Can Catholics believe in Civil Partnerships?

[Christopher68]

What is the basis of civil partnerships? Science or not? If two gay men want to adopt, what do they tell the judge? Do you know why the Church teaches what it does?

Church teaching does not exist in a vacuum, and the Church isn’t forcing anyone to accept it, but I think everyone should know it.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Right now, people around the world are doing whatever they want. They don’t need anybody’s permission, but when any group wants to radically redefine something then that needs to be looked at correctly.

Peace,
Ed

Ed,

I didn’t address the issue of partnerships in my reply to your post, as your post did not mention them. But if you would be interested in re-reading my prior post and responding to the questions that I posed (i.e. how someone could possibly “choose” to become a persecuted minority), I will be happy to reply further after reading your answers.

 

[BlueShadow123]

He probably does; he probably also thinks that if another person willfully decides to disobey this it is that person’s own choice.

I’m not a ‘He’, and yes, freethinker that is correct. I know exactly what God has to say about gay sex, but I have recently concluded that people are more than likely born gay, and if they want to have gay sex, that is their choice. Not mine.

Now please before anybody responds, lets not compare homosexuality to abortion or pedophilia or murder like some people try to do, because thats just ridiculous.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I used to think like you guys did until I realized that based on all the studies done, there is no way that they make a choice. Some may subconciously without knowing it due to some sort of childhood trauma, but then they would obviously not think they choose it.

Did you guys even read half the stuff I posted?

I USED to believe people made the choice, until recently after looking at the data for myself and talking to quite a few gay people.

I suggest we get some gay people IN this thread rather than debate me about it. I’m not even gay OR a scientists, so I’m not the person to debate.

However, I have provided you guys with loads of links and videos, if you don’t want to watch it, whatever. Thats your choice, but quit telling me to provide you with ‘studies’ when I already HAVE. Also too, there is much more out there, so you can study up for yourself. And I never said there was a ‘gay’ gene. I have said numerous times, it would have to do with hormones.

Now a big reason why I used to think people chose it is because God condemns homosexuality. He says it is detestable. Because of that, I had a very very very very hard time believing God would EVER allow somebody to be born gay. I just don’t think it would be right, and even now I am stumped to a point, but did much research on it.

So quit jumping all over my back when I seem to be the only person in this tread who actually posted tons of links and videos. Also too, like I said, I am not the person to debate with. Go get some gay people in this thread and talk to them about it. I know there are some here because I’ve seen them posting in threads, admitting they were gay, so go talk to them. Its best to study up from the person who actually has the problem than somebody who doesn’t.

BlueShadow,

The list of links you provided are position papers on same sex behavior in animals, birds and insects, and abstracts on brain differences between straight men on one side and gay men and women on the other side. They all suggest or theorize that homosexuality has a biological basis. Surely, you have come across the counterarguments to these, so there is no use in repeating them here.

The video links have the same general content, except one with anecdotal accounts. It was hard to look at this one with 2 sets of parents with transgender kids (under 8 years old) raising their boys as girls. In fact, they changed their boy names to girl names. The implication is that they would accept hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgeries as soon as they get physicians to do it in the future.

Whether you believe that homosexuals are born that way, or are persuaded that hormone exposure during the brain development of the fetus insider the womb is the cause, you know that homosexual acts are considered sinful.

If you interact with or have homosexual friends in your social circle, I realize it must be hard to get into a discussion about the morality of acting on same sex attraction. I imagine preaching would be a deal breaker to your friendships. Anyway, you repeat in your posts that it is not your business, so you stay out of it. Yet, your sympathy for the homosexual cause is evident, you say you have no problem with gay marriage, that we better get used to it being legalized. On the other hand, you say that homosexuality is wrong. You say you are sick of these debates, then you provided a long list of links that you expect posters / readers should check out, all aligned with pro-gay issues.

The problem with getting gays on this thread (as they do and have in other threads on same sex issues) is that they expect to convince Catholics in this forum to abandon their belief about the sinfulness of homosexual acts. They identify so much with homosexual acts that they do not accept the Church teaching that the homosexual act, not the person with same sex attraction, is condemned. They disbelieve or accept with reservation the Church teaching that homosexuals are to be loved and treated with compassion.

What role you will take as a Christian among your friends is up to you. It seems that you participate a lot in this type of threads in this Catholic board and get into head-butting arguments with others who do not share your view.

FWIW, here is the relevant and verbatim part of Church doctrine on homosexual unions, as it relates to what Catholics should or should not do. I don’t know if you are Catholic, but you maintain you are a Christian who knows and accepts that homosexual acts are wrong.

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

 

[BlueShadow123]

BlueShadow,

The list of links you provided are position papers on same sex behavior in animals, birds and insects, and abstracts on brain differences between straight men on one side and gay men and women on the other side. They all suggest or theorize that homosexuality has a biological basis. Surely, you have come across the counterarguments to these, so there is no use in repeating them here.

The video links have the same general content, except one with anecdotal accounts. It was hard to look at this one with 2 sets of parents with transgender kids (under 8 years old) raising their boys as girls. In fact, they changed their boy names to girl names. The implication is that they would accept hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgeries as soon as they get physicians to do it in the future.

Whether you believe that homosexuals are born that way, or are persuaded that hormone exposure during the brain development of the fetus insider the womb is the cause, you know that homosexual acts are considered sinful.

If you interact with or have homosexual friends in your social circle, I realize it must be hard to get into a discussion about the morality of acting on same sex attraction. I imagine preaching would be a deal breaker to your friendships. Anyway, you repeat in your posts that it is not your business, so you stay out of it. Yet, your sympathy for the homosexual cause is evident, you say you have no problem with gay marriage, that we better get used to it being legalized. On the other hand, you say that homosexuality is wrong. You say you are sick of these debates, then you provided a long list of links that you expect posters / readers should check out, all aligned with pro-gay issues.

The problem with getting gays on this thread (as they do and have in other threads on same sex issues) is that they expect to convince Catholics in this forum to abandon their belief about the sinfulness of homosexual acts. They identify so much with homosexual acts that they do not accept the Church teaching that the homosexual act, not the person with same sex attraction, is condemned. They disbelieve or accept with reservation the Church teaching that homosexuals are to be loved and treated with compassion.

What role you will take as a Christian among your friends is up to you. It seems that you participate a lot in this type of threads in this Catholic board and get into head-butting arguments with others who do not share your view.

FWIW, here is the relevant and verbatim part of Church doctrine on homosexual unions, as it relates to what Catholics should or should not do. I don’t know if you are Catholic, but you maintain you are a Christian who knows and accepts that homosexual acts are wrong.

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

How many times do I have to post that I do not agree with homosexuality? I’ve said it numerous times so far.

As far as your other statements, I told you there is so much more information out there. You can research yourself.

Also too, I believe IF people are born gay, which studies point to that they are, then it has to do with hormones.

I do not know why God would allow somebody to be born this way though.

Please stop assuming things about me, thanks.

Actually better yet, quit responding to my posts. I’m not debating this anymore, its pointless. So forget my posts, okay? Thanks.

 

[edwest2]

Ed,

I didn’t address the issue of partnerships in my reply to your post, as your post did not mention them. But if you would be interested in re-reading my prior post and responding to the questions that I posed (i.e. how someone could possibly “choose” to become a persecuted minority), I will be happy to reply further after reading your answers.

You do not seem to be interested in knowing. “persecuted minority” is your label for all homosexuals. I have worked with homosexuals and did not persecute them or know others who wanted to persecute them. You may want to read this:

narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Christopher68]

You do not seem to be interested in knowing. “persecuted minority” is your label for all homosexuals. I have worked with homosexuals and did not persecute them or know others who wanted to persecute them. You may want to read this:

narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

Peace,
Ed

If this is the same link you provided earlier in the thread, I already read it.

The premise of your post is incorrect. I wouldn’t be asking you a question if I wasn’t interested in your response.

I’ll try again: You stated your opinion that homosexuality is a “choice.” Why would someone “choose” this?

 

[alacoque]

…I’ll try again: You stated your opinion that homosexuality is a “choice.” Why would someone “choose” this?

Hi Christopher: Me again…I got drawn back into this with a further question for you - You didn’t ask it of me (why someone would ‘choose’ same sex attraction) but I wanted to respond and pose a different ??

My quick answer to your question is, of course, that I don’t know…don’t know if anyone does. For some it may BE a choice (who really knows the human mind/will ??). Some may feel they are pre-determined and not feel they’re free to ‘choose’. The deeper answer, imo, is that there’s no ‘one size fits all’ here. This is a very complex issue, as human beings themselves are very complex. There are probably myriad reasons for homosexuality to exist and many different reasons why this or that person either finds themselves in the situation - or acts out/on it in their lives.

What I wanted to ask you about is this: For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that either A) a person IS ‘born that way’ or B) the tendency to same sex attraction ‘feels’ so fundamental and ‘having always been there’, that it amounts to the same thing. i.e. not a choice but ‘just the way they ARE’.

Assuming that premise, how is same sex attraction for homosexuals any different than the sexual attraction sins for heterosexuals (infidelity, adultery, lust, pornography, etc.)? For that matter, how are the particular struggles of the homosexual (re sin) different from those of all of humanity? (Homosexuals and heterosexuals [as well as all the ‘bi’. ‘trans’ and other variations] are subject to the same wounded human nature. Those who are not homosexual are also tempted to and predisposed to (concupiscence) sexual activities, sins against chasity, that are not moral and not permitted under God’s law for the realization and development of our full humanity and holiness. And, I might add, we all are attracted to a whole host of other sinful behaviors besides sexual!)

All of humanity - by virtue of original sin and so a fallen/wounded nature, struggles with conupiscence and to live a chaste life - which is required by God of ALL of us. In that sense, why are homosexuals and their struggles against sin any different from everyone else? Why is their struggle different from mine?

In many minds (not including you here, necessarily), the feeling is that because the ‘nature’ or ‘make-up’ of homosexuals creates in them a desire for same sex activity - or because they may not have a choice in being homosexual, they should be able to engage in the sexuality of their choice, and the heterosexual world should accept it because it’s ‘just the way they are made’. [Active] homosexuals maintain their sexual behavior should be seen as just as legit / viable as heterosexuality. But I’m ‘born’ the way I am, too - i.e. sinful and attracted to sin. So why doesn’t that reasoning apply to me?

I’m sure you’re familiar with the notion that homosexuality should be seen as ‘just another lifestyle’. If it IS just another lifestyle, then choice rears its ugly head again because one is not ‘coerced’ (by nature) into a lifestyle; we assume one ‘chooses’ a lifestyle. If it’s not a ‘lifestyle choice’, but is something these persons cannot control, then I’m back to why it’s ok to ‘normalize’ THEIR sin (by not calling it sin), when my sin is not and cannot be ‘normalized’.

In sum, if homosexuals are attracted to and desirous of a behavior that God clearly condemns, why and how is that any different from all the behaviors I am attracted to and desire, that God also condemns? I must struggle against my temptations daily - and they come from the same place the homosexual’s temptations and struggles come from - i.e. the way I was made; my fallen human nature. What of my free will? Not my free will regarding how I am made, but my free will regarding my actions and behavior? Are we not ALL responsible, before God, for our ACTIONS? Is my “natural inclination” sufficient reason for me to ‘act’ on whatever of those inclinations I want/feel?

My thought here is that maybe by taking this to ‘sin’, in general, and removing it specifically from the sexual arena - which is highly charged - we might see it in its true nature. It’s true that re homosexuality, we are discussing sexual sins - but by stepping back a little we see that sexual sin is just one more form of sin, period - and the struggle is ALWAYS against our ‘natural inclinations’. If we can address ourselves to sin itself (and not treat a specific ‘type’ of sin as though it stands alone) maybe we can broaden our views and ideas…and address the question of why, simply because an inclination is found in human nature, it is therefore ok to be acted on. I’m interested to hear your thoughts… thanks -

P.S. As always, the above refers only to the acting out of same sex attraction and not just the attraction itself. We all know the latter is not at all sinful.

 

[Christopher68]

Hi Christopher: Me again…I got drawn back into this with a further question for you - You didn’t ask it of me (why someone would ‘choose’ same sex attraction) but I wanted to respond and pose a different ??

My quick answer to your question is, of course, that I don’t know…don’t know if anyone does. For some it may BE a choice (who really knows the human mind/will ??). Some may feel they are pre-determined and not feel they’re free to ‘choose’. The deeper answer, imo, is that there’s no ‘one size fits all’ here. This is a very complex issue, as human beings themselves are very complex. There are probably myriad reasons for homosexuality to exist and many different reasons why this or that person either finds themselves in the situation - or acts out/on it in their lives.

What I wanted to ask you about is this: For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that either A) a person IS ‘born that way’ or B) the tendency to same sex attraction ‘feels’ so fundamental and ‘having always been there’, that it amounts to the same thing. i.e. not a choice but ‘just the way they ARE’.

Assuming that premise, how is same sex attraction for homosexuals any different than the sexual attraction sins for heterosexuals (infidelity, adultery, lust, pornography, etc.)? For that matter, how are the particular struggles of the homosexual (re sin) different from those of all of humanity? (Homosexuals and heterosexuals [as well as all the ‘bi’. ‘trans’ and other variations] are subject to the same wounded human nature. Those who are not homosexual are also tempted to and predisposed to (concupiscence) sexual activities, sins against chasity, that are not moral and not permitted under God’s law for the realization and development of our full humanity and holiness. And, I might add, we all are attracted to a whole host of other sinful behaviors besides sexual!)

In many minds (not including you here, necessarily), the feeling is that because the ‘nature’ or ‘make-up’ of homosexuals creates in them a desire for same sex activity - or because they may not have a choice in being homosexual, they should be able to engage in the sexuality of their choice, and the heterosexual world should accept it because it’s ‘just the way they are made’. [Active] homosexuals maintain their sexual behavior should be seen as just as legit / viable as heterosexuality. But I’m ‘born’ the way I am, too - i.e. sinful and attracted to sin. So why doesn’t that reasoning apply to me?

I’m sure you’re familiar with the notion that homosexuality should be seen as ‘just another lifestyle’. If it IS just another lifestyle, then choice rears its ugly head again because one is not ‘coerced’ (by nature) into a lifestyle; we assume one ‘chooses’ a lifestyle. If it’s not a ‘lifestyle choice’, but is something these persons cannot control, then I’m back to why it’s ok to ‘normalize’ THEIR sin (by not calling it sin), when my sin is not and cannot be ‘normalized’.

In sum, if homosexuals are attracted to and desirous of a behavior that God clearly condemns, why and how is that any different from all the behaviors I am attracted to and desire, that God also condemns? I must struggle against my temptations daily - and they come from the same place the homosexual’s temptations and struggles come from - i.e. the way I was made; my fallen human nature. What of my free will? Not my free will regarding how I am made, but my free will regarding my actions and behavior? Are we not ALL responsible, before God, for our ACTIONS? Is my “natural inclination” sufficient reason for me to ‘act’ on whatever of those inclinations I want/feel?

My thought here is that maybe by taking this to ‘sin’, in general, and removing it specifically from the sexual arena - which is highly charged - we might see it in its true nature. It’s true that re homosexuality, we are discussing sexual sins - but by stepping back a little we see that sexual sin is just one more form of sin, period - and the struggle is ALWAYS against our ‘natural inclinations’. If we can address ourselves to sin itself (and not treat a specific ‘type’ of sin as though it stands alone) maybe we can broaden our views and ideas…and address the question of why, simply because an inclination is found in human nature, it is therefore ok to be acted on. I’m interested to hear your thoughts… thanks -

Hello. Several points to comment on:

I always grimace when I hear the word “lifestyle” attached to homosexuality. This implies there is a “heterosexual” lifestyle, as if sex and/or sexuality defines how someone goes about their daily life.

With regard to your question about how the sins are different, it’s not necessarily the sins themselves that are different. The difference is that heterosexuals are told they can engage in relations under certain conditions, while homosexuals are told they should never engage in relations. They are in essence being told to deny who they are at their very core - someone who wants to find a life partner to love, share their life with, and grow old with. I’m trying to be empathetic and put myself in their shoes. Again, I’m commenting on the “attraction” as opposed to the “act.” There are many on this forum who are quick to condemn the sinner in addition to the sin, and who tend to be very flippant in their comments - i.e. it’s just a “choice” they are making, they’re “icky,” etc.

Your posts do an excellent job of explaining the Catholic position on this subject. However, there are many on this forum whose posts do not convey the Church’s teaching in the same positive manner, and to me that is a disservice to anyone who is viewing this forum and who struggles with SSA and who might be looking for guidance.

 

[edwest2]

“I can’t control myself.” is a lie. It means your genitals, not you, decide. Various sexual disease epidemics are curable if people limit their sexual activity to one person - for men, a wife. The guarantee is 100%. For single people, no sex. You won’t die - guaranteed.

People who are grossly overweight struggle with eating.

Smokers, who know their chances of heart disease and lung cancer are higher, try to quit smoking.

Alcoholics. Need I say more?

Self-control of your passions is part of becoming holy and for Catholics, holiness is not optional. I know - it’s easier to just give in and tell yourself I can’t be holy. All saints would disagree with you.

Peace,
Ed

 

[alacoque]

Christopher: Point taken re ‘lifestyle’! I kinda cringe too, but I couldn’t think of a better word to illustrate what I was referring to. Forgive me - I think we both know what we mean anyway. But…I know many homosexuals who DO define themselves solely (and proudly) by their sexuality. To hear them / know them, you would think their ‘selfhood’ involves nothing EXCEPT their sexuality! I used to live in SF, so my view may be colored by that. The point is that people who ARE their homosexuality (male and female) do exist and in great numbers. Since those aren’t those you’re talking about, I’ll leave it alone…just wanted to have that out there. Not all homosexuals are as you state.

You also point out a legit variable in making the distinction that, yes, in the case of homosexuals, it is a fact that they are being told they must refrain from activities and behaviors (in the case of active homosexuality) that ‘others’ (heterosexuals) are allowed. For me to be told I cannot steal is the same norm as for everyone, so your point is again taken. Now… I’m not a prude and I sure don’t want to come across as one, but that distinction (i.e. you guys can engage in the actions; you guys can’t), however, IS what God says - so we have to deal with it. I think that’s what you and I are trying to do here. I think we’re trying to accept God’s word and command while not chucking the people with same sex attraction out with the bathwater.

Btw, you said you were commenting on ‘the attraction’ and not ‘the actions’, so I take it we’re in agreement, totally, on that score. I think we both assent to the Church’s teaching that the attraction is not sinful and that no one, of any persuation, should encounter discrimination, harassment, or any lack of charity.

I admire your obvious empathy and compassion for those we’re discussing. It’s very commendable and shows that you have a heart of love. What I would say, though, is that we, all of us, need to be careful that we don’t get into ‘misplaced compassion’ so that our compassion leads us onto the dangerous slippery slope of accepting or condoning sin for any person. It is not charity to confirm someone in their sin. Since we’re already in agreement on the ‘attraction’ bit, and since you said you weren’t talking about ‘actions’, I don’t know if you would ever run the risk of ‘condoning’. It seems that you wouldn’t (altho you’d undoubtedly be torn about it).

Now, this next has to do with your distinction that homosexuals are told (under pain of sin) that they cannot engage in actions/behaviors that you feel are basic, human needs, and that’s what you feel is unfair. Since God can never be unfair or unjust, there must be more to it…

Here’s what I think that ‘more’ is: We are ALL called to live in chastity - to live a chaste life as regards our state of life. As we know, chastity does NOT mean no sex. It is much broader than that. There is consecrated chastity (celebacy), conjugal chastity (married fidelity) and the chastity that pertains to the single life. In all cases, the virtue of chastity is about being a fully integrated person, mastery of the self with ‘appropriate’ sexuality as integrated into the whole of ourselves and compatible with the honor and respect due God and, in His image and likeness, ourselves.

The Church’s teaching is as follows: (from the Catechism)

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman. The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift

2395 Chastity means the integration of sexuality within the person. It includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Behaviors that are not in keeping with chastity are sinful. I, as a single female, am not permitted, morally, the same behaviors as married people. The determiner is the virtue of chastity, not some arbitrary denial of something ‘everybody gets’. Everybody does NOT have rights to the SAME behaviors. We are permitted the behaviors that are legitimate to our state in life and are compatible with our love-relationship with God. We cannot maintain love with God if our actions are unloving toward ourselves or others. I would maintain that your love and charity towards homosexuals would compel you to want and seek their TRUE joy in this life and the salvation of their precious souls in the next - whatever that takes…

Let me know your thoughts, ok? Peace, Chris ----

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

… However, there are many on this forum whose posts do not convey the Church’s teaching in the same positive manner, and to me that is a disservice to anyone who is viewing this forum and who struggles with SSA and who might be looking for guidance.

If I may, let me add to the many good posts in reply to the points you raised, especially about choice:

Alcoholism is regarded by the AMA as both a medical and psychiatric condition. Medical doctors maintain that it is a brain disease based on altered brain structure and function. Not unlike those who now theorize from brain scans in studies that the etiology of homosexuality is the shape / symmetry of the brain, affecting the function of the amygdala.

So, an alcoholic has a propensity to indulge in alcohol. If/when he wants to turn his life around, avoids bars, counting the days, months, years that he consciously avoids the occasion to indulge, does he not exercise choice? We know that many marriages are destroyed by alcoholism, the alcoholic finding a lifetime partner in his dependence on the drink. Is the forbidden fruit for homosexuals (whether it would be a lifetime commitment to a same sex partner or different partners) something he could live without? Does it boil down to a choice of living with or without (the same way with individuals with a vow of celibacy like priests)?

Your empathy for the suffering of same-sex attracted people is appreciated. I just don’t know if, as you imply, that the manner on how the Church teaching on homosexuality is conveyed should be more important than the teaching itself. It is not what is said, but how it is said, in other words?

Going back to a phrase you used, persecuted minority, to describe homosexuals. It can no longer be said that they are persecuted, thankfully, since the removal of sodomy laws and extension of hate crime laws to cover sexual orientation, as a result of the Matthew Shepard tragedy. Everybody can see that the government and all sectors in society, business, schools, military, GLBT issues are being fought, with many battles going in their favor. The pendulum has swung too far on their side. Do you agree with this assessment?

Merry Christmas to one and all.
.

 

[Christopher68]

alacoque and InSearchOfGrace,

Thank you for your thoughtful posts. Christmas and family commitments preclude me from devoting the necessary time to compose a proper reply, but I did want to at least acknowledge and thank you for your posts.

 

[PattyisDucky]

I attend Mass with my elderly folks at their senior residence. I am Protestant, but am falling in love with the Catholic faith.

Regarding Civil Partnerships, I feel that although people are born with attraction toward the same sex, that if they want to remain faithful to God, they should abstain from sex.

What puzzles me is that there are two nuns at our church who are very liberal regarding same sex marriage, abortion, and other topics on the liberal agenda. They participate in the Mass as far as reading from the Missal, but rarely do they speak of spiritual matters. They are very much into the Arts and cultural events, and they are the leaders of an organization called “Woman’s Space”. I am confused as to how they are still considered nuns when they seem to not have a spiritual focus or direction. They are both very likeable, but I don’t feel that they represent the Catholic church well. Is this a common trend with some of the older nuns in the church?

 

[BlueShadow123]

I’m very interested to know what you think of what this guy says:

(I’m not saying i agree or disagree with him) I want to know what YOU think.

Do not refute him if you don’t watch through one if his videos though. At least watch one of them if you can, if you cannot then, don’t bother replying to this.

youtube.com/watch?v=UNssnfM1zFw

youtube.com/watch?v=Dgm4SXaEszU&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=PvYdG5_vcB8&feature=related

 

[alacoque]

I attend Mass with my elderly folks at their senior residence. I am Protestant, but am falling in love with the Catholic faith.

Regarding Civil Partnerships, I feel that although people are born with attraction toward the same sex, that if they want to remain faithful to God, they should abstain from sex.

What puzzles me is that there are two nuns at our church who are very liberal regarding same sex marriage, abortion, and other topics on the liberal agenda. They participate in the Mass as far as reading from the Missal, but rarely do they speak of spiritual matters. They are very much into the Arts and cultural events, and they are the leaders of an organization called “Woman’s Space”. I am confused as to how they are still considered nuns when they seem to not have a spiritual focus or direction. They are both very likeable, but I don’t feel that they represent the Catholic church well. Is this a common trend with some of the older nuns in the church?

Patty: Yes, this type of deviation from Catholic teaching, among the clergy, religious and lay persons, is sometimes common (depends on the location and parish, etc) in the Church. I am very happy for you, that you seem to be falling in love with the Catholic faith. As GK Chesterton said, “the Catholic Church is much bigger on the inside than on the outside” - and I’m sure, if you proceed in the direction you feel drawn to, you will find riches untold and a love you will never reach the end of! Don’t let the dissenters scare you off - the Church is full of sinners of all kinds - and that’s ok because it’s also where they will find salvation. Pray for them; that’s very powerful. The Church is perfect and all-holy in her Head, Jesus Christ and as the Church Triumphant (in heaven). Here, in the valley of tears, we slog along and strive for holiness.

I know it seems especially ‘wrong’ when those who are to be our leaders and models show their distain for the Church by open disobedience, and they give scandal to both Catholics and those, like you, who are looking in from the outside. But God loves them, too, enough to die for them - so we pray for them that, like the prodigal son, they will one day return.

I hope your current journey takes you all the way ‘home’ to the Church. God bless you on this journey.

 

[PattyisDucky]

Alaquoe, as you have said, the Church is perfect, flawless, sinless. It is supernatural and I need to not focus on the goings on and viewpoints of those who I know are in disobedience. Thank you so much for your answer. You are a wonderful witness for the Kingdom.

God bless you.

 

[alacoque]

Alaquoe, as you have said, the Church is perfect, flawless, sinless. It is supernatural and I need to not focus on the goings on and viewpoints of those who I know are in disobedience. Thank you so much for your answer. You are a wonderful witness for the Kingdom.

God bless you.

You are most welcome.

 

[comrade1789]

This is why I hate getting in debates about this because somebody always compares it to some other situation when you are harming another person.

Attacking somebody is PHYSICALLY HARMING THEM. it is not consensual.

A homosexual relationship between two adults is not physically hurting anyone and it is consenting.

There is a difference. You are out of your mind for comparing somebody getting attacked and murder to a homosexual relationship.

It does harm them, it harms everyone involved in the homosexual act, because it damns them to hell. By assenting to their behavior, by not speaking the truth in season and out of season, by not warning them of the dangers of hell, you are affirming them in their sin, helping to grease the rails to damnation for them, and posssibly yourself in the process.
1st Corinthians 6:9-10

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (meaning those who practice homosexual acts –comrade1789), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

So you may think that you are acting as the merciful one, the compassionate one, the reasonable one, by not warning the homosexuals of their sin, by affirming them in their sinful choices, but in reality, what you are doing is expressing the worst kind of hatred possible: helping someone go to hell. Or even worse than hatred, you are expressing indifference, for Jesus warns that those who are neither hot for him nor cold against him but lukewarm he will spew from his mouth. Spiritually speaking, I don’t know what being spewed from the mouth of God will feel like, but I am sure that those who will experience it will have wished rather to have committedly defied God than to side-step and white-wash the Gospel. If someone was up-fron and just sinister and cold, they would be a cup the Christ would never drink from. If they were hot, he would drink from that cup, even if they were too hot, just let the simmer down a bit. But the cup that professed to be His, to be Christian, but did not teach what he taught, and in fact taught things in direct conflict with his own teaching, He would bring to his lips but at the moment of tasting realize that it is not what it purported to be, and at once will be vomited out. Scripture uses very harsh words, not to be mean, and nor am i trying to be mean, but to spell it out as clear as possible. Just as Paul tried to do, saying DO NOT BE DECEIVED.

You are Christian, part of that means fulfilling your prophetic office imparted to you through your baptism, sharing with Christ as priest, prophet and king. This means calling people into repentance so they can receive ,and be received into the kingdom of God. As Fr. Corapi is fond of saying, the Gospel is like an electrical power source. If you don’t preach the positive with the negative, then there will be no power and the lights won’t come on.

 

[BlueShadow123]

Alaquoe, as you have said, the Church is perfect, flawless, sinless. It is supernatural and I need to not focus on the goings on and viewpoints of those who I know are in disobedience. Thank you so much for your answer. You are a wonderful witness for the Kingdom.

God bless you.

If you’re catholic, why does your religion say protestant.

 

[BlueShadow123]

It does harm them, it harms everyone involved in the homosexual act, because it damns them to hell. By assenting to their behavior, by not speaking the truth in season and out of season, by not warning them of the dangers of hell, you are affirming them in their sin, helping to grease the rails to damnation for them, and posssibly yourself in the process.
1st Corinthians 6:9-10

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (meaning those who practice homosexual acts –comrade1789), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

So you may think that you are acting as the merciful one, the compassionate one, the reasonable one, by not warning the homosexuals of their sin, by affirming them in their sinful choices, but in reality, what you are doing is expressing the worst kind of hatred possible: helping someone go to hell. Or even worse than hatred, you are expressing indifference, for Jesus warns that those who are neither hot for him nor cold against him but lukewarm he will spew from his mouth. Spiritually speaking, I don’t know what being spewed from the mouth of God will feel like, but I am sure that those who will experience it will have wished rather to have committedly defied God than to side-step and white-wash the Gospel. If someone was up-fron and just sinister and cold, they would be a cup the Christ would never drink from. If they were hot, he would drink from that cup, even if they were too hot, just let the simmer down a bit. But the cup that professed to be His, to be Christian, but did not teach what he taught, and in fact taught things in direct conflict with his own teaching, He would bring to his lips but at the moment of tasting realize that it is not what it purported to be, and at once will be vomited out. Scripture uses very harsh words, not to be mean, and nor am i trying to be mean, but to spell it out as clear as possible. Just as Paul tried to do, saying DO NOT BE DECEIVED.

You are Christian, part of that means fulfilling your prophetic office imparted to you through your baptism, sharing with Christ as priest, prophet and king. This means calling people into repentance so they can receive ,and be received into the kingdom of God. As Fr. Corapi is fond of saying, the Gospel is like an electrical power source. If you don’t preach the positive with the negative, then there will be no power and the lights won’t come on.

Hahaha. You honestly think that homosexuals don’t know what Christians have to say about this? Homosexuals know VERY well why Christians do not like what they do. Thats why gay marriage is illegal in so many places.

I am not going up to a gay person and telling them they are going to hell. You feel free to do it, but I’m not that rude.

I’m not one of those nutty protesters like the westboro church saying “God hates …”

Because thats simply not true, God hates the act, not the person. As of recently I believe people are born gay, now as for them having sex, that is their choice, not mine. But they ALL know what the bible has to say on it. Its a little hard for them not to, since thats the reason why its mostly illegal for them to get married and alot of gays are usually protested and told that what their doing is an abomination by their family and sometimes friends.

I refuse to go up to any gay person and tell them that they are damning their selves. They might not even be having sex. That is just rude and wrong. And based on what you have written, I’m sure you have told gays they are setting themselves up for damnation, and if thats what you want to do, fine, but I’m not going to randomly go up to somebody and say ‘hey, you’re going to hell, and heres why!’.

To me, that is unbelievably rude. Now if somebody was doing something to hurt another person, thats one thing, but I’m talking about two consenting adults (possibly having sex in private), I wouldn’t even know if they are or aren’t, plus other than their possible next life destination, its not hurting me physically or mentally.

Well, there is some physical problems with it, but I am not going to get onto that in this board because It has to do with how their ‘act’ is hurting them ‘physically’. But I dont think that would be allowed to speak about here, so I’m not getting into that. However it still their choice, some people obviously don’t care about their bodies. How sad.