F
fix
Guest
No the moral teaching is the same. The meaning of money changed.
Read more:
- Status
Read more:
F
fix
Guest
No, I do not think it was a teaching of faith and morals. If you could point out a document of magisterial weight that taught that I would be happy to discuss it.
And it is not simply killing people who disagree, that is nonsense.
B
Bella3502
Guest
I am Catholic and I do not use birth control. But the overwhelming majority of Catholics of childbearing age, DO use some form of birth control. Why is it a Catholic duty to preach to Homosexuals about their lifestyle, when Catholics freely choose to ignore the Church’s teachings on other issues? DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO - is just wrong.
Oh… btw, there are families of six kids in my parish as well. That does not mean that they are not using birth control. Look at the birth rate in Italy… That’s not NFP at work there.
A
Aquarius
Guest
Here’s what the Church said about Usury.
"One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; "
The Church said it was immoral to loan 100 pieces of gold at any interest rate. Pieces of gold have not changed. But the Church’s moral teaching did change.
Got to keep up with the times.
A
Aquarius
Guest
If social order was not a matter of morality, then why the death sentence?
Legacies are tough. I realize that. That’s why the Church uses that line about a lack of magesterial weight to change its moral teachings. It seems to work.
A heretic was someone who didn’t agree with the Church. The Church said he should be killed for that. Is that OK today?
A
Aquarius
Guest
Graciously losing on the BC issue is the first step in changing it. I say it will be changed because I see no effort to enforce it. But homosexuals are a convenient diversion from what is staring them in the face every day.
O
OhioBob
Guest
Just because Aquinas said it, that doesn’t make it Church doctrine. He wasn’t the Pope nor did he speak as the Magisterium.
He was a great theologian and a product of his times. He had his own opinions, but everything that came from his mouth (or his pen) did not become Church doctrine just because he said (or wrote) it.
O
OhioBob
Guest
Don’t hold your breath. The Church teaches truth. It is up to the individual to accept that truth. The Church doesn’t “enforce” doctrine. It merely presents it as the deposit of faith. People either believe it and place themselves in communion with the Church, or they do not and place themselves apart from it. Either way, by their actions they do it to themselves.
Just my opinion, of course. :tiphat:
A
Aquarius
Guest
Well, when the Church was cooperating with the state in discarding heretics, was it acting contrary to Church doctrine? If so, what doctrine?
A
Aquarius
Guest
And the Church is presenting the teaching on ABC less and less and less…
O
OhioBob
Guest
The Church hasn’t changed it’s position on ABC at all, nor has it “presented it teaching” any less. Individual priests may or may not choose to address the issue from the pulpit. Some do, some don’t. But the teaching hasn’t changed and isn’t affected by the veracity with which individual priests may address it. The Pope (particularly JPII) has been very consistent and persistent regarding the Church’s teachings regarding sexual morality. Not all priests have the chutzpa to step up and take the issue on from the pulpit as they should. However, many do.
Regardless, the weaknesses in the preaching of individual priests does not diminish the fact that the Church’s postion has been consistent for 2000 years. To expect it to change is wishful thinking on the part of those who dissent.
E
Eileen_T
Guest
Aquarius, if you wish to discuss the Catholic Church’s position on usury, the killing of heretics or artificial birth control please start your own thread.
So far, all I see you doing is attacking the teaching of the Church on just about every topic you can think of.
You don’t seem to understand that what the RCC teaches is not subject to change just because people who call themselves Catholic to not obey those teachings. Those people have put themselves in a position of not being in communion with the Church whether or not they attend Mass.
I went through a rebellious stage myself in my late teens and early twenties. It lasted until someone challenged me and I realised that if there really was a God who created us and had revealed Himself to mankind as believed by Christians, then He deserved to be worshipped the way He wants not they way that I want.
If such a Creator God exists and has condemned homosexual acts as the Old Testament claims, then, if I accept that teaching I am obeying His Law. If you choose not accept that teaching you are disobeying His Law.
If such a Creator God exists and has prepared a place for torment for those who disobey His Law, it won’t matter if you or I object to Him doing so. He’s God, He makes the rules.
If I spend my entire life obeying the Laws the RCC teaches are revealed by God and when I die their is no God and no Hell. Hey, no problem.
If someone else spends their life doing what they want as if God (and Hell) doesn’t exist only to find they were wrong, I would suggest there is a HUGE problem.
That’s why I used Sen. Santorini’s quote about gravity. If I believe gravity does not exist and I jump off a multi-story building, either of two things will happen. I will be right or I will be wrong. I’d rather be safe.
M
Mike_Owens
Guest
Last I checked, most of the folks that log on here believe in “Adam and Eve–and not Adam and Steve” !!!
Gay relationships at the end of the day have only to do with one thing…and that is gay sex…at the end of the day that is all that it is about, nad I have yet to see a totally celbant gay realtionship!
If you truly believe in God’s plan, you believe in procreation, and last I checked that couldn’t happen between parties if the same sex…
Gay relationships at the end of the day have only to do with one thing…and that is gay sex…at the end of the day that is all that it is about, nad I have yet to see a totally celbant gay realtionship!
If you truly believe in God’s plan, you believe in procreation, and last I checked that couldn’t happen between parties if the same sex…
A
Aquarius
Guest
When individual priests stop presenting the Church teachings on ABC, we can say the Church is presenting them less and less.
The teaching may be documented on a bookshelf, but it is dying in the parishes. Less and less and less…
A
Aquarius
Guest
Eileen T:
But the Church did change its teachings on lending at interest.
That’s nice.
But the Church did change its teachings on lending at interest.
A
Aquarius
Guest
Mike Owens:
How do you know gay relationships are only about sex?
M
Mike_Owens
Guest
Actually I don’t, but you tell me…you seem to be trying to come across as fairly knowlegable about the subject and want to defend the gays…
S
StubbleSpark
Guest
Gnosis,
Truth that changes is, by definition, no truth at all. Concerning the condemnation of homosexuality by ALL THE RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD the movement has chosen to take the view that what was “true” in lives previous is not true now. This is a great way to sidestep addressing the question:
If the vast majority of homosexuals who came before you chose not to act on their urges because they understood them to be eternal death to the soul and disastrous to society as a whole, then what makes YOU the exception?
Never mind what all the other homosexuals lived and believed, you are somehow above their standards. How to explain this fundamental shift in a truth? You don’t: “Times change.” That was easy. This is a fundamental aspect of the movement and an indispensable psychological crutch motivating the movement’s hearts and minds.
As in here.
Libero:
Gnostic homosexual:
And here.
Mary Dalyism:
Relativism kicks logic, tradition, and faith to the wayside in order to enforce the believer’s idea by sheer brute force. In order for the homosexual movement to claim victory, all three of these must fall. There is no shortage of leaders within the homosexual community who openly proclaim relativism as a liberating value. In the words of Kirk and Madsen, it is “a planned psychological attack” meant to cowl and belittle those who disagree with their ideas.
I am reminded of the words of a previous revolutionary relativist, Mussolini:
The burden of proof falls upon the radical. I cannot make claims about your mother being an assassin for Opus Dei without giving evidence to show you how your long-held and intimate understanding of her person is in fact wrong. Without some sort of evidence, all I have is hearsay, fictions, or lies.
Homosexual acts were once seen as sinful, and now you say they are right and a right. Only until you approach the Throne of Reason with A) evidence, B) a logical argument, and C) some appeal to an authority greater than mere men, the real “discourse” and debate on this matter can begin. Without these things, you are forced by necessity to instead rely on spin, ad hominem calumny, and brute force.
You were prudent to sidestep the question in my previous post: how will you maintain society’s moral compass once your glorious revolution comes to pass? This is the question of the authority invested in you and you have no answer to it (or you wished not to reveal how indifferent you are to sins like “legal” incest). But the issue of authority is unavoidable. You are so certain you are right but how do you know? If the minds of Christ, Buddha, Vishnu, Mohammed, YHWH, and even the ancient Gnostics themselves intersect on this matter, from where does you certainty spring?
Truth that changes is, by definition, no truth at all. Concerning the condemnation of homosexuality by ALL THE RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD the movement has chosen to take the view that what was “true” in lives previous is not true now. This is a great way to sidestep addressing the question:
If the vast majority of homosexuals who came before you chose not to act on their urges because they understood them to be eternal death to the soul and disastrous to society as a whole, then what makes YOU the exception?
Never mind what all the other homosexuals lived and believed, you are somehow above their standards. How to explain this fundamental shift in a truth? You don’t: “Times change.” That was easy. This is a fundamental aspect of the movement and an indispensable psychological crutch motivating the movement’s hearts and minds.
As in here.
Libero:
And here.
Gnostic homosexual:
snant.com/fp/archives/gnosticism-homosexuality-and-sola-scriptura/
And here.
Mary Dalyism:
awakenedwoman.com/daly.htm
Relativism kicks logic, tradition, and faith to the wayside in order to enforce the believer’s idea by sheer brute force. In order for the homosexual movement to claim victory, all three of these must fall. There is no shortage of leaders within the homosexual community who openly proclaim relativism as a liberating value. In the words of Kirk and Madsen, it is “a planned psychological attack” meant to cowl and belittle those who disagree with their ideas.
I am reminded of the words of a previous revolutionary relativist, Mussolini:
(Kreeft, Three Approaches to Abortion)
The burden of proof falls upon the radical. I cannot make claims about your mother being an assassin for Opus Dei without giving evidence to show you how your long-held and intimate understanding of her person is in fact wrong. Without some sort of evidence, all I have is hearsay, fictions, or lies.
Homosexual acts were once seen as sinful, and now you say they are right and a right. Only until you approach the Throne of Reason with A) evidence, B) a logical argument, and C) some appeal to an authority greater than mere men, the real “discourse” and debate on this matter can begin. Without these things, you are forced by necessity to instead rely on spin, ad hominem calumny, and brute force.
You were prudent to sidestep the question in my previous post: how will you maintain society’s moral compass once your glorious revolution comes to pass? This is the question of the authority invested in you and you have no answer to it (or you wished not to reveal how indifferent you are to sins like “legal” incest). But the issue of authority is unavoidable. You are so certain you are right but how do you know? If the minds of Christ, Buddha, Vishnu, Mohammed, YHWH, and even the ancient Gnostics themselves intersect on this matter, from where does you certainty spring?
S
StubbleSpark
Guest
Evangelium Vitae, 1994
Just a little quote …
G
Gnosis
Guest
As to your notion that every homosexual before this century believed that their sexuality was something to be turned away from, less they face a death of the soul is completely erroneous.
Firstly, if you are raised in a society that tells you homosexuality is an abomination to God and that you will burn, especially if that society is firmly in the clutches of religious belief, it is likely that you yourself will have this belief. Especially when the number of homosexuals is small and they are scattered across a given country. There is no one to discuss with, you are alone.
Secondly, not every religion has condemned homosexuality. This is simply not the case. In the Western tradition, homosexuality was condemned in Judaism, a tradition that is carried through to Christianity and Islam. However, there have been many religions and cultures that saw sexual interaction with memebers of the same-sex as a perfectly normal act. Look at the Greeks, ancient India, segments of medieval Japan, Bablyonian culture and its concerns with fertility, different native societies in North America that held to the term “two spirited” for people who interacted with both sexes, and were seen as a third gender.
Of course the modern conception of the homosexual did not exist during these times. As well, it is clear that, overall, homosexual activity has been discouraged, that is, if we look to the majority of instances. However, it is also clear that homosexuality has not always been seen as an abomination, or something that is self-destructive. Nor has every person who engaged in homosexual activity felt they were doing wrong. In a similar way, we can observe that, in the majority of instances, women have been discouraged and even barred from positions of authority throughout history. And while there are examples of matriarchial societies or women who were accepted as leaders, it was generally viewed by most that the authority of men was established in the natural order. I don’t know your stance is on women being in positions of authority (besides the priest hood, most likely).
From what I can gather, especially in consideration of evolution, females, who were physcially weaker then males, were submissive to males in order to preserve the community in a harsh and threatening world. Likewise, homosexual acts were seen as a threat to the community as the infant mortality rate was incredibly high and reproduction by all was neccessary for the communities survival. However, we are no longer the primitive socities of the past, and such notions as female authority and homosexual relationships no longer present threats to the community, as we can now effectively deal with our environment.
You can quote others as being a relativist. However, I am personally am not I relativist, nor do I believe you will find an excessive amount of people who are. I see God as the ground of being, as the underlying, ultimate Reality. Simply put, my morality rests on the notion that when we harm others or ourselves, then we are out of step with reality. God exists within and through each and every person, within life itself. Thus we are all inter-connected and we must strive to achieve a constant awareness of humanities inter-dependence. We “sin” as you call it, when we ignore reality, specifically, when we fail to see God in others, within ourselves.
A loving and nurturing homosexual relationship gives wholeness and completion to both partners. They find fullness in eachother, and thus, find God to be present within their love for one another. It does not ignore the reality of God in them, or in others.
Firstly, if you are raised in a society that tells you homosexuality is an abomination to God and that you will burn, especially if that society is firmly in the clutches of religious belief, it is likely that you yourself will have this belief. Especially when the number of homosexuals is small and they are scattered across a given country. There is no one to discuss with, you are alone.
Secondly, not every religion has condemned homosexuality. This is simply not the case. In the Western tradition, homosexuality was condemned in Judaism, a tradition that is carried through to Christianity and Islam. However, there have been many religions and cultures that saw sexual interaction with memebers of the same-sex as a perfectly normal act. Look at the Greeks, ancient India, segments of medieval Japan, Bablyonian culture and its concerns with fertility, different native societies in North America that held to the term “two spirited” for people who interacted with both sexes, and were seen as a third gender.
Of course the modern conception of the homosexual did not exist during these times. As well, it is clear that, overall, homosexual activity has been discouraged, that is, if we look to the majority of instances. However, it is also clear that homosexuality has not always been seen as an abomination, or something that is self-destructive. Nor has every person who engaged in homosexual activity felt they were doing wrong. In a similar way, we can observe that, in the majority of instances, women have been discouraged and even barred from positions of authority throughout history. And while there are examples of matriarchial societies or women who were accepted as leaders, it was generally viewed by most that the authority of men was established in the natural order. I don’t know your stance is on women being in positions of authority (besides the priest hood, most likely).
From what I can gather, especially in consideration of evolution, females, who were physcially weaker then males, were submissive to males in order to preserve the community in a harsh and threatening world. Likewise, homosexual acts were seen as a threat to the community as the infant mortality rate was incredibly high and reproduction by all was neccessary for the communities survival. However, we are no longer the primitive socities of the past, and such notions as female authority and homosexual relationships no longer present threats to the community, as we can now effectively deal with our environment.
You can quote others as being a relativist. However, I am personally am not I relativist, nor do I believe you will find an excessive amount of people who are. I see God as the ground of being, as the underlying, ultimate Reality. Simply put, my morality rests on the notion that when we harm others or ourselves, then we are out of step with reality. God exists within and through each and every person, within life itself. Thus we are all inter-connected and we must strive to achieve a constant awareness of humanities inter-dependence. We “sin” as you call it, when we ignore reality, specifically, when we fail to see God in others, within ourselves.
A loving and nurturing homosexual relationship gives wholeness and completion to both partners. They find fullness in eachother, and thus, find God to be present within their love for one another. It does not ignore the reality of God in them, or in others.
- Status