Does a person have to believe in literal burning hell to be Catholic

[Pup7]

In what regard? Doctrine how?

 

[laylow]

In what regard? Doctrine how?

You said slavery was a political issue not church doctrine. Is homosexuality a political issue or church doctrine?

 

[Pup7]

And you’re not answering the question

Doctrine HOW? Because it’s not and never has been a political issue.

What is it you’re fishing for here?

Chuckling because I see what corner you’re attempting to lock me into.

 

[laylow]

And you’re not answering the question

Doctrine HOW? Because it’s not and never has been a political issue.

What is it you’re fishing for here?

You don’t think homosexuality rights are a political issue? What rock are hiding under?

 

[laylow]

Chuckling because I see what corner you’re attempting to lock me into.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[Pup7]

Not to the Church they’re not. Not a political issue in the least to the Catholic Church.

No rock, for the record. Nice try, though.

 

[laylow]

Not to the Church they’re not.

So then if gay marriage is allowed, there would not need to be any church teaching changed to allow for it then.

 

[Pup7]

Gay marriage isn’t political to the Catholic Church.

What makes you think it is?

 

[laylow]

Gay marriage isn’t political to the Catholic Church.

What makes you think it is?

I don’t understand what political to the church means, definition please.

 

[Pup7]

Oh stop it.

You know very well the Church is not wrapped up in the politics of gay marriage. You don’t need a definition of apolitical for the CC and you’re aware you don’t.

You also know very well the Church sees gay marriage as against natural law and the word of God.

 

[laylow]

You also know very well the Church sees gay marriage as against natural law and the word of God.

So slavery is not against natural law and the word of God?

 

[Pup7]

The Church sees gay marriage as a violation of the Sacrament. Not a political topic.

In that regard, slavery isn’t the same.

Slavery has also never been essential teaching or part of the rules of being Catholic, which is what doctrine encompasses.

Slavery is an abomination against human rights. Yes. You know we both know that.

 

[laylow]

The Church sees gay marriage as a violation of the Sacrament.

In that regard, slavery isn’t the same.

Slavery has also never been essential teaching or part of the rules of being Catholic, which is what doctrine encompasses.

And you see no issue in the church emphasizing the “problem” of homosexuality but glaringly failing to admit the problem of slavery?

 

[Pup7]

Nope.

The issues are not the same in this case. Not in the least.

They’re not “emphasizing” the “problem”.

 

[laylow]

Nope.

The issues are not the same in this case. Not in the least.

It’s not a wonder that outsiders of the faith look down at such logic with disdain.

 

[Pup7]

For your edification. I went to the trouble of actually using Google. There are hundreds more statements out there.

http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-policy/the-catholic-church-and-human-trafficking-policy.cfm

http://www.usccb.org/about/anti-trafficking-program/

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...c_migrants_pom105_statement-human-barnes.html

I guess you’ve read NONE of this, then?

Looks like they have a policy and a position.

But it does not belong in the CCC, as that’s not what the CCC is for.

 

[Pup7]

Pup7:

Nope.

The issues are not the same in this case. Not in the least.

It’s not a wonder that outsiders of the faith look down at such logic with disdain.

Then apparently they’re incapable of researching topics for themselves.

It’s not a wonder that those who do wonder about those who don’t.

The CCC isn’t where that sort of thing is discussed. As I said, Google is a great tool for learning more about a subject. I typed “Catholic position on human trafficking” and got a ton of hits.

Enjoy your reading.

 

[laylow]

But it does not belong in the CCC, as that’s not what the CCC is for.

Obviously not, because at the time, church leaders were perfectly OK with slavery and had slaves themselves. The thinking changed, but they didn’t want to make it look like “church teaching” changed so they include it elsewhere.

 

[Pup7]

As did many other religious leaders of the time. 21st century filters never fit on 19th century (and before) topics very well.

It was viewed differently by many at the time. Doesn’t make it right. Didn’t make it right then.

However, DOCTRINE tells one how to be a Catholic. NOT how to own slaves.

You’re not acknowledging what doctrine is actually for. What about the Northern Catholics of that era? They thought slavery was wrong. I guess they should’ve owned them as well according to you.

 

[laylow]

As did many other religious leaders of the time. 21st century filters never fit on 19th century (and before) topics very well.

It was viewed differently by many at the time. Doesn’t make it right. Didn’t make it right then.

However, DOCTRINE tells one how to be a Catholic. NOT how to own slaves.

It seems that not owning slaves would be a pretty important tenet of being a good moral Catholic.