, perhaps creating another structure which pleased us both ... then the irritation of others might in some degree be justified, and even dispersed.
But that's not my call.

Should anyone wish to communicate individually, please send me a PM.

Peace and love,
Finca.
I kind of take this as a goodbye. You say this is a gentle forum, yet you think we are upset at your presentations. Finca gain, Finca

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#39 Post by Dave B » March 8th, 2012, 2:00 pm

Sent as PM
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#40 Post by Paolo » March 8th, 2012, 7:10 pm

Hello all - it's been a long time since I last posted (actually not entirely true...). The whole O'Brien thing had me fuming - wrote a brief blog post on it.

It strikes me as obscene that someone in a position of authority can get away with making such demonstrably misguided comments. But then again, it seems to happen all the time...

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

Re: Cardinal Keith O'Brien strikes again

#41 Post by Lifelinking » March 8th, 2012, 7:27 pm

Nice blog Paolo
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

Post Reply