G
guanophore
Guest
You read about it in the catechism, and in the scripture.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
guanophore
Guest
AMEN! From your mouth (or keyboard) to God’s ear (or heart).:clapping:This is why JPII’s Theology of the body needs to be mandatory reading in seminaries. It should also be simplified and adapted for youth education, marriage preparation classes, RCIA, etc. If our seminaries learn it and preach it when they become priests we could turn around this age of sexual concupiscence in a generation or two.
E
estesbob
Guest
What is there to debate? By debating one gives legitimacy to a totally illegitimate position.If the Church’s teaching is true, then an honest debate will lead teens towards that truth, right?
N
NewUlm1976_2000
Guest
The debate is “Immoral vs approved”. The OP referenced the first in the CCC, but they are not the same. Just because it is not approved does not make it immoral. It is not a cut and dry issue, it opens up a deep and complicated theological discussion, which I think the pastor was trying to have his seminarian start to do. Reciting the rules is not pastoring towards a flock.What is there to debate? By debating one gives legitimacy to a totally illegitimate position.
E
estesbob
Guest
It has been cut n dried for the Church for 2,000 years and another 2,000 before that for judaism. The fact you dont agree with it is irelevant. There is nothing to debate. There is no theological discussion to be opened up here at all. And you most cetainly dont pastor your flock by lying to themThe debate is “Immoral vs approved”. The OP referenced the first in the CCC, but they are not the same. Just because it is not approved does not make it immoral. It is not a cut and dry issue, it opens up a deep and complicated theological discussion, which I think the pastor was trying to have his seminarian start to do. Reciting the rules is not pastoring towards a flock.
N
NewUlm1976_2000
Guest
It has not been cut and dry. Branding entire groups as “immoral” is not pastoring to the flock, it is a theological form of divide and conquer. It is a form of sexual relations that some do out of their makeup (a mix of nature and nurture). Just because it does not lead to reproduction does not make it immoral. It is no reason to look down on them.It has been cut n dried for the Church for 2,000 years and another 2,000 before that for judaism. The fact you dont agree with it is irelevant. There is nothing to debate. There is no theological discussion to be opened up here at all. And you most cetainly dont pastor your flock by lying to them
C
catharina
Guest
Or even more egrehious - by lying to the CHILDREN in the flock.It has been cut n dried for the Church for 2,000 years and another 2,000 before that for judaism. The fact you dont agree with it is irelevant. There is nothing to debate. There is no theological discussion to be opened up here at all. And you most cetainly dont pastor your flock by lying to them
G
guanophore
Guest
Making the commandments clear is most definitely pastoring toward the flock. In this case, the behavior that is not approved does equate to immoral. It is a cut and dry issue.The debate is “Immoral vs approved”. The OP referenced the first in the CCC, but they are not the same. Just because it is not approved does not make it immoral. It is not a cut and dry issue, it opens up a deep and complicated theological discussion, which I think the pastor was trying to have his seminarian start to do. Reciting the rules is not pastoring towards a flock.
This is not to say that a deep and complicated theological discussion cannot also be pastoral and helpful, but there is no case in which sin is “necessary”.
No one has labelled “entire groups of people”. What is considered immoral is extra marital sex. The church does not teach that homosexual orientation is immoral.It has not been cut and dry. Branding entire groups as “immoral” is not pastoring to the flock, it is a theological form of divide and conquer.
That is not the only reason that it is considered immoral, though it is one. The church does not “look down on” persons who have sexually disordered desires. The Church calls them to repentance, just like she does every other sinner.It is a form of sexual relations that some do out of their makeup (a mix of nature and nurture). Just because it does not lead to reproduction does not make it immoral. It is no reason to look down on them.
C
catharina
Guest
What you’e quoting is a certain form of social commentary. It is not the substance of revealed faith or even of common sense.It has not been cut and dry. Branding entire groups as “immoral” is not pastoring to the flock, it is a theological form of divide and conquer. It is a form of sexual relations that some do out of their makeup (a mix of nature and nurture). Just because it does not lead to reproduction does not make it immoral. It is no reason to look down on them.
N
NewUlm1976_2000
Guest
I view it as an application of teachings to our modern world.What you’e quoting is a certain form of social commentary. It is not the substance of revealed faith or even of common sense.
N
NewUlm1976_2000
Guest
Actually, as children grow and gain wisdom just by being and living out in the world, they will see that it is just part of what some people are (some may be their close friends as they grow and move on in life). Most will accept a live or let live relationship and others will still see their friends (or friends of friends etc…) as just a normal person who does things this way, but it does not detract from his/her overall person.Or even more egrehious - by lying to the CHILDREN in the flock.
E
estesbob
Guest
In you opinion. BUT the Pastor is there to relate the teachings of the Catholic Church and in the Church there is no debate.It has not been cut and dry. Branding entire groups as “immoral” is not pastoring to the flock, it is a theological form of divide and conquer. It is a form of sexual relations that some do out of their makeup (a mix of nature and nurture). Just because it does not lead to reproduction does not make it immoral. It is no reason to look down on them.
C
catharina
Guest
YOUR application. The RC Church presented its own application called The Church in the Modern World. Perhaps you’ll read it.I view it as an application of teachings to our modern world.
C
catharina
Guest
It is not a user-friendly world for most children. We owe them faith and truth for all the days of their growth. The Church owes us (adults) that forever. (I’ve worked with children in great need for more than 40 years.) One should never be “taught” ways in which to accept sin in self or others.Actually, as children grow and gain wisdom just by being and living out in the world, they will see that it is just part of what some people are (some may be their close friends as they grow and move on in life). Most will accept a live or let live relationship and others will still see their friends (or friends of friends etc…) as just a normal person who does things this way, but it does not detract from his/her overall person.
N
NewUlm1976_2000
Guest
Yet relating is the first part of any debate/discussion. To relate to others is to exchange ideas, views on ideas, and applications of ideas. There is black and white theory (theological philosophy in this example), and there is the real world. When you mix in human inter-relations, things are not black and white but a infinite spectrum of grey. As the exchange continues, both parties come out with something out of it, which leads to a mutual level of change from both parties.In you opinion. BUT the Pastor is there to relate the teachings of the Catholic Church and in the Church there is no debate.
N
NewUlm1976_2000
Guest
And as adults we have to trust children to live the best lives they can, to keep away as many prejudices from them as possible to not burn bridges towards others they never knew the differences about when they were young. It is a teaching of youth that adults often forget as the work their way through the hard world. If this was remembered more, the world would be a better place. It is never wise to sow seeds of division in our young.It is not a user-friendly world for most children. We owe them faith and truth for all the days of their growth. The Church owes us (adults) that forever. (I’ve worked with children in great need for more than 40 years.) One should never be “taught” ways in which to accept sin in self or others.
C
catharina
Guest
Teaching the truth of faith, the truth of sacrificial love as lived in Jesus Christ, fulfilling the promise of God to His people and the descent of the Holy Spirit destined to enliven our faith and our practices - in no way can that be called divisive. Morality exists as an absolute. Truth exists as an absolute. In no way will the big cloud of gray relativism bring truth, peace or joy to the world.And as adults we have to trust children to live the best lives they can, to keep away as many prejudices from them as possible to not burn bridges towards others they never knew the differences about when they were young. It is a teaching of youth that adults often forget as the work their way through the hard world. If this was remembered more, the world would be a better place. It is never wise to sow seeds of division in our young.
E
estesbob
Guest
Presantism at it worst The idea that we are the most enlighted people in the History of the world and all those who went before it were wrong.I view it as an application of teachings to our modern world.
Sin is sin-it does no change from day to day, century to century or even millinium to millenium.
E
estesbob
Guest
A religious education class is not a debate. Homosexual behavior is a grevious sin that puts the particpants souls at great risk. When a Pastor waters down that teaching he is not only bearing false witness to his flock he is puting their souls at risk.Yet relating is the first part of any debate/discussion. To relate to others is to exchange ideas, views on ideas, and applications of ideas. There is black and white theory (theological philosophy in this example), and there is the real world. When you mix in human inter-relations, things are not black and white but a infinite spectrum of grey. As the exchange continues, both parties come out with something out of it, which leads to a mutual level of change from both parties.
W
WynCatholic
Guest
You have two issues:I just came out of a youth group meeting where I had a riff with the pastor of the parish. He challenged me to show a source where the Church has declared homosexual acts to be immoral. I held that this is what the Church teaches. When I arrived home, I found that my catechism states very cleary that homosexual acts do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" [CCC 2357]. He also told the us that we should follow what we truly believed to be right (although not what we think is easiest). How this distinction can be translated to a 16 year old, I have no idea!
He claims as well that because they are in a loving relationship, certain homosexual acts are necessary sins. He argued that we would prefer them in these relationships than in promiscuous ones. This is his idea of the pastoral approach. What do teens know of the pastoral approach? And does that make it right or acceptable? I look forward to your response. Please furnish me with definitive Church statements which I can bring back to him.
- objectively immoral actions But he already admits this!! His assignment of a demand for ‘absolute proof’ distracts you from the problems inherent with his theology of sin and conscience.
- The ‘infallible’ conscience. will it save you from hell?
even the pastor (is it a priest?) agrees that Homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral, however, he is arguing that it is a necessary immoral act, even a lesser evil. He tries to mitigate the essential evil in his ‘pastoral’ rationalization with the “not nessessarily the easiest”. This is a treacherous path that pits psychology and aquinas against each other, and, in the confusion, allows grave sin to be rationalized.
an observation: rationalization does NOT equal a clear conscience. very important detail.
Sexual sin, even the ones done alone, cannot be relegated to ‘necessary evil’. Nor can the conscience, seared to that sin, save your soul or protect you from the killing consequences of sinful acts.
Cardinal Ratzinger considered all this better than I (no suprise there) in “Conscience and Truth” I suggest you read it.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM
Please consult with your teachers as well. I will also suggest you call the apologist line here at catholic answers. 619-387-7200
Monday–Friday, 9 AM–5 PM, Pacific
Fr Serpa might also be able to give you straegic advice.
perhaps also the canon law guy: colin donovan, (ewtn on Fridays),
I shall pray for you.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.