Dramatic move as Synod Fathers set out new pastoral care for gays, cohabiting couples and divorcees

[PeopleB4Things]

What we are discussing is the Church. Christ’s infallible Church. Forget the discovery channel stuff for a moment. This isn’t a science argument (my degree was in the arts anyway!). If the Church changes something in its teaching that is so huge as this, what other truth will be changed? In order to change, that means something was wrong. The Church was wrong? How’d that happen? What else might be wrong in the Church? What else needs to be “progressed?” What is the state of all the souls that followed the wrong teaching?

I guess I’m the only idiot bothered by this very oversimplified logical stroll?

There are things in the bible that we ditch because what it asks us to do is immoral. How can we ignore those parts of the bible without acknowledging that the writers were wrong? Many excuse these things by encouraging us to read the bible within a historical context. If that’s the way to go, we can pretty much ditch the whole book. The writers may have been guided by God but we can point to hundreds of examples where they indulged their own personal beliefs. Popes have fathered children. We’ve sold indulgences. Catholics have murdered so many people in the name of Christ. I’m an idiot if I think that our Church is infallible by even the most oversimplified logical definition. We are all sinners. Past and present. With the exception of Jesus and Mary, every Christian leader, every bible author, every Pope, every single person who has every lived, every brick in our Church reeks of fallibility. And with that, we are a working toward God. We can only stop progressing, fixing, building our faith when we reach God. We can stroll through life with wispy, happy, contented thoughts that our Church is infallible or we can work hard to bring our Church in union with the message of Christ. I agree with our Pope that we have a lot of work to do because we are far from the path.

 

[EIF5A]

There are things in the bible that we ditch because what it asks us to do is immoral. How can we ignore those parts of the bible without acknowledging that the writers were wrong? Many excuse these things by encouraging us to read the bible within a historical context. If that’s the way to go, we can pretty much ditch the whole book. The writers may have been guided by God but we can point to hundreds of examples where they indulged their own personal beliefs. Popes have fathered children. We’ve sold indulgences. Catholics have murdered so many people in the name of Christ. I’m an idiot if I think that our Church is infallible by even the most oversimplified logical definition. We are all sinners. Past and present. With the exception of Jesus and Mary, every Christian leader, every bible author, every Pope, every single person who has every lived, every brick in our Church reeks of fallibility. And with that, we are a working toward God. We can only stop progressing, fixing, building our faith when we reach God. We can stroll through life with wispy, happy, contented thoughts that our Church is infallible or we can work hard to bring our Church in union with the message of Christ. I agree with our Pope that we have a lot of work to do because we are far from the path.

That message of Christ does not equal “Gay marriage is allowed” or “Gays can now engage in physical acts”.

He said, “Go and sin no more”, not “I’m fine with you just the way you are living at the moment, continue on your way.”

 

[ynotzap]

The act of homosexuality is always sinful, the homo-sexual may or may not have sinned depending on the three conditions of mortal sin. Pope Francis is emphasizing on accepting homo-sexuals, lesbiens,and those who engage in same-sex marriage, and co-habitats with human dignity and friendship. He still emphasizes that the acts are still immoral, and always will be. We must separate the sin from the sinner, condemn the act, but not the actor. Also to the best of my memory, he spoke on those that divorce, that they are still members of the Faith. There is no real earthquake, but to those who don’t understand it might seem that way. Jesus always taught us to love our neighbor, even if he is a sinner, we are all sinners in need of healing and forgiveness. This in general is all I know, there probably is more.

 

[alwaysthinkin]

I’m not sure why you would ditch the whole book if you read the Bible(written by human hands and inspired by God Himself) just because you place it in a historical context–that is, the beginning of Christianity through the new Covenant?

No matter.

The Church is infallible in matters of faith, teaching, and doctrine. And I know you know that’s what I meant.

Sinful Popes, bloody Crusades, etc have no real place in this discussion. Moving toward God is largely an individual journey, that is necessarily informed and guided by the Church. If the Church changes rules from time to time it is no longer the suppository of knowledge and truth. That’s the logical inconsistency here.

And no one said we as individuals aren’t sinners. The bride of Christ on the other hand? Different story.

Again, that’s why change (or in this case, the whiff of suggestion of such a change–we’re not talking about a trivial matter here like what kind of detergent you can use to wash vestments) is inherently problematic. Change = fixing or improving something that wasn’t right. Something that wasn’t right = wrong. Wrong? And back at the beginning we go.

 

[alwaysthinkin]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

That message of Christ does not equal “Gay marriage is allowed” or “Gays can now engage in physical acts”.

He said, “Go and sin no more”, not “I’m fine with you just the way you are living at the moment, continue on your way.”

 

[EIF5A]

I’m not sure why you would ditch the whole book if you read the Bible(written by human hands and inspired by God Himself) just because you place it in a historical context–that is, the beginning of Christianity through the new Covenant?

No matter.

The Church is infallible in matters of faith, teaching, and doctrine. And I know you know that’s what I meant.

Sinful Popes, bloody Crusades, etc have no real place in this discussion. Moving toward God is largely an individual journey, that is necessarily informed and guided by the Church. If the Church changes rules from time to time it is no longer the suppository of knowledge and truth. That’s the logical inconsistency here.

And no one said we as individuals aren’t sinners. The bride of Christ on the other hand? Different story.

Again, that’s why change (or in this case, the whiff of suggestion of such a change–we’re not talking about a trivial matter here like what kind of detergent you can use to wash vestments) is inherently problematic. Change = fixing or improving something that wasn’t right. Something that wasn’t right = wrong. Wrong? And back at the beginning we go.

Change = Making sure the other party understands what is being said or not said.

If something is not clear, then clarify it to avoid misunderstanding and hurt that stems from it. Change is not a bad thing. Butterflies come from change. Are you saying butterflies, which God created, are bad?

The Mass is said in vernacular. The horrific CHANGE

 

[alwaysthinkin]

Change = Making sure the other party understands what is being said or not said.

If something is not clear, then clarify it to avoid misunderstanding and hurt that stems from it. Change is not a bad thing. Butterflies come from change. Are you saying butterflies, which God created, are bad?

The Mass is said in vernacular. The horrific CHANGE

Touché!

However, being born after Vatican 2, I must say the idea of a universal language to unite all the world’s Catholics would have been pretty cool, if they pursued that angle instead. live in a Greek neighborhood and I think it’s awesome the way they all seem to grow up around the faith and the language no matter where in the World they were raised.

Imagine American, Italian, African, Asian Catholics being able to get together and have not just the faith but a language to unite them. C’mon you know that’d be awesome!

 

[anon99031074]

The Church is infallible in matters of faith, teaching, and doctrine.

"“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” - Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII

“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.” - Second Vatican Council

 

[gracepoole]

That message of Christ does not equal “Gay marriage is allowed” or “Gays can now engage in physical acts”.

He said, “Go and sin no more”, not “I’m fine with you just the way you are living at the moment, continue on your way.”

But of course, He didn’t say anything about homosexuality.

Well, thank you, head of the Polish Bishops, for what it is worth. The liberal bishops will get pretty much anything they want as they have Pope Francis - my prediction. And we also need to emphasize that this is JUST THE BEGINNING. This will go on for years. And I think we can all see the road pretty clearly. I think this is a historic day for Church, we can all agree on that much. I do think she is now in full retreat - where do I sign up for the counter-reformation?

I’ve always disliked the terms “liberal” and “conservative” in discussions of the Church. All of the bishops are guided by the same Holy Spirit.

 

[dfp42]

What? What kind of double talk is this, the church has never said that gay relationships are immoral while at the same time saying that the sex is immoral. What do you think relationship means? That they blow bubbles together and go on walks??? So tell me what exactly does homo sexuality entail that isn’t evil if it defining feature is the sexuality??

Lol

 

[alwaysthinkin]

"“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” - Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII

“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.” - Second Vatican Council

Am I being called out in some way?

 

[SMGS127]

What? What kind of double talk is this, the church has never said that gay relationships are immoral while at the same time saying that the sex is immoral. What do you think relationship means? That they blow bubbles together and go on walks??? So tell me what exactly does homo sexuality entail that isn’t evil if it defining feature is the sexuality??

Sex is only a small part of same-sex relationships, and it is indeed non-existent in many. The main “defining feature” of a same-sex relationship is their commitment and love to one another through sickness and other hard times. One does not need to have sex to achieve this, and indeed, these goods are being recognized by the Church. The Church is not supporting non-marital sexual acts but merely pointing out that for every evil conservatives feel the need to point out, there are hundreds of goods that are neglected in the rush to remove the speck from others’ eyes.

 

[alwaysthinkin]

There’s that C word again.

 

[alwaysthinkin]

It’s still the biggest hair splitting session of all time. Sex, the physical expression of love, between two persons of the same sex is still a sin…but the physically unexpressed love (that would otherwise be expressed through sex between a man and a woman barring medical obstacles), that longs to be expressed through sex (in all likelihood, not a huge leap here) between those same two persons is good to go.

This is a joke by even a 4th grade philosophy student. I don’t know how we are supposed to accept this if this is the final word (I know I know, we won’t get that far until next year). It’s either okay or it’s not. Period. That razor edge “argument” is laughable.

 

[gracepoole]

It’s still the biggest hair splitting session of all time. Sex, the physical expression of love, between two persons of the same sex is still a sin…but the physically unexpressed love (that would otherwise be expressed through sex between a man and a woman barring medical obstacles), that longs to be expressed through sex (in all likelihood, not a huge leap here) between those same two persons is good to go.

This is a joke by even a 4th grade philosophy student. I don’t know how we are supposed to accept this if this is the final word (I know I know, we won’t get that far until next year). It’s either okay or it’s not. Period. That razor edge “argument” is laughable.

I think SMGS127 summed it up nicely:

Sex is only a small part of same-sex relationships, and it is indeed non-existent in many. The main “defining feature” of a same-sex relationship is their commitment and love to one another through sickness and other hard times. One does not need to have sex to achieve this, and indeed, these goods are being recognized by the Church. The Church is not supporting non-marital sexual acts but merely pointing out that for every evil conservatives feel the need to point out, there are hundreds of goods that are neglected in the rush to remove the speck from others’ eyes.

Just because it’s a more complex reality doesn’t mean it’s not reality.

 

[alwaysthinkin]

I think SMGS127 summed it up nicely:

Just because it’s a more complex reality doesn’t mean it’s not reality.

If logic of that caliber was used against you in a summary judgement in a court of law, you’d lose your mind, file an appeal, and win. And you know it.

 

[Stephen_says]

But of course, He didn’t say anything about homosexuality.

Mark 10:5But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6“But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7“FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH

That kind of sounds like Jesus rejecting homosexuality.

 

[gracepoole]

If logic of that caliber was used against you in a summary judgement in a court of law, you’d lose your mind, file an appeal, and win. And you know it.

I actually don’t think I do. I don’t see anything faulty from the Church’s perspective in what SMGS127 has explained.

 

[alwaysthinkin]

I actually don’t think I do. I don’t see anything faulty from the Church’s perspective in what SMGS127 has explained.

Okay Grace. Agree to disagree. I maintain that a flimsy argument like that is insulting.

God bless

 

[gracepoole]

Mark 10:5But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6“But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7“FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH

That kind of sounds like Jesus rejecting homosexuality.

It kind of sounds like Jesus speaking of heterosexual marriage.