F
Faithdancer
Guest
My point exactly. To infer Christ’s approval of homosexual activity is ludicrous. To argue in favor of it is blasphemous.
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
This, too, demonstrates an impoverished understanding of Catholicism.
The Catholic Church doesn’t define divine law. She discovers and uncovers it.
It’s something she uncovers like archaeologists, not builds like architects, to use an analogy coined by atheist convert Leah Libresco
Thinking for yourself…that’s interesting.
Yes, we do want to think for ourselves, but you also don’t want folks to think for themselves.
Sometimes the laws are there and folks who divorce themselves from these laws are…dangerous.
Or do you want to be in an elevator that’s designed by a person who didn’t believe in the laws of physics and engineering. She claims, “Hey, I think for myself!”
No?
I didn’t think so.
O
Ormond
Guest
I accept your personal report, but I doubt it will be true for very many. They’ll just say such a new Pope is illegitimate etc. Observe the conflict now bubbling just under the surface between the current Pope and some of the high ranking clergy. Those who most insistently said “we must obey the Pope” seem to be having some trouble taking their own advice.
You don’t understand the Church my friend. The Church is a survivor, that’s how it got to be 2,000 years old. When the day comes that nobody is attending Mass or donating to the Church over policy, the policy will change, because the clergy has no interest in going out of business. The Church used to avidly support war mongering Crusades in the holy land, and bloody public executions. Church policy changes when it needs to change to survive. What is invented by the clergy can be uninvented by them too.
I think marriage between consenting adults is wonderful. Still on the first wife after 37 years here, best move I ever made. Of course it helps that I found the best woman on Earth. Sorry guys, she’s taken!
Imho, the gay obsession was invented by celibate clergy immersed in a world of other celibate men, many of whom became consumed by the topic of sex, which is what tends to happen to men when they don’t have sex.
The state of my Catholicness is a tad complicated, so I’ll sidestep that distraction unless you wish to inquire further. To answer your question directly, Jesus Christ never said a word about homosexuality. We would be following his example, and thus be better Catholics, if we simply dropped the subject, like he did. You’re following the clergy, I’m following their boss, who typically surrounded himself with society’s outcasts.
Why do you disagree with the Church’s founder???
About 50 years ago. They aren’t really in authority over that much. They control money and the real estate empire etc. But they don’t control doctrine in the real world. Since the dawn of time Catholics have typically always selectively embraced the doctrines they agree with, while quietly ignoring those that they don’t. You’re doing the same thing by ignoring the example of Jesus in this particular case. I do the same thing in my own way. Most Catholics do. That’s the real Church, a billion different Catholics crafting a billion different versions of Catholicism.
God gave me a brain, and I try to respect the gift by putting it to good use. Not having that much luck though lately, or I wouldn’t be arguing over such a silly subject.
Perhaps God has recalled my brain for servicing. “We’re sorry, the brain you are trying to use is not available at this time.”
O
Ormond
Guest
Perhaps this, perhaps that, perhaps a million things. Read your Bible. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Get over it.
If Jesus had considered the Old Testament settled business, he wouldn’t have started a new religion, he would have simply joined the Jewish clergy.
To be clear, I am not claiming Jesus approved of gay marriage. It’s impossible to say he approved or disapproved given that he didn’t address the topic at all. But what we can know by his own actions is that he didn’t consider it a topic that merited discussion.
The other telling evidence, admittedly inconclusive, is that Jesus made it a habit to surround himself with societies outcasts. He didn’t go to war with societies outcasts, he embraced them.
This embrace does not automatically equal approval of all their behaviors, agreed. But it does instruct us that, even if we feel homosexuality is wrong, we should be going out of our way to surround ourselves with gay folks and embracing them. Not condemning them to hell from a safe distance, but being with them, and embracing them as human beings. And not just in sanctimonious sermons from the pulpit or forum thread, but in real life.
And I suspect that once that happens, all the rest of this silliness will fade away naturally over time, which is perhaps further evidence that Jesus was a pretty wise fellow indeed.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
No one is arguing the fact that civil same sex “marriage” is now the law of the land. But to state that it is not holy matrimony isn’t hate speech. It’s simply the truth. There are plenty of “churches” where homosexuals can go to have a “wedding” performed by a “priest” or “minister.” And they have a legal right to conduct such ceremonies, just as anyone has the legal right to conduct worship of Moloch or Chemosh or Baal. But those “churches” have gone down their own path.The Roman Catholic Church (among others) cannot and will not ever join them.
R
Rau
Guest
Did you forget to mention how this story ends. He forgave those outcasts, and said, “Go now, and sin no more”.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Yes, amen. I’d only point out that there are Anglicans in America who consider The Episcopal Church’s performing of same sex “marriage” to be grossly wicked, and hold to a rather sacramental view of marriage (even if we don’t call it a sacrament). As a deacon, I will not perform such ceremonies, nor will I bless same sex unions, as if God approves of them.
No church can sanction homosexual activity or any other sin and remain a church of Jesus Christ.
M
MJDorry
Guest
I’m usually a nice guy, but this assertion is plainly stupid, as Christians of all varieties will be quick to point out. Jesus didn’t “start a new religion”. He fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament—that is to say God’s original covenant with the Jews—as the Messiah and Incarnation of the Word that was with God and was God. In His own words, He came to fulfill the Law.
So no, He did not start a new religion (which is a man-made system for prescribing communion with God, or the gods) and no, He would not have simply joined the Jewish clergy, who had for too long abused and exploited the Law for their own earthly gain. The Church was a continuity, the true continuity and elevation, of what began with the Israelites and Moses. That many Jews do not recognize Christ’s claims and Divinity, and therefore continue binding themselves to the old covenant, does not make Christianity a “new religion”.
Naturally, you don’t have to believe that Jesus was God, but you should understand that that’s what’s at work here with Christianity if you’re going to comment on it.
P
PRmerger
Guest
But you do agree to some barriers to folks getting married, surely?
P
PRmerger
Guest
That’s why we Catholics don’t ever use the Bible alone as our apologia for the Church’s teachings on homosexuality.
B
BGorski
Guest
My wife’s father is gay, and so was her mother probably. They were married as straight people, but had gay lovers in the house all the time, including living there. Caused no problem whatsoever for the kids, because the gay people running that household LOVED their kids. Their sex did absolutely nothing to interfere with that love. My wife is a great person, much saner than me and my Catholic family, no kidding.
That’s what matters for kids, love, not sexual orientation, not legal situation. Love. Write it down so you don’t forget it. For people following a religion explicitly about love, some of you seem to know precious little about it.
There is no evidence at all that gay marriage is hurting anybody, and we don’t need 20-30 years to learn that. You’re desperately grasping at straws. Give it up already, grow up, and join the majority of Catholics in the United States who support gay marriage. Stop looking for someone to hate, to judge, to condemn, to control, to use as a prop for fantasy moral superiority.
- The majority of Catholics support gay marriage??? What is your source? 2) Global warming is also another concern that we don’t need 20-30 years to figure out, so what? If we guess wrong on any of number of issues, in 20-30 years it will be too late to do anything about it.
P
Peter_J
Guest
P
Peter_J
Guest
I agree.
That being said, I don’t believe the government should be in the business of determining what marriage is or who is married.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
I haven’t posted in a while, so I may be a bit rusty at this. But, here goes…
The bible speaks very strongly against acts of homosexuality. The Church, following the teaching of Scripture, does likewise, but with charity to individuals who may struggle with same-sex attraction.
Catechism of the Catholic Church said:
Someone asked earlier if the Church should fight the current law recognizing marriage as including two people of the same sex. I think Bishop Barron’s take on the matter is one of many viable opinions consistent with Church teaching. It seems to me prudent to take a position similar to the Church’s current acceptance of civil “divorce” (i.e. recognizing a civil divorce without compromising the Church’s teachings or her institutions regarding the sacrament of matrimony). The Church could say that while the civil law recognizes a marriage between two people of the same sex, the Church does not, nor can it, in light of the fundamental nature of marriage. It should stick to its teaching and not waiver. But this is not an issue like abortion, where lives are being lost minute by minute. The argument with respect to marriage should be more persuasive, more conversational, and less strident.
Peace,
Robert
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
I don’t think so. I’ve heard non-religious arguments against SSM. Here’s one argument that a quick Google search reveals: freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts Trent Horn also does a very nice job of presenting the argument on non-religious grounds. I’m not downplaying the religious objections. But to say that religious arguments are the only valid arguments, or even the only compelling arguments against SSM is simply untrue.
Peace,
Robert
R
Rau
Guest
And what is the argument FOR SSM? If marriage is a sexual union, which surely we agree it is, how did anyone become convinced that two men can have a sexual union? What is sex about - can we not answer that question by simply observing our bodies?
If two men wish to team up, share assets, spend their time together, care for each other in old age, regard the other as next of kin etc, that’s seems perfectly fine. And if the State sees merit in supporting those arrangements with a legal framework, that seems fine too. But…is that marriage? What has sex got to do with that arrangement? I’d suggest nothing. Of course, if they choose to engage in sexual acts, that’s their private business.
E
edwest2
Guest
Sexual acts is the only real primary objective. The goal was and is to make gay marriage 100% equivalent to heterosexual marriage. After all, as I read elsewhere, gay men who don’t want to be celibate want that partner, for sexual and other reasons. But the reality is, gay divorce is happening. So, in the end, it’s just a question of how this should be dealt with by society as a whole. A person isn’t a bisexual in name only. They act on their desire to engage in sex acts. They are making it their business to let us know.
In the past, what happened in bedrooms was private. Today, we have gay and lesbian characters kissing on TV. It will, as the Vatican document correctly points out, will absolutely cause confusion. As with the gender identity movement, its supporters decide they are God who deny the reality of their bodies and accept fantasy realities of their choosing. The dozens that are currently available are redundant and irrational.
I expect to see more irrationality from certain groups, which, like any product, will get marketed by the media. Go ahead, turn on your (meaning no one in particular) TV and see it for yourself. Irrationality and sexual deviancy.
God forbid,
Ed
I don’t agree with Bishop Barron.
R
Rau
Guest
I oppose SSM, but I agree with Barron that confronting the issue - in the manner of a crusade - could quite reasonably be judged to create more harm than good. That is sufficient cause to seek a different approach.
L
Lea101
Guest
I feel like we already lost the battle of redefining marriage. It’s already law and I feel like trying to make it illegal again is just…unnecessary. I feel like the laws that we should constantly be fighting against are ones that harms the other (abortion, slavery, etc), but with same sex marriage…two consenting people did it, and fighting against that is always going to be a losing battle imo.
That doesn’t mean we should “accept it”, we just work a different way. Focus on changing hearts as opposed to the law, With abortions/slavery/whatever, there is this urgency to stop people from being harmed, but with SSM, sometimes I have to wonder why people are so focused on making it illegal again.
:twocents:
Edit: also I feel like if there’s any catholics in the media…please, please, please use your position for good. I get so happy when I see children’s media created by Christians. Or songs that aren’t about anything sinful. Stuff like that. A little out of point, I know, but I feel like media does affect our views more than laws
That doesn’t mean we should “accept it”, we just work a different way. Focus on changing hearts as opposed to the law, With abortions/slavery/whatever, there is this urgency to stop people from being harmed, but with SSM, sometimes I have to wonder why people are so focused on making it illegal again.
:twocents:
Edit: also I feel like if there’s any catholics in the media…please, please, please use your position for good. I get so happy when I see children’s media created by Christians. Or songs that aren’t about anything sinful. Stuff like that. A little out of point, I know, but I feel like media does affect our views more than laws
E
edwest2
Guest
Children’s media. Like the gay is normal story books they get in kindergarten like King and King? Who offered those books to schools? Why?
amazon.com/King-Linda-Haan/dp/1582460612
amazon.com/Beyond-Diversity-Day-Curriculum-Sexualities-ebook/dp/B00EGJAU9W/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1492375609&sr=1-1&keywords=beyond+diversity+day
When I was growing up, ALL books for children were good and wholesome and suitable. And most songs were not about ANYTHING sinful. The same with TV.
When I turn on the TV, I’m seeing more lesbians, and “married” men and even a bisexual. Cool, huh? That is what I’m against and will continue to point it out to people.
Visit any LGBT news site to get their perspective, especially about the ongoing actions they are taking.
Ed
- Status