W
WillPhillips
Guest
You should attend one and observe how much it is about the love between two people.WillPhillips:
The issue is attending a ceremony that endorses a sin.
- Status
E
Elf01
Guest
I didn’t go the wedding of a sibling who married outside the Church. No chance I’ll be attending a same sex wedding.
W
WillPhillips
Guest
Well if you can’t attend the biggest life events of even your family, then yeah, little chance of lgbt folks feeling included in your life.WillPhillips:
I didn’t go the wedding of a sibling who married outside the Church. No chance I’ll be attending a same sex wedding.
The Church is in rapid decline (in the US outnumbered 3-2 now by the non-religious, and falling below 20%, for example) and my sense is that such unyielding, exclusive tribalism, especially surrounding lgbt people, has been a primary factor.
L
LateCatholic
Guest
Here’s the though experiment. There are two Catholics. Both acknowledge that if their friend gets married in a SSA, they each would attend - regardless of Church doctrine.
Catholic 1 gets invited. Sins, goes to Hell.
Catholic 2 doesn’t get invited. Doesn’t sin. Lucks out. Goes to Heaven.
So the question - is the sin state of mind or actually performing the act? Remember, this isn’t like wanting to sin and CHOOSING then not to. This is about a third party choosing FOR you. Both parties WOULD attend if invited. Don’t argue the scenario. This is a thought experiment. What happens?
S
SeriousQuestion
Guest
It is the will that commits sins so they would both be accountable for that.
Last edited:
T
Thorolfr
Guest
The difference is that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage (62%) based on a poll last year. And three years ago there were about 390, 000 same-sex marriages in the US. But I don’t know of any people who want to marry their children or their parents (although I’m sure that there are some). I doubt that the idea is going to catch on, so it’s unlikely that anyone will have to grapple with whether they should attend an incestuous marriage.WillPhillips:
What if I my adult son and I claimed to be in love and wanted to get married? Would people here on this forum attend the wedding? Accepting that it’s really all about love between two adults and people shouldn’t judge?
Last edited:
S
SeriousQuestion
Guest
It is kind of like avoiding public affection,
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
What if two brothers get married for healthcare benfits? Is this legal? Would a Catholic attend the wedding?
S
StarMapp
Guest
There is no confusion in this case.
1/God as outlined what constitutes a valid and holy marriage.
2/Scripture defines it in terms that are understandable. After reading, one comes away with the modern day phrase “Now do you get it!?” applies here.(recall we have intellect. Brute animals are not endowed with this. We are able to discern. “When you see clouds in the sky, you say it will rain and it does…”
3/Christ’s appointed apostles articulated in review their disgust of this practice.
4/The Holy Mother has cured those who were deeply taken by this ruse. When once there was submission to the draw of these acts, these find it is replaced with a genuine repugnance, and have gone on to a holy marriage and start natural loving biological families. An absolute cure would not occur if it was in any way in line with the Devine will. This is the key.
The OP has a question about the compounding effects of these acts. The audience is a bonus to Satan, as children who place all trust in a parent to teach and keep them away from evil influences, brings them in proximity to the evil being enacted. The parents are now culpable, as they attend knowing God is affronted by it. It becomes a case of a live ouija board performance enacted before them. Satan can make a case against the parents/adults and graces are withheld accordingly from them.
These players want the delectable of this world. But you will note they will not call the wager. She gave her promises and now waits. Not many will give Mary the benefit of the doubt and enter into the therapy of the Rosary. The more deeply committed, the more entrenched the “fix”.
Social exclusion is a consequence of deadly sins. There is hardly a scriptural page turned that doesn’t portray the consequences of wallowing in it. The most deadly effect is a life of spiritual desolation, where Satan provides all the world can give, keeping the victim from discerning and asking for help and reconciliation. The sun shines, and he experiences good fortune. Meanwhile the days count down, both for this world and his days to accountability.
1/God as outlined what constitutes a valid and holy marriage.
2/Scripture defines it in terms that are understandable. After reading, one comes away with the modern day phrase “Now do you get it!?” applies here.(recall we have intellect. Brute animals are not endowed with this. We are able to discern. “When you see clouds in the sky, you say it will rain and it does…”
3/Christ’s appointed apostles articulated in review their disgust of this practice.
4/The Holy Mother has cured those who were deeply taken by this ruse. When once there was submission to the draw of these acts, these find it is replaced with a genuine repugnance, and have gone on to a holy marriage and start natural loving biological families. An absolute cure would not occur if it was in any way in line with the Devine will. This is the key.
The OP has a question about the compounding effects of these acts. The audience is a bonus to Satan, as children who place all trust in a parent to teach and keep them away from evil influences, brings them in proximity to the evil being enacted. The parents are now culpable, as they attend knowing God is affronted by it. It becomes a case of a live ouija board performance enacted before them. Satan can make a case against the parents/adults and graces are withheld accordingly from them.
These players want the delectable of this world. But you will note they will not call the wager. She gave her promises and now waits. Not many will give Mary the benefit of the doubt and enter into the therapy of the Rosary. The more deeply committed, the more entrenched the “fix”.
Social exclusion is a consequence of deadly sins. There is hardly a scriptural page turned that doesn’t portray the consequences of wallowing in it. The most deadly effect is a life of spiritual desolation, where Satan provides all the world can give, keeping the victim from discerning and asking for help and reconciliation. The sun shines, and he experiences good fortune. Meanwhile the days count down, both for this world and his days to accountability.
Last edited:
E
exnihilo
Guest
People today are being jailed for showing just such love by being married. This isn’t an abstract question but a present day reality. All the proponents of ‘love is love’ sit by while people are prosecuted by the state for ‘expressing their love’. It shows what hypocrites they are. They just want homosexual ‘marriage’ and they’ll do and sacrifice anything for that. These are dark times.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
If there are lots of brothers and sisters and brothers and brothers and sisters and sisters and parents and children who want to get married and they can convince a majority of the public or a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court that legal civil marriages should be extended to them, I would have no objections to these marriages.
Last edited:
L
LilyM
Guest
When America was founded the majority of its citizens supported slavery and were against the vote for poor people (ie non property-owners) and women. Popular opinion is a very poor basis on which to build morality.Dacinom:
The difference is that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage (62%) based on a poll last year. And three years ago there were about 390, 000 same-sex marriages in the US. But I don’t know of any people who want to marry their children or their parents (although I’m sure that there are some). I doubt that the idea is going to catch on, so it’s unlikely that anyone will have to grapple with whether they should attend an incestuous marriage.WillPhillips:
What if I my adult son and I claimed to be in love and wanted to get married? Would people here on this forum attend the wedding? Accepting that it’s really all about love between two adults and people shouldn’t judge?
Last edited:
T
Thorolfr
Guest
And many Catholics also supported slavery, including Saint Augustine, a Doctor of the Church. Was St. Augustine immoral or just a product of his times?
And as for popular opinion, well, laws in democracies are often based on popular opinion. People elect representatives and presidents who pass laws. And presidents appoint Supreme Court justices and other lower court judges who interpret the constitution and the laws. And civil marriage is regulated by laws and all of this process is influenced by popular opinion to some extent. It’s unlikely that the Supreme Court would have ruled the way they did if a majority of Americans were against same-sex marriage. By the time of their decision in 2015, more than half of Americans supported same-sex marriage. So, that’s just the system we have to work with.
L
LilyM
Guest
We’re not taking about secular law but morality. The two.of course aren’t the same. I hope you wouldn’t expect someone who literally believes abortion is murder to share in the joy of someone else who sees it as a ‘sacrament’ as I’ve heard some describe it.
St Augustine, great as he was, is not put forward by anyone as being infallible in all his beliefs and teachings. Many equally great theologians disagree with him.on many things.
Mind you, there seem to have been some significant differences between slavery as practiced in 4th century Rome and as practiced in 19th century America.
St Augustine, great as he was, is not put forward by anyone as being infallible in all his beliefs and teachings. Many equally great theologians disagree with him.on many things.
Mind you, there seem to have been some significant differences between slavery as practiced in 4th century Rome and as practiced in 19th century America.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Why do a lot of people need to want this? Isn’t just one couple that can’t express its true love through marriage a gross injustice? If people fought for the ‘dignity’ of same sex ‘marriage’ even though there are few same sex ‘marriages’ why shouldn’t they fight for these marriages? It seems to me pretty selfish to not fight for it.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
You’re gettign really hung up on a single word of my post. Would it make you feel better if I changed it to “Grave mistake?”
The point is that it is not loving or good to support someone in an immoral pursuit.
The point is that it is not loving or good to support someone in an immoral pursuit.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Exactly.
The real issue here is having a black and white rule for everything — even within the Catholic context of the teaching of marriage.
There is simply no single way of approaching this question, even from the Catholic perspective.
The real issue here is having a black and white rule for everything — even within the Catholic context of the teaching of marriage.
There is simply no single way of approaching this question, even from the Catholic perspective.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Yes, that was wrong.
E
edwest211
Guest
Not true at all. The relevant portion of a much longer document.
“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.*
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.*
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
T
Thorolfr
Guest
To say that civil same-sex marriage is “unjust” as opposed to just being something that the Catholic Church disagrees with seems to me to be an odd use of the word “unjust”. Unjust to who? Sometimes I can’t figure the Catholic Church out. In the Catechims, it says the gay people should “be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” and then in another document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Church also appears to maintain that it is perfectly OK to deny gay people who don’t conceal their sexual orientation housing and employment and perhaps even to lock them up or restrict their rights for the “common good” which I think that most Americans would definitely consider unjust. In one document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith it says:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...faith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html
I’m not sure what would be considered “objectively disordered external conduct”. Would two gay men who present themselves in public as a same-sex couple or hold hands or kiss each other in public be considered to be engaging in “objectively disordered external conduct” which might merit them having some of their rights restricted? Does the Catholic Church consider that kind of behavior to be similar to someone who is “mentally ill”?
- Status