G
guanophore
Guest
Maybe you are embarrassed to admit that you might be wrong?
- Status
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Relationship success rates say otherwise.
This is an ad nauseum argument. Also, if so-called gay “marriage” is so great, why do people have to trash straight marriage to make them look good? Can’t gay relationships stand on their own merit?
Aye, there’s the rub.First off, I’m a former Catholic, Agnostic, Jew, then back to Catholicism and now back to Agnosticism. If that makes any senseI want to believe there is something bigger and better and that Love will transcend death, BUT I must say that even while I was a Catholic most thought of me as the “cafeteria” variety.
O
OsculeturMeOsculo
Guest
Was this thread truly necessary?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Sticks and stones, Simon. I’m a slave to the truth as I see it.Vonsalza:
Spoken like a true Catholic-in-name-only liberal…
Verily.
Occasionally some of the vast, vast majority of Catholics who think the Church errs on one thing or another do occasionally wander on here.
Are any of them?Was this thread truly necessary?
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
So do you suggest that we have a bunch of people put their hands on dead bodies and pray them to life?
We can call it “resurrection therapy”?
Last edited:
V
vsedriver
Guest
So much work? actually it is the most freeing thing in the world. Not only is obeying God not hard, it comes with enormous personal rewards. Sexual pleasure will always be very secondary. Because pleasing God is always primary in all that we do. The pursuit of sexual pleasure for its own sake is riddled with disappointments and regrets. Sexual pleasure is the icing on the cake but the important part is the cake. Being chaste, even in Marriage is the cake. Nothing enhances the taste of frosting so much as to have it on a delicious cake.
V
vsedriver
Guest
not a sin unless his intention was to climax outside his wife. Accidents do happen.
V
vsedriver
Guest
Jesus was single and celibate. Are you saying he had no authority to teach about sex, marriage and family? Was St. Paul, also a single, celibate incapable of teaching on sex, marriage and family?
All these answers simply illustrate the desire of the individual to be in charge of their life, rather than letting God be in charge of their life. If I’m in charge, and I’m a good person, then when I engage in this behavior it is not a sin. Even if the church founded by Christ, given authority by Christ, and teaching what Christ taught says otherwise.
Either something is a sin or it isn’t. It can’t be OK for you to steal and not OK for me to steal. Sexual morality is important to the happiness of everyone, not just to the individual.
V
vsedriver
Guest
condoms have a failure rate and don’t protect against all STDs.
V
vsedriver
Guest
which is why Jesus gave us a church instead of just a book. The church is the arbitrator of what scripture means.
V
vsedriver
Guest
all of the above can easily be attained by a visit with a lawyer. The only reason to circumvent this process is to proclaim 2 men are no different than a man and a woman. Their unions are completely different in nature, function and in purpose.
If the law is supposed to apply equally to everyone then I need to know what makes the union of 2 men the same as the union of a man and a woman. Because you can also argue that if you give marital privileges to two unrelated men then why can’t you give marital privileges to two related men? Marriage is only about sexual activity when it concerns a man and a woman because of the fact that only a man and a woman can produce a child. Marriage is for the benefit of children. And this is what makes marriage unique as a human institution. This is why the state gives married people privileges. The state doesn’t require you to have sex with your spouse and doesn’t even require you to love your spouse.
So if two unrelated men can have the same marital rights as a man and a woman then I believe this right should be extended to all. Including two siblings who live together, a parent-adult child, or multiple partners.
Fair is fair after all.
K
KindredSoul
Guest
It is true. The arguments from ambiguity of the text seem fundamentally to presume a Jewish or Protestant dogma that God’s chief and sole authoritative means of communication is through the written word of scripture. Which is fair for an individual, given that meltzerboy is Jewish (if I recall, as I’ve been away from CAF for a while until the past month) for example and so his point may be fair from his own religious perspective, but it fails as a point in a debate with Catholics about what is compatible with our religion, since we don’t believe in Scripture alone. I’ve had others make this error when trying to convince me my (Catholic) Faith doesn’t demand of me to believe what I think it does, because “technically this scripture COULD be read differently.” That’s only relevant if I believe Sola Scriptura. Because even if scripture can be hypothetically argued to be less than black and white on some issues, the Catholic Dogma on many of the hot topics of our day certainly is explicit and clear.
If one insists that anything where scripture is vague/arguable is open to disagreement, and that no religious authority exists with the right to make a decision on it that binds everyone, they just have to remember that, while that’s fair from a Scripture Only perspective, if we believed that, we wouldn’t be Catholic. So it’s premature to make such appeals to us as long as we are Catholic.
Last edited:
V
vsedriver
Guest
that makes no difference to me. At one time the face of the Church was heavily Jewish, then Greek, then Roman… The real future face of the Catholic Church will be of members who follow Christ and not their own personal inclinations.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
And you think that the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, will be able to explain Jesus’ (who was not a normal human being, but God incarnate) resurrection?
We are not dealing with the natural world here. We are dealing with God (who happens to transcend the natural and physical world and it’s reasoning sometimes) who also did miracles and wonders that can’t be explained by science. He also resurrected, so the fact that his body isn’t here to study, means one cannot use science to learn anything about his resurrection, considering a specimen or body is needed for analysis.
Last edited:
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
First, welcome back! Second, you are correct in that I am considering this issue from a Jewish perspective (notice I did not say THE Jewish perspective). Third, I am NOT appealing to any of you who are Catholic to adopt MY perspective, as I stated in one of my prior posts on this thread. Rather, I was offering a Jewish viewpoint, albeit not an Orthodox Jewish one, and responding to another member’s point. Finally, Judaism (except for the Karaite Jews), like Catholicism, is NOT a sola Scriptura religion in the Protestant sense. If it were, it would rely ONLY on the plain meaning of the text. However, as in many other instances, Judaism does not fit neatly into the sola vs. non-sola Scriptural debate. On the one hand, as I noted, it is not sola Scriptural in the Protestant sense since it does rely also on the Oral Law to fill in the omissions in the Written Law, that is, on traditional, authoritative, rabbinical interpretations of the Written Law. On the other hand, however, there is no central authority as in Catholicism, and so Jewish interpretations can and do vary, while attempting not to depart from what the Law commands. To make matters even more complicated, there are streams of Judaism which conceive of the religion in somewhat different ways. There are certain dogmatic matters within Judaism that all streams virtually agree on, but many other matters which they do not. Judaism is NOT a religion for those who desire one explicit central ruling on mostly every matter of faith and doctrine. There is room for different interpretations on many items. But let me reiterate that I am NOT here to change anyone’s mind on the issue of homosexuality or any other issue.
Last edited:
V
vsedriver
Guest
where has the Catholic Church been wrong on faith and morals?
If they disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church how does that make the teaching wrong? Are matters of faith and morals decided by majority vote?
I would say if they disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches then their disagreement is not guided by the Holy Spirit as it would make Jesus out to be a liar.
But the church can’t err on matters of faith and morals. If the church can err in matters of faith and morals then there is no reason to believe in anything the church teaches.
We come back to the question of who is in charge when it comes to faith and morals? The church or the individual? As for myself, I will go with what Jesus taught which is that he gave authority to his apostles who passed that authority on to his successors and he promised that the Holy Spirit will guide his church.
I have no animosity toward anyone who suffers with SSA. I have loved ones who have SSA. I believe they are called to live a chaste life just like I am. Marriage is a vocation. Not all are called to this vocation. No one ever died from lack of sexual contact. Single people can live full, loving, lives filled with loved ones and die as virgins. No one is less of a person simply because they aren’t married.
V
vsedriver
Guest
doesn’t work that way with faith and morals. Scripture says that many are called but few will be chosen. Many will cry Lord Lord but the Lord will say I do not know you.
So not having a huge number in consensus doesn’t mean that the minority position is in error.
G
guanophore
Guest
Are you as willing to apply this standard to heterosexual couples?
I must admit, it does make the head spin!
Then you either never had, or lost your Catholicity. The One Faith is not a democracy, where those who wish to declare themselves part of it get to choose the platform or vote. It was handed down to us by those to whom Jesus entrusted it. One cannot start unravelling parts of it without unravelling the whole.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Jesus was also God. Which is why your comparison breaks down.Vonsalza:
Jesus was single and celibate.
I think virtually all of the Christians that disagree with Catholic sexual restrictions still have bibles that include Pauline epistles…
Right. What’s being argued is essentially the moral equivalent of the Gettier Problem.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Apparently the 1963 Pontifical Commission on Birth Control was was wrong.
Looking at the ancient ecumenical councils, it would seem that the answer is at least a partial “yes”.
This isn’t proof or even a good argument for anything. This is just you doubling-down on faith. Which is fine, I guess, but it doesn’t address the issue.
That’s a great question that doesn’t have a consistent answer across Christian history since there have been heretical popes who have sat in the Petrine seat.
And when cornered, the Catholic definition of what classifies an object of “faith” or an object of “morals” can maybe become a little diffuse as a polemic survival mechanism.
Sure. Some would argue that Church isn’t the Catholic one, though. Respectfully. And some would argue it is, but it is as fallible as the men that administer it.
Last edited:
- Status