I'm neither catholic nor gay so not really qualified (maybe not even entitled) to comment, but the rational me says that if I had to choose between an invisible idol and a real-life one, flesh and blood would win hands down.

The amusing thing about this – if that’s the word – is that priests are not supposed to have sex either. Yes, we know what happens, but they are not supposed to. Since the pope has proclaimed that merely being gay is no longer thought of as a sin, and gays are welcome in the Church as long as they don’t live in a relationship, which priests also are not supposed to do, and the only thing that distinguishes gays and priests from other people is the sex act, this suggests that the Church values gays and priests the same. In other words, all priests are gay and all gays are priests. Ipso facto prima facie!

Just because the Church no longer burns heretics doesn't mean they wouldn't if they could.

Batman: But not the Catholic they are too focused on their rituals. Not the one in AKL, they are too focused on getting rich.

Its a belief based on book/books written thousands of years ago.

So why even expect modern thinking or values. A bit naive ?   

Batman: [snip] it's like if you enter a club that you don't have to enter and it says you need to this you can't do that etc, you're not forced to join [snip]

I agree the Church actually is sort of moving in the right direction, but with painful hesitancy. I was just pointing out the absurdity of saying it is all right to be gay, but not all right to have gay sex. If gays are sexless, and so are priests, there is no functional difference between them. 

gzt:

Batman: But not the Catholic they are too focused on their rituals. Not the one in AKL, they are too focused on getting rich.

Care to explain this? It's not making much sense to me.

gzt:

Batman: [snip] it's like if you enter a club that you don't have to enter and it says you need to this you can't do that etc, you're not forced to join [snip]

That's incorrect. Like many religions most people are more or less born into this one. Not that it's particularly relevant to the discussion. It's unfortunate the church does not feel the same way as you - for instance the church lobbies against gay marriage in law and in general against marriage equality.

I agree it's a big step The Pope now supports and advocates civil unions and this should be applauded and recognised as progress.

Rikkitic:

I agree the Church actually is sort of moving in the right direction, but with painful hesitancy. I was just pointing out the absurdity of saying it is all right to be gay, but not all right to have gay sex. If gays are sexless, and so are priests, there is no functional difference between them. 

 

Stephen Fry said it best

I was raised as a C of E and went to Anglican/English based boarding schools. I met my partner in Oct 1981 and we will be celebrating our 40th anniversary this year. When we meet I was in the RNZAF where LGBT was illegal. I retired from the service two years after our meeting and we both went to Aussie for 30 years. Barracks in the services are now unisex and nobody gives a flying fig what your gender preference is.

We are both not religious. Why, because of the pure hypocrisy of it all. I did a Social Studies paper at uni where I researched the history of AIDS/HIV and discovered right up till the late 19th century most of the Popes had had an STD of one form or the other and the Catholic clergy in general where all having it off with each other, civilians and abusing children. All condoned at the highest levels.

Faith is individualistic and immutable and incorruptible.

Religion is a social construct,
 made by Man for Man to explain Faith,

therefore it is fallible.

Rikkitic:

 

I agree the Church actually is sort of moving in the right direction, but with painful hesitancy. 

 

"Moving in the right direction" is as if the entire church changes in unison.

That's not the way it seems to work in history, schisms are the reason why there are now (almost) countless denominations.

For example, Grace Presbyterian Church split when the Presbyterian Church became more liberal. Grace Church leaders and followers wanted to continue to indoctrinate children with concepts that homosexuality is sinful, abortion is murder, that women are inferior to men, and the curious concept that you can be absolved of all past sin by "grace alone" - you don't even have to say you're sorry.

The situation in America is interesting and one to watch:

https://www.dw.com/en/joe-biden-the-pope-and-the-looming-schism-in-americas-catholic-church/a-56311499

I wish I could say I didn't care as I'm an atheist, but while some churches are hesitantly moving in the right direction (from a humanist perspective) others are not - particularly in America.  When religious fundamentalism (of any faith) preaching bigotry and intolerance starts to heavily influence politics - big trouble is ahead. Christians who think their religion is immune as "it's different because.... Christian values" are delusional.

I was actually referring to the catholic church, not American protestant fundamentalists. In spite of the schisms, it is still possible to generalise about it overall. But the point you make is a good one. I sometimes wonder if America as a whole isn't having a nervous breakdown of some kind.