Gay engagement party

[Corki]

Well actually yes.,To celebrate their sin, no. Depending on the circumstances Jesus would be where he was needed.

But you know that, don’t you. But go ahead, take it out of context. Do as you wish.

No, when Jesus encountered people engaged in sin, His reaction was righteous anger and condemnation. Individually, He sought to bring those sinners back into the fold but He would not have joined in a sinful activity or celebrated a sinful union.

 

[heaintheavy]

heaintheavy

**From what I understand, Jesus is not recorded as saying anything specific in the bible about homosexuality at all.
Can you give us the direct quotes? **

Well, obviously he doesn’t use the word “homosexuality” because that is a 20th century word. But at the heart of homosexuality is sex between men, and that is designated by the ancient term “sodomy” (oral or anal). Paul used the term as we use it today. Jesus would certainly have known the same use of it in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah.

“Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words–go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day.” Matthew 10:14

Jesus is looking for a horrible sin which is less horrible, but nearly as horrible, as the sin of refusing to hear the gospel. He found it in a comparison with the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, well known to be the sin of sodomy.

Paul advances the sin of sodomy as a great sin as well. Do you think Paul was not in tune with the teachings of Christ? Do you think he would even think of contradicting the teachings of Christ?

So…that is all Jesus said? Those two vague sentences? There must be more, non?
And what about women together? That is not sodomy…so…?

 

[heaintheavy]

I would attend. A lifetime of bitterness, anger, and hardness of heart would far outweigh my desire to observe the letter of the law, however righteous that observance may be. The sacrament of matrimony is hardly threatened by being present at gatherings of family and friends, whether you agree or disagree with their lifestyles. Depends on the specific circumstance though, if the people at this party are dancing naked and drinking heavily, you probably ought to stay home.

Maybe some of you have noticed, (maybe not), Jesus speaks of sexual sins in how many places in the gospels? How many? How often? How fervently and passionately does he condemn those who fail in sexual matters? Adultery? Homosexuality? Anybody have an answer? Use Bible quotations to justify your answer, please.

How about hypocrisy and hardness of heart? How many places and times does our Lord and Savior speak of Pharissaic hypocrisy, hardenss of heart, and unforgiveness? And condemn such rigid attitudes?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

clem

How about hypocrisy and hardness of heart? How many places and times does our Lord and Savior speak of Pharissaic hypocrisy, hardenss of heart, and unforgiveness? And condemn such rigid attitudes?

Oh, so now those who believe sodomy is sinful are Pharisees, hypocrites, and hard of heart?

Sounds like a bit of the pot calling the kettle black?

Saint Paul, in your estimate, must have been a hypocrite and hard of heart?

Read the quote below.

 

[PatriceA]

So…that is all Jesus said? Those two vague sentences? There must be more, non?
And what about women together? That is not sodomy…so…?

Two women can’t procreate, can’t enter into a valid marriage, anymore that two men can. What’s your point?

 

[Elizabeth502]

The link you provide rehashes some of the material we’ve already discussed.

But you do not appear to have learned it well, as you continue to ask the same questions that are being answered and have been answered by the very Vatican sources which you demanded as citations, yet reject when they are offered as the “authentic teaching” you insisted on.

No faithful Jew would approve etc…that’s not the issue.

It’s the issue you alluded to when, by contradistinction, you challenged posters to “show where Jesus said…” That very demand of yours reveals a fundamental failure to understand the kerygma of the New Testament and the purpose of the oral tradition, which was not to be a catechism, a substitute Torah, an extended Talmud, or a comprehensive encyclopedia of moral doctrine. The latter was the task that Jesus left to his apostles, and to those who succeeded them, through Jesus’ promise of leaving the Holy Spirit to guide that church.

Jesus was with sinners, he was not afraid of them. He ministered to them, touched them and healed them.

when, and on account of, their acknowledgement of their sin. Then, as now, Jesus’ mercy is completely available to everyone who renounces sin, whether that sin is sexual or non-sexual. This is standard, classic, fundamental Catholic theology, based on Scripture. The fact that you’re “astonished” by that merely reveals a limitation of your awareness of the faith.

 

[NeedImprovement]

"clem456:

Jesus was with sinners, he was not afraid of them. He ministered to them, touched them and healed them.

. . .
when, and on account of, their acknowledgement of their sin. Then, as now, Jesus’ mercy is completely available to everyone who renounces sin, whether that sin is sexual or non-sexual. This is standard, classic, fundamental Catholic theology, based on Scripture. The fact that you’re “astonished” by that merely reveals a limitation of your awareness of the faith.

That is about as eloquent as it gets .

Thanks for that Elizabeth502 . God bless you !

Have a Blessed Triduum and a joyous Easter … See you at the Resurrection.

NI

 

[NeedImprovement]

This might come as a surprise, but not all gay men have gay sex.

There are some gay men who do not enjoy anal sex. Now, obviously most gay men do that, but not all. So you shouldn’t think its all about sodomy because its not. They are getting married for love, not sex.

… Which actually serves more to diminish the point you are trying to make than support it. Because either way - sex or no sex , the question then becomes : How can homosexuals or lesbians consummate their -]marriage/-] ? … They can’t ; sex or no sex.

It takes a man and a woman to administer the sacrament of holy matrimony to each other … and the marriage has to be consummated.

Can. 1061 §1

*A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh. *

So the union that two homosexuals or two lesbians enter into isn’t marriage and never will be marriage. So what is the *real *reason they are so adamant about calling it marriage - (as if we didn’t know)

 

[Elizabeth502]

That is about as eloquent as it gets .

Thanks for that Elizabeth502 . God bless you !

Have a Blessed Triduum and a joyous Easter … See you at the Resurrection.

NI

Back to you, NI.
:flowers:

 

[clem456]

So to summarize, the Church teaches that homosexuality is a sin.
Cooperating in and promoting homosexuality is a sin.
The Church proposes no position specifically on the question of attending celebrations of the kind in question. It could be, it could not be. It is not the same as abortion for ex…, which is an instrinsically evil action in every circumstance and always.
Ex…participation in the heterosexual sex act is not an instrinsically evil act, but it can be an occasion for evil.

Some of you are throwing out blanket assertions using scripture and the catechism for justification. The moral dilemma some of you may face is as follows:

Intentionally misprepresentiing Catholic Church teaching is a grave sin against Truth, morally unacceptable in itself, and also leading others astray of the truth…scandal.

Judging a particualr action outside the context of truth is to judge before you “arrive”, to pre- judge. We commonly call this prejudice. Prejudice can be an assault on the dignity of the human person.

Making unfounded blanket assertions judging anothers behavior implies an ignorance of one’s own human fallibility, we call that hypocrisy.

If your prejudice and hypocrisy prevent you from being charitable to and present for people when it is proper, you may be sowing the seeds of bitterness, resentment and hatred, a grave sin against Charity.

Have a great day.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So to summarize, the Church teaches that homosexuality is a sin.
Cooperating in and promoting homosexuality is a sin.

And attending celebrations of homosexuality (i.e., “party”) is a promotion of it. Further, promoting a fundamental lie – that two people of the same sex could ever be “engaged” to be “married,” in any authentic way according to Truth – is a form of cooperation.

When one disapproves of something others do, one politely declines to attend a party celebrating the behavior disapproved of. There is no moral or social requirement to attend a party. It is a social option, and it is not uncharitable not to do so. There are ways to decline that option without giving offense.

To party is to be a part of, a participant in.

 

[kkozlovs]

Let me just say that on this issue, the people on this board need to review the nuance of this moral dilemma of our time. Let’s begin by a review of the facts:

1. There is no, I repeat no, logical reason/natural law reason to disapprove of monogamous gay relationships except on the grounds that love has only one purpose and that is to make babies. I don’t see anyone out there protesting to prevent older people unable to have children from getting married. There are some statistics out there that used out of context could be construed as arguments against gay marriage. However, there are many statistics that could be used to argue that marriage in general is bad for people. Both of these conclusions would be a misinterpretation of the data.
2. We as Catholics are called to disapprove of gay relationships. This is based on faith, Biblical quotes, and some natural law (cannot have babies). It is not based on data or practicality. This should not bother anyone who is Catholic because this is the basis for our belief (faith).

After understanding that these are the facts that we are dealing with you should now be able to understand why this is a moral dilemma. If we respect facts at all we would see that the best case scenario for gay people in terms of their health is full equality. But our faith does not permit us to support what is best for them healthwise. We must rely on assumptions that a gay person is, by acknowledging themselves and engaging in healhy behavior, condemned by our loving God. Anyone who comes to this discussion throwing out thumbs up signs and being spiteful toward those that disagree with them is just not understanding the nuance of this moral dilemma. And you are not being compassionate toward your fellow man. Anyone who understands the facts of this situation can only be saddened by it. In order to deliver God’s message, we as Christians are forced to increase suffering in the world. That is not something to be celebrated.

 

[heaintheavy]

Anyone who understands the facts of this situation can only be saddened by it. In order to deliver God’s message, we as Christians are forced to increase suffering in the world. That is not something to be celebrated.

Very interesting and insightful. Yes.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

clem

**If your prejudice and hypocrisy prevent you from being charitable to and present for people when it is proper, you may be sowing the seeds of bitterness, resentment and hatred, a grave sin against Charity. **

If I am prejudiced and a hypocrite and uncharitable, what are you when you call me “prejudiced, a hypocrite, and uncharitable”?

We should not be present for, and approving of, and helping to celebrate, those who are committed to a life of sodomy. Your arguments have been diametrically opposed not only to Scripture but to the teachings of the Catholic Church. By your logic, we should also bring a gift to the wedding party, or that will prove us to be hypocrites.

The mercy of Christ is for repentant sinners, not for those who glory in and celebrate their sinfulness. You do not understand Christian theology.

As Paul says in Colossians 3:16, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom ….”

Yes, some of us are hateful. But we hate the sin because it comes from the devil, not from the sinner. It is because we love the sinner that we would chastise him to save his soul from the devil.

Partying with the devil is hardly a cause that you as a Catholic should be defending.

 

[Corki]

If we respect facts at all we would see that the best case scenario for gay people in terms of their health is full equality. But our faith does not permit us to support what is best for them healthwise.

Homosexual pairings are unhealthy - physically, spiritually, sociologically and often emotionally. How is it a moral dilemma to want the best for everyone.

The rest of your post is primarily sound bites from the pro same-sex “marriage” propaganda machine with no basis in fact or in Church teaching.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Originally Posted by kkozlovs View Post
If we respect facts at all we would see that the best case scenario for gay people in terms of their health is full equality. But our faith does not permit us to support what is best for them healthwise.

The health of the spirit is more important than the health of the body. That is what our faith teaches. Most often the health of the spirit and the health of the body go hand in hand.

 

[clem456]

clem

**If your prejudice and hypocrisy prevent you from being charitable to and present for people when it is proper, you may be sowing the seeds of bitterness, resentment and hatred, a grave sin against Charity. **

If I am prejudiced and a hypocrite and uncharitable, what are you when you call me “prejudiced, a hypocrite, and uncharitable”?

We should not be present for, and approving of, and helping to celebrate, those who are committed to a life of sodomy. Your arguments have been diametrically opposed not only to Scripture but to the teachings of the Catholic Church. By your logic, we should also bring a gift to the wedding party, or that will prove us to be hypocrites.

The mercy of Christ is for repentant sinners, not for those who glory in and celebrate their sinfulness. You do not understand Christian theology.

As Paul says in Colossians 3:16, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom ….”

Yes, some of us are hateful. But we hate the sin because it comes from the devil, not from the sinner. It is because we love the sinner that we would chastise him to save his soul from the devil.

Partying with the devil is hardly a cause that you as a Catholic should be defending.

Interesting.
I did not call you anything, but apparently you read something that touched you. I do not know you from Adam. I merely proposed an ethical dilemma for people to consider, or not consider, or ignore. If it has some relevance for you, great.

 

[Elizabeth502]

*(Charlemagne addressing poster clem):*

The mercy of Christ is for repentant sinners, not for those who glory in and celebrate their sinfulness. You do not understand Christian theology.

Partying with the devil is hardly a cause that you as a Catholic should be defending.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

clem

I did not call you anything, but apparently you read something that touched you.

You made a blanket statement that was intended to wound everyone in this thread who is defending Catholic theology against the seductive logic of Satan … which says that we should dance with the devil and his sinners as an act of charity … and if we don’t we are being un-Christian.

Utterly absurd!

 

[clem456]

So to summarize, the Church teaches that homosexuality is a sin.
Cooperating in and promoting homosexuality is a sin.
**The Church proposes no position specifically **on the question of attending celebrations of the kind in question. It could be, it could not be. It is not the same as abortion for ex…, which is an instrinsically evil action in every circumstance and always.
Ex…participation in the heterosexual sex act is not an instrinsically evil act, but it can be an occasion for evil.

Some of you are throwing out blanket assertions using scripture and the catechism for justification. The moral dilemma some of you may face is as follows:

Intentionally misprepresentiing Catholic Church teaching is a grave sin against Truth, morally unacceptable in itself, and also leading others astray of the truth…scandal.

Judging a particualr action outside the context of truth is to judge before you “arrive”, to pre- judge. We commonly call this prejudice. Prejudice can be an assault on the dignity of the human person.

Making unfounded blanket assertions judging anothers behavior implies an ignorance of one’s own human fallibility, we call that hypocrisy.

If your prejudice and hypocrisy prevent you from being charitable to and present for people when it is proper, you may be sowing the seeds of bitterness, resentment and hatred, a grave sin against Charity.

Have a great day.