Britain to legalize gay marriage!

[genesius28]

Its not AUTHENTIC love…its based on LUST. There is no authentic love between two gay men or two gay women. Its just not possible. There is no Eros in unnatural sexual relations.

They are trying to redefine marriage in Britain. Marriage is ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, period! No ifs, ands or buts!

That’s the most ignorant statement I’ve ever heard. First of all, who are you to decide what’s possible and what isn’t? Secondly, if you think it’s all about lust, you’re simply wrong. It’s not even a matter of opinion, you’re just wrong – no ifs, ands, or buts! Do you have personal experience to back up your claim, or are you just making unfounded judgments?

I had my first crush on a boy when I was in kindergarten, before I even knew there was a word for it… Before I even knew people like you considered it “unnatural” lust. I must have been one perverted 5-year-old, to think another boy was cute, huh?

Attraction doesn’t equal lust. If homosexuality is based on lust, then so is heterosexuality.

 

[genesius28]

Religion DOES have a responsibility to speak out about sinful practices which have a very high chance of contributing to the decline and ultimate decimation of society.

Also, let me ask you------------

You DO know that TRULY devout, practicing Catholics are forbidden totally from supporting gay marriage, right? And it it is Non-Negotiable, too. Plase brush up on the Cathecism, please.

Not all religions agree with you on what’s “sinful,” and you have no right deciding for them. It’s one thing to hold an opinion, but it’s totally different to deny an entire group of people the right to love, simply because you find it distasteful. And that’s what this really comes down to. You can’t wrap your mind around the idea that two men, or two women, could actually fall in love with each other. To you, it’s all about sex, isn’t it?

I am a devout Catholic, I go to Mass several times a week, I go to confession, I have an active prayer life… and I happen to be attracted to men. That attraction, something in which I had no choice, something I’ve felt since I was at least 5 years old, doesn’t make me less of a Catholic. The Church *can *be wrong, and history has shown that it often has been. I won’t blindly go along with the oppression the Church inflicts on God’s children, when it is obviously evil. My allegiance is to Christ, and His law of love – not to a bunch of heterosexual men who make up rules about things they know nothing about.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am a devout Catholic, I go to Mass several times a week, I go to confession, I have an active prayer life… and I happen to be attracted to men. That attraction, something in which I had no choice, something I’ve felt since I was at least 5 years old, doesn’t make me less of a Catholic.

Of course not. You’re only out of step with what our Church teaches in terms of moral absolutes if you act on those attractions. For a practicing Catholic, understanding and adhering to the Church’s moral doctrines is not optional, based on some subjective impression that those doctrines are “oppressive.” Merely having the attraction does not make anyone “less of a Catholic.”

 

[jediliz]

They are going to legalize something that is not possible…there is NO SUCH THING as “Gay marriage”.

Marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman, period.

 

[genesius28]

They are going to legalize something that is not possible…there is NO SUCH THING as “Gay marriage”.

Marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman, period.

Unless you read the Bible, then it can be between ONE man and HUNDREDS of women.

But it’s nice that you completely ignored my question…

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Not all religions agree with you on what’s “sinful,” and you have no right deciding for them. It’s one thing to hold an opinion, but it’s totally different to deny an entire group of people the right to love, simply because you find it distasteful. And that’s what this really comes down to. You can’t wrap your mind around the idea that two men, or two women, could actually fall in love with each other. To you, it’s all about sex, isn’t it?

I am a devout Catholic, I go to Mass several times a week, I go to confession, I have an active prayer life… and I happen to be attracted to men. That attraction, something in which I had no choice, something I’ve felt since I was at least 5 years old, doesn’t make me less of a Catholic. The Church *can *be wrong, and history has shown that it often has been. I won’t blindly go along with the oppression the Church inflicts on God’s children, when it is obviously evil. My allegiance is to Christ, and His law of love – not to a bunch of heterosexual men who make up rules about things they know nothing about.

I personally am not DECIDING anything, Genesius, it is the CHURCH, Christ’s and God’s Chosen and TRUE representative of their teachings and TRUTH, that has decided that. Originating from the teachings of Natural Law and the teachings of the BIBLE itself, which is (as you know) GOD’S word as transcribed through folks on Earth. Also, the example of societies throughout the ages as well. So. no I did not come up with this.

Actually, Genesius, YES, I CAN wrap my mind around the fact that two people of the same sex could fall in love with each other. That was rather presumptous and uncharitable of you to assume. Does not make it right, though.

You also forget that while SSA is considered “gravely disordered” by Holy Mother Church, it is not considered a SIN by the CC. ONLY if one ACTS on it is it then a sin. The Church calls ALL unmarried people to celibacy. Same for gays/lesbians. The CC does not really call for “reversion” or “praying the gay away.” Leave that to some fundamentalist protestant organizations. There are many cases of gays beieng good memebers of the CC while being celibate lives.

I would recommend that you go to the COURAGE web site on the internet, which is a Church-approved and highly succesful treatment/counseling site for Gays/Lesbians. Take a loom at it beofre judging. They advocate a VARIETY of ways of dealing with SSA without having sex or even necessarily “reverting.”

And BTW-----------
From what you are saying here that the CC’s teachings are “evil,” and that you don’t follow “heterosexual” men but only Christ, I would:

1. Remind you that the church and those “heterosexual men” are God’s representatives on Earth and interpreters of his Laws;
2. Again, support of gay marriage is a Non-Negotiable No in the Catholic Church;
3. It is VERY arrogant of you to be assuming and declaring that the Church does not “know what it’s talking about.”
4. The idea that you are a “follower of Christ” mainly but not ULTIMATELY a follower of the CC sounds like something Anne Rice said some months ago after “leaving the Church.”
   Sounds you and her are following what YOUR idea of Christ’s teachings are, not what the TRUTH is (which is the what the CC teaches, sorry). VERY “Cafeteria Carholic” as well.
5. From all you’ve expressed, I would NOT call you a devout, true member of the Catholic Church. When you take communion from people you consider to be “evil” and who (according to you) “do not know what they are talking about,” that is NOT being a true Catholic. You are also PROBABLY engaging in homosexual behavior, which (if you are not confessing and repenting about it) is TOTALLY against the Church you claim to be a DEVOUT member of. It is also a grave SIN. IF you are doing it. Sorry if you are offended by that, but you were “blunt,” and so am I as well.

It is not my place to tell you to stop taking communion, but I will come out and say that you if you support and engage in things which are contrary to the teachings of the Church and God’s LAWS, then you are NOT being a Good catholic, and you need to talk to a priest or catholic counselor about it and/or consider going to a place where what you really believe does not go against the teachings of that Church.
WHY in heaven’s name would you be part of a Church that you obviously have so much contempt for and does not believe what you believe?

Again, read the catechism or talk to somebody about it. Because you think you are going for Christ’s teachings, but you are NOT.
Again, sorry for the bluntness, but what you are saying is insulting, hypocritical, and NOT really very Christian, either.
And remember----it is NOT what YOU think God wants, but what GOD and CHRIST actually want. Some humility, please.

 

[CMatt25]

Not all religions agree with you on what’s “sinful,” and you have no right deciding for them. It’s one thing to hold an opinion, but it’s totally different to deny an entire group of people the right to love, simply because you find it distasteful. And that’s what this really comes down to. You can’t wrap your mind around the idea that two men, or two women, could actually fall in love with each other. To you, it’s all about sex, isn’t it?

I am a devout Catholic, I go to Mass several times a week, I go to confession, I have an active prayer life… and I happen to be attracted to men. That attraction, something in which I had no choice, something I’ve felt since I was at least 5 years old, doesn’t make me less of a Catholic. The Church *can *be wrong, and history has shown that it often has been. I won’t blindly go along with the oppression the Church inflicts on God’s children, when it is obviously evil. My allegiance is to Christ, and His law of love – not to a bunch of heterosexual men who make up rules about things they know nothing about.

Genesius, your post reminds me of something which I believe we all should wake up each morning remembering. We all are God’s children. God bless you and peace.

 

[CMatt25]

WHY in heaven’s name would you be part of a Church that you obviously have so much contempt for and does not believe what you believe?

I wouldn’t necessarily go so far to judge that he has contempt when he attends Mass several times a wk, goes to confession and has an active prayer life. He may or may not believe everything but that certainly doesn’t sound like a person who has contempt. But uhmm maybe he is part of the Church, OM, because the Church says he is part of it?

 

[Kouyate42]

Its not AUTHENTIC love…its based on LUST. There is no authentic love between two gay men or two gay women. Its just not possible. There is no Eros in unnatural sexual relations.

They are trying to redefine marriage in Britain. Marriage is ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, period! No ifs, ands or buts!

I’m willing to bet that you are heterosexual. So can you please explain to me how you can speak on homosexuality when you cannot feel as a homosexual feels?

I happen to be bisexual, and so I feel both homosexual and heterosexual thoughts. To my mind, the way I feel about a man is NO DIFFERENT to those feelings I have for women. When I’ve been in love or fallen for a man or women, I’ve not thought ‘‘I’ve fallen in love with a woman/man’’, I think ‘‘I’ve fallen in love’’

At the same time, I have been a church-attending Christian. I have never found a church, even the most conservative, which turned me away on the basis of my sexuality.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I wouldn’t necessarily go so far to judge that he has contempt when he attends Mass several times a wk, goes to confession and has an active prayer life. He may or may not believe everything but that certainly doesn’t sound like a person who has contempt. But uhmm maybe he is part of the Church, OM, because the Church says he is part of it?

With all due respect, CMatt25, reread his post to me which prompted my lengthy reply. He basically accused the Church of fostering “evil” policies and that the priests were simply “heterosexual males” who “don’t know what they are talking about.” He also assumed that I have no ability to imagine SSA. I call that arrogant and presumptous. He is for gay marriage and implied that the Church is trying to force non-acceptance upon unwilling people. He takes communion of a Church whose teachings he calls evil and ignorant. I call that contempt-----sorry. Also hypocrisy, since he partakes of a Church he does not fully believe in. Yes, he takes confession and communion----------all the while supporting anti-Church policies and labelling Holy Mother Church “evil” behind its back.

IF he is both a practicing homosexual and disagreeing of the Church’s and Christ’s teachings, then he is NOT being a true Catholic. Sorry, CMatt25.
Maybe the Church says he is part of it because he has not been honest with them about his TRUE beliefs regarding it?

Even if he is celibate, he would still be in conflict with the Church if he openly advocated and voted for gay marriage-----It is irrelevant what country he is in. You know that, CMatt25.

 

[genesius28]

With all due respect, CMatt25, reread his post to me which prompted my lengthy reply. He basically accused the Church of fostering “evil” policies and that the priests were simply “heterosexual males” who “don’t know what they are talking about.” He also assumed that I have no ability to imagine SSA. I call that arrogant and presumptous. He is for gay marriage and implied that the Church is trying to force non-acceptance upon unwilling people. He takes communion of a Church whose teachings he calls evil and ignorant. I call that contempt-----sorry. Also hypocrisy, since he partakes of a Church he does not fully believe in. Yes, he takes confession and communion----------all the while supporting anti-Church policies and labelling Holy Mother Church “evil” behind its back.

IF he is both a practicing homosexual and disagreeing of the Church’s and Christ’s teachings, then he is NOT being a true Catholic. Sorry, CMatt25.
Maybe the Church says he is part of it because he has not been honest with them about his TRUE beliefs regarding it?

Even if he is celibate, he would still be in conflict with the Church if he openly advocated and voted for gay marriage-----It is irrelevant what country he is in. You know that, CMatt25.

I wasn’t even going to respond to your lengthy post because you got mad at me for making accusations, and then proceeded to make accusations about my sex life, when you know absolutely nothing about me – other than that I’m gay and Catholic. I wouldn’t stoop so low as to suggest anything about your sex life, and I’d thank you to extend me the same courtesy.

That being said, maybe I should clarify what I meant in choosing the words that I did. I believe, regardless of church dogma, that it is evil to deprive a couple of legal protection simply because you don’t agree with their sexual orientation. What the Church decides in regards to Her own Sacraments is Her business; but She doesn’t have the right to make it legally acceptable to prevent a person from visiting their dying partner in the hospital, or have their house taken away when their partner dies because the deed was in the deceased person’s name, or rip families apart because one person happens to have been born in another country. That’s not love – that’s evil.

I go to Mass and receive Communion so that I can experience the transforming power of the liturgy, and encounter Christ in the Eucharist. The exterior trappings, and even the priest himself, are just accidents of the world… They don’t change the Sacraments I receive. Even the Church teaches that the personal sins of the priest don’t affect the validity of the Sacrament, and so it follows that their personal opinions about others don’t affect it either. True, if a priest were preaching hate in his homily, I probably wouldn’t be inclined to return to his parish… not because of the Sacrament, but because I simply wouldn’t want to listen to his words.

You said that I’m disagreeing with Christ’s teachings, yet Christ never said one word about homosexuality. He showed love to prostitutes, tax collectors, pagans, and even to the people who killed him (not that I’m comparing myself to a prostitute, haha). That’s what being a Christian is about – loving one another. And believe me, that’s not always easy to do when you feel completely unwelcome in church.

Thank you for your kind responses CMatt25 and Kouyate42. God bless you!

 

[Elizabeth502]

That being said, maybe I should clarify what I meant in choosing the words that I did. I believe, regardless of church dogma, that it is evil to deprive a couple of legal protection simply because you don’t agree with their sexual orientation.

[bolding mine]

Is it your belief that we Catholics are merely free to “agree” or “disagree” with fundamental Church doctrine about sexual activity, the exclusiveness of traditional marriage, the character of family? Or do you understand that any priest in genuine communion with the Vatican is not even free himself merely to “agree” or “disagree” with fundamental Church doctrine about homosexual behavior, heterosexual cohabitation, and all the other core features of the integrated Life issues? If his “agreement” to uphold Church doctrine (what he is required to do in living his genuine priesthood) is something you choose to dismiss, then you are separating yourself from essential (not optional) Catholic belief. And should he mention in a homily his “agreement with” (binding obligation to uphold) our Church’s moral teachings, he is doing what the laity should expect him to do.

Even the Church teaches that the personal sins of the priest don’t affect the validity of the Sacrament, and so it follows that their personal opinions about others don’t affect it either.

Unless he is not in legitimate communion with Rome, no priest will be expressing his “personal opinion” about fundamental Church doctrine. His opinion, your opinion, my opinion, OrdinaryMelkite’s opinion, CMatt25’s opinion – none of those alter the moral absolutes regarding the Church’s moral teachings. The moral absolutes of the Church (which include her integrated doctrine on sexuality) are not subject to personal opinion for their validity. They are objectively authentic and binding on priests as well as laity.

What the Church decides in regards to Her own Sacraments is Her business; but She doesn’t have the right to make it legally acceptable to prevent a person from visiting their dying partner in the hospital, or have their house taken away when their partner dies because the deed was in the deceased person’s name, or rip families apart because one person happens to have been born in another country. That’s not love – that’s evil.

The Church not only has a right, in every free country, to influence public opinion about the replacing of the current definition of marriage with a corrupted definition, she has the responsibility to speak up against that corruption, and to encourage all Catholics to speak up. There are many ways to broaden mutual civil economic partnerships (discussed on many threads; I’ve participated in one just yesterday which supports such arrangements without calling them ‘marriages’ or in any way approving of them as ersatz “romantic” unions).

 

[Elizabeth502]

I go to Mass and receive Communion so that I can experience the transforming power of the liturgy, and encounter Christ in the Eucharist. The exterior trappings, and even the priest himself, are just accidents of the world…

The presence of the priest is not an “accident.” The priest is in persona Christi. He’s not some random guy up there whom you can subjectively decide is not worth your time because you don’t “agree” with something he says. While his sins don’t affect the validity of the sacraments, those sacraments would not be activated without the ministerial priesthood authoritatively ordained by Christ, through the apostles and their successors in communion with Rome and Rome’s teachings about morality. The Sacraments are not separate from those teachings, but dependent on them and intertwined with them.

if a priest were preaching hate in his homily, I probably wouldn’t be inclined to return to his parish… not because of the Sacrament, but because I simply wouldn’t want to listen to his words.

I wouldn’t want to listen to “hate,” either. But preaching for the exclusive character of traditional marriage is not “hate.” It’s the upholding of God’s ordered universe.

Christ never said one word about homosexuality.

It would have been redundant for Him to have done so, because it was a settled part of the Mosaic law which Jesus reiterated and fulfilled (not abolished). It would help to reread Matthew Chapter 5 (including but not limited to verse 17).

Had he nullified or even challenged the core moral requirement of Mosaic law against homosexual activity, such a position would have been repeated in large measure throughout all 4 Gospels. More precisely, had he suggested that the central features of Mosaic law were no longer relevant or operative, it is extremely doubtful that he would have maintained a following of any significant quantity or passion. His interpretation of certain sabbath regulations of the Law were scandalous enough. Had he challenged the core moral tenets of Jewish law, He would have been viewed as universally non-authentic by the Jews of His day, and there would be no Gospels to hand down. (His problem with the sabbath regulations were not that there shouldn’t be any, but that they had become distorted as to their purpose and proportion.)

The Gospels featured what was unique about Jesus (the particular continuity of Mosaic law, combined with the universal salvation story). Jesus’ interpretation of Mosaic law was comprehensive and spiritually demanding, in that he highlighted how certain minutiae of Mosaic law was being bastardized in practice to single out externals, rather than both what was internal and external. It’s not that only feelings and intentions were suddenly important to the exclusion of everything else, but that thought, will, and behavior together must be in unison in order to authentically fulfill The Commandments. Kind of like, well, Catholic spirituality.

He showed love to prostitutes, tax collectors, pagans, and even to the people who killed him

And as an element of His love, Jesus, like every loving person who cares about the moral health of their loved ones, counseled them to stop
(a) being prostitutes
(b) worshipping false gods

And the nature of his radical love persuaded some tax collectors to abandon their profession and follow Him. Conversion from sin and toward purity is part of the action and requirement of love.

That’s what being a Christian is about – loving one another.

Yes. And loves demands both correction and compassion simultaneously. Jesus lived the two poles of correction and compassion. It’s not an either/or.

 

[CapeWind]

What false dilemma? I asked that for reason to prevail emotion must be put aside.

L&L, the only “enemy” that many of us have on internet discussion forums is lack of information, or, inaccuracy.

Slicing and dicing particular passages of Scripture (incluidng Paul) doesn’t work for the Church which you recently joined. The entire moral theology of human sexuality is an integrated whole in Catholic doctrine.

I am not going to comment on what Paul said or not except to say that Paul never knew Jesus, he never even met him, in fact if Jesus walked past him he wouldn’t even know. I refuse to let that kind of Pauline theology be the basis of my faith.

1. Remind you that the church and those “heterosexual men” are God’s representatives on Earth and interpreters of his Laws;
2. From all you’ve expressed, I would NOT call you a devout, true member of the Catholic Church. When you take communion from people you consider to be “evil” and who (according to you) “do not know what they are talking about,” that is NOT being a true Catholic.

Perhaps you would be willing to tell me how it is possible that several of “God’s representatives on Earth and Interpreters of his Laws” stand accused of some of the most deranged acts of sexual abuse (talk about lust). [People who live in glass houses…]

And btw perhaps you can tell me how many of the priests who have been playing with their altar boys and the Bishops who covered up for them have been excommunicated? Why have you not objected to their receiving the sacraments? Perhaps you still consider them devout true members?
[/quote]

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am not going to comment on what Paul said or not except to say that Paul never knew Jesus, he never even met him, in fact if Jesus walked past him he wouldn’t even know. I refuse to let that kind of Pauline theology be the basis of my faith.

The whole of Catholic moral doctrine – including the full doctrine about sexuality and what that demands – is based on:

Matthean theology
Marcan theology
Lucan theology
Johannine theology
Pauline theology
Petrine theology
Jamesian theology
and the theology of Genesis, Deuteronomy, Exodus, Leviticus, Judges, Wisdom, Psalms, etc.
Even Revelation has some operative theology for us which is incorporated into Christian spirituality.

IOW, all of Scripture, combined with other oral & written Tradition (the Saints, the Fathers), as an integrated whole, informs the moral absolutes of the Roman Church. The moral absolutes are not taken exclusively or disproportionately from one sacred writer or another.

And again, we are forbidden as Catholics to engage in private interpretation of scripture as a means of opposing, circumventing, editing the authoritative interpretation provided by our Church, and excusing or ratifying behavior based on inauthentic interpretation. Protestants engage in individual interpretation, and this is why they do not have a unified body of moral doctrine. It is a logical contradiction to assume that the Roman Church can declare the conditions for reception of the Sacraments, for the faculties necessary to consecrate bread and wine at Mass, for the details of all the sacraments which details are not spelled out in any biblical literature, yet She cannot use the biblical text + the writings of holy people over the centuries to discern the coherent and evident moral compass which is timeless and absolute. The same Holy Spirit which was the Gift of Jesus to His Church, which guides the Church in all matters, is the Spirit which also guides the Church in matters of moral teaching.

 

[genesius28]

[bolding mine]

Is it your belief that we Catholics are merely free to “agree” or “disagree” with fundamental Church doctrine about sexual activity, the exclusiveness of traditional marriage, the character of family? Or do you understand that any priest in genuine communion with the Vatican is not even free himself merely to “agree” or “disagree” with fundamental Church doctrine about homosexual behavior, heterosexual cohabitation, and all the other core features of the integrated Life issues? If his “agreement” to uphold Church doctrine (what he is required to do in living his genuine priesthood) is something you choose to dismiss, then you are separating yourself from essential (not optional) Catholic belief. And should he mention in a homily his “agreement with” (binding obligation to uphold) our Church’s moral teachings, he is doing what the laity should expect him to do.

Unless he is not in legitimate communion with Rome, no priest will be expressing his “personal opinion” about fundamental Church doctrine. His opinion, your opinion, my opinion, OrdinaryMelkite’s opinion, CMatt25’s opinion – none of those alter the moral absolutes regarding the Church’s moral teachings. The moral absolutes of the Church (which include her integrated doctrine on sexuality) are not subject to personal opinion for their validity. They are objectively authentic and binding on priests as well as laity.

The Church not only has a right, in every free country, to influence public opinion about the replacing of the current definition of marriage with a corrupted definition, she has the responsibility to speak up against that corruption, and to encourage all Catholics to speak up. There are many ways to broaden mutual civil economic partnerships (discussed on many threads; I’ve participated in one just yesterday which supports such arrangements without calling them ‘marriages’ or in any way approving of them as ersatz “romantic” unions).

It might interest you to know that a Dominican priest here in Seattle once told me that sex outside of marriage is a “minor sin,” and that it’s important for a person to continue receiving communion, even if they haven’t confessed to extramarital sex yet. Granted, the assumption here was heterosexual sex… He might have had a different opinion on gay sex, but that didn’t come up. But still, the fact is, a heterosexual shouldn’t receive communion if they’ve had sex outside of marriage, without going to confession first – so the priest was expressing his own personal opinion which contradicts the Church.

It may also interest you to know that a Jesuit priest, who teaches theology at a university here, announced on the first day of class – the very first words out of his mouth when he walked in! – that he didn’t believe in the existence of souls or the afterlife. Another Jesuit priest at the same university asserted that absolutely *nothing *happens up at the altar during Mass.

My point here is, these priests still have their jobs, while teaching things directly in conflict with the Magisterium. Perhaps they’re not being “good” priests, but then, they should be removed from the priesthood. I find it hard to believe that the bishop hasn’t at least heard of these priests at the University – I’m sure one of their many students would have said something by now. But, that’s only speculation. Personally, I think not believing in souls or the afterlife is far worse than being gay… If there is no afterlife, then all the rules about sin become irrelevant, don’t they?

Also, in regards to your first question – and since someone already brought up the sexual abuse scandals – I think it is worth pointing out that I don’t believe a church that covers up the rape of children without automatically excommunicating the priests has proven itself worthy of the authority to pass judgment on sexual matters between consenting adults. The clergy are not above the rules. So if I can’t trust the leaders, whom can I trust? But that’s a whole different issue, and I don’t want to be accused of creating a “quick diversion” – I just think it’s good to point out.

 

[Elizabeth502]

My point here is, these priests still have their jobs, while teaching things directly in conflict with the Magisterium. Perhaps they’re not being “good” priests, but then, they should be removed from the priesthood.

Sometimes such aberrations and heretical (mis)guidance do not come to the attention of the local bishop, who’s a busy guy, universally, in this country. The fact that there are dissenting and disobedient persons wearing Roman collars does not give legitimacy to their dissent, however.

The normal course of action would be (has always been) to try to get the priest to correct the error of his ways first, and if he persists – and his superiors continue to hear about that persistence in the present and future – to seek sterner measures, such as temporary relief from public preaching.

As to your bringing up the off-topic aspect of clergy sexual abuse: the sins of priests and their superiors do not affect, detract from, or impugn the settled moral doctrine of the Church, of which homosexual behavior is one key, critical component in the integrated teaching about sexuality, chastity, reproduction, complementarity, and family. Historically, priests as a group, statistically, have also had an alcohol problem; yet I don’t hear anyone in the laity (including those who are admitted alcoholics) say, “Wait, abuse of alcohol must be allowed because many priests abuse alcohol.” The Spirit of God persists in the Church because unlike mortal men, the guiding, teaching Spirit of God is reliable. The teaching office (magisterium – one of the 3 crucial elements of Catholic moral teaching) is separate from the individual sins of the members of that office.

For our Church to deny moral permission for homosexuals to engage in sexual activity is no more “hateful” than disallowing unmarried heterosexuals from engaging in sexual activity, which is precisely what the Church equally disallows and declares gravely sinful. It has nothing to do with how natural and loving and spontaneous and essential I perceive it to be to live in a committed relationship with a guy I’m not married to. I’m violating the Law of God if I choose to indulge my “loving” inclinations, including if my lover cannot marry me legitimately because of a previous divorce, failure in annulment attempt, etc. That’s my tough luck, and I am still required to live by the same rules of chastity as are all other Catholics, regardless of their sexual attractions, regardless of their state in life.

 

[genesius28]

The presence of the priest is not an “accident.” The priest is in persona Christi. He’s not some random guy up there whom you can subjectively decide is not worth your time because you don’t “agree” with something he says. While his sins don’t affect the validity of the sacraments, those sacraments would not be activated without the ministerial priesthood authoritatively ordained by Christ, through the apostles and their successors in communion with Rome and Rome’s teachings about morality. The Sacraments are not separate from those teachings, but dependent on them and intertwined with them.

By accident, I was referring to the fact that he’s a human being, a product of the physical world. His position is to be respected, but he’s still imperfect. Even the bread and wine in the eucharist are called “accidents,” and the Most Blessed Sacrament is far holier than man. I may be bordering on Gnosticism here by suggesting that the things of this world are unimportant in comparison to the Eternal, but so be it.

 

[CMatt25]

Christ never said one word about homosexuality. He showed love to prostitutes, tax collectors, pagans, and even to the people who killed him (not that I’m comparing myself to a prostitute, haha). That’s what being a Christian is about – loving one another. And believe me, that’s not always easy to do when you feel completely unwelcome in church.

Another poster said He didn’t have to and brought up Mosaic law. And she was right to an extent except she left out one very important thing. Which was what Christ said through His Apostle Paul about that:

Rom 13:8 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another. For he that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law.

So Genesius, you were correct when when you said being a Christian is all about love. Afterall that is what Christ said too.

Love God. Love your neighbor as yourself. And you fulfill the 10 Commandments.

I agree it is not always easy when you feel unwelcomed. But maybe remember these words of Christ as well: “Everyone whom my Father gives me will come to me. I will never turn away anyone who comes to me.” (Jn 6:37 GNT)

God bless you and each of us as we come to Him. Again peace.

 

[genesius28]

As to your bringing up the off-topic aspect of clergy sexual abuse: the sins of priests and their superiors do not affect, detract from, or impugn the settled moral doctrine of the Church,

Yes, actually, it completely detracts from it. When the Church claims its authority in the name of Christ to decide on moral matters, but then covers up a moral matter far worse than homosexuality, it compromises its right to dictate morals. Christ said “By their fruits you shall know them.” Yes, He was talking about false prophets – but someone who claims the authority to speak for God is, for all intents and purposes, a prophet.

For our Church to deny moral permission for homosexuals to engage in sexual activity is no more “hateful” than disallowing unmarried heterosexuals from engaging in sexual activity, which is precisely what the Church equally disallows and declares gravely sinful.

It is hateful, and let me tell you why: The Church is saying that an entire group of people, through no fault of their own, is not allowed to love and be loved. In fact, the Church is saying that they must be alone and miserable for the rest of their lives, simply because the Church says so. They’re “called to chastity,” yet can’t even put that chastity to any good use in the Church, because they can’t become priests – because the pope has decided that homosexuals are the same as pedophiles. They can’t even make up for their loneliness in other ways, such as joining a monastery, because monasteries refuse to accept homosexuals. The Church is condemning homosexuals to life-long misery and loneliness, because of its archaic heterocentric rules, based on twisted interpretations of scripture. That is hateful.