Gay engagement party

[Corki]

I sincerely wish the moderators would post one big permanent page that settles the homosexual question from the Catholic perspective. A big FAQ that gives the traditional Church teachings to homosexuality and any future posts and questions are redirected to this hypothetical page.

Because quite frankly I think everyone has been repeating themselves over countless posts and topics. I would much rather spend my time on here agreeing with people than debating them and resorting to scare tactics and meanness (Yes I am guilty of this as well) on who’s right and who’s wrong on the issue .

Other than that I have nothing further to contribute to any more discussions on homosexuality. Good day.

There is already a tract on the Catholic Answers main site that does just that. However, it seems that posters who come here intent on taking positions contrary to what the Church teaches tend to be resistent to reading anything other than opinion. That way they can deny it more easily.

catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

 

[Charlemagne_II]

clem

I suspect you may be one of those Catholics who really hate Saint Paul.

(1 Corinthians 5:1,4-5).

“It is widely reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of a kind not found even among pagans—a man living with his father’s wife. And you are inflated with pride. Should you not rather have been sorrowful? The one who did this deed should be expelled from your midst.”

What would Paul have said about celebrating a marriage between two men? That the whole Christian community should be sending flowers and gifts and dancing at the wedding?

Clem, climb off that self-righteous and angry horse you are riding.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I sincerely wish the moderators would post one big permanent page that settles the homosexual question from the Catholic perspective. A big FAQ that gives the traditional Church teachings to homosexuality and any future posts and questions are redirected to this hypothetical page.

Because quite frankly I think everyone has been repeating themselves over countless posts and topics. I would much rather spend my time on here agreeing with people than debating them and resorting to scare tactics and meanness (Yes I am guilty of this as well) on who’s right and who’s wrong on the issue .

Other than that I have nothing further to contribute to any more discussions on homosexuality. Good day.

This forum is ALWAYS under assault from people who want to argue with Church teachings on homosexuality. Not a week goes by where we don’t have several new threads started, with titles such as “Why homosexuality is not wrong,” or, “The Church should allow gay marriage,” or the like. Again, and again, and again…It never stops.

:yawn:

No sticky would stop these threads. They come from an attitude of combativeness, from people who want to prove the Church wrong. They don’t succeed, but it doesn’t stop them from trying.

 

[Tampa_Rays]

Just an idea: ban these types of threads with people dissenting against church teaching

 

[mitex]

No you guys are just as guilty as the people challenging Church teachings.

Some posts bait others into responding.

See the thread in Morals about homosexuals being sexist.

 

[PatriceA]

Just an idea: ban these types of threads with people dissenting against church teaching

Then they would also have to ban all the threads on contraception, and modesty, and receiving communion in the hand/tongue, and ordaining women as priests, etc, etc, etc.

Plus, the OP asked a very important and pressing question. If a Catholic trying to live out their faith to the best of their abilities can’t come to the CAF to get advice because a topic is banned, where would they be able to go? There will always be people that try to justify why they choose to dissent from church teaching. But there are just as many people that want to be educated in their faith no matter how much the topic may be hard for some people to discuss.

 

[heaintheavy]

Yes Mr Catholic Answers Forum Master I can. Thanks for the insightful questions. You actually show your approval at these ceremonies with a secret handshake. (No just kidding.)

My sister who is 55 now was raised in a very devout Catholic family with myself and two other siblings. She has been a faithful Cathoic at times, others times not so much. Same with our relationship, sometimes close, sometimes not so close. She knows what the teaching of the Catholic Church is, she doesn’t agree with it, but she knows exactly what it is, and she knows where I stand as a practicing faithful Catholic. She is severely mentally ill, paranoid schizophrenic diagnosed at age 20, in and out of hospitals, suicidal. She has lots of difficulty maintaining relationships with family or anyone for that matter. People come in and out of her life. In her 40’s she had a civil union with a woman who had come in to her life and actually added stability. ( I can hear the howls of outrage now…I am not touting the benefits of gayness).

We attended. It was a rare opportunity for our family to be together, when my sister was reasonably happy, and not hooked up to life support tubes in a suicide unit. Her name is Laureen, given at baptism at St Paul the Apostle Roman Catholic Church Norwalk Ohio. Was it a celebration? Not really. There was no dancing or high fiving or gay oath or cakes or whatever people imagine goes on. Were there feelings of joy? Given the circumstances, yes there was. My mother sobbed uncontrollably for joy that we were together under those circumstances, rather than seeing her daughter through a psych unit window. My father didn’t want to go and actually visited the priest to find a way out. He didn’t get his excuse, and attended. He is repulsed by homosexuality as I am frankly, but thats alright, she’s flesh of my flesh, blood of my blood.

We have scratched tooth and nail to maintain contact with her over the last years. The relationship with her partner faded, just like all of her relationships do. Our relationship has lasted however. Last month we traded books. I gave her a JP2 and she gave me a Henri Nouwen. I will be present for my sister, period. I do not fear her being gay, and I will not leave her out to hang like they left Jesus. .

So that’s the flesh and blood situation that I have. Probably shockingly different from the OP’s, no problem, we’re human beings, each unique. If some of you would like to throw your comfortable blanket over that, go right ahead. But don’t pretend that you are able to cast judgement on each of these situations, because you’re but a banging gong, a crashing cymbal, and you do so at your peril. The rest of us will love as Jesus taught us through the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

You are a good and loving sibling, and a kind human being who sees how one small action eased some pain and brought your family together…and maybe lead the way for more communication in the future and help for your sister.
I’d like to shake your hand. You showed support and love for your sister, and that didn’t mean agreeing with something you don’t agree with. Your action did not tamper with your own beliefs or that of your family or any one else in the room that day.
Good on ya.

 

[heaintheavy]

Just an idea: ban these types of threads with people dissenting against church teaching

This is a forum for people to discuss points of view, and a forum open to all religions.

If it was a forum where everyone was the same and agreed with everyone else and just patted each other on the back for thinking and believing the same…it wouldn’t be a forum, it would be a tea party with the Stepford Wives.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I sincerely wish the moderators would post one big permanent page that settles the homosexual question from the Catholic perspective. A big FAQ that gives the traditional Church teachings to homosexuality and any future posts and questions are redirected to this hypothetical page.

Because quite frankly I think everyone has been repeating themselves over countless posts and topics. .

There is already a tract on the Catholic Answers main site that does just that. However, it seems that posters who come here intent on taking positions contrary to what the Church teaches tend to be resistent to reading anything other than opinion. That way they can deny it more easily.

catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

This forum is ALWAYS under assault from people who want to argue with Church teachings on homosexuality. Not a week goes by where we don’t have several new threads started, with titles such as “Why homosexuality is not wrong,” or, “The Church should allow gay marriage,” or the like. Again, and again, and again…It never stops.

:yawn:

They come from an attitude of combativeness, from people who want to prove the Church wrong. They don’t succeed, but it doesn’t stop them from trying.

Just an idea: ban these types of threads with people dissenting against church teaching

:sad_yes:

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is a forum for people to discuss points of view, and a forum open to all religions.

Yep. But the cause for confusion and prolonging of debate does not reside with sharing “ponts of view,” unless debaters mistakenly believe that Church teachings are subject to points of view or opinion. Church teaching is not a matter of opinion. It is settled doctrine. One can say (whether Catholic or not), “I don’t like this particular doctrine” (on sexuality, on anything), or “I wish the Church didn’t teach X,” but it is not possible to state that the Church doesn’t teach that there is no such licit union as homosexual “marriage,” and that to support or “celebrate” such a union (not a non-sexualized friendship, which is different) is within moral law.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Much of this confusion about Church doctrine stems from a notion that the Church ought to be, like the State, a democracy. It is not; it is a monarchy and Christ is the King. But the modern mind has an ingrained hostility toward monarchy. This is a Protestant mindset. I believe what I want to believe; not what the King through his emissaries says is true, but what I through the vanity of my own self-determination believe to be true. Another, older word for this is Pride. Adam and Eve exercised it when they repudiated the kingship of God and claimed the “truth” they preferred to hear from the serpent. We have been doing it ever since, proclaiming our own truth and laughing all the way to hell.

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ outstanding post, Charlemagne – echoing Fr. Barron’s words on The Seventh (Last) Word today, at St. Patrick’s Cathedral (televised by EWTN). He referenced Adam and Eve in that last talk.

 

[JMJ2013]

Much of this confusion about Church doctrine stems from a notion that the Church ought to be, like the State, a democracy. It is not; it is a monarchy and Christ is the King. But the modern mind has an ingrained hostility toward monarchy. This is a Protestant mindset. I believe what I want to believe; not what the King through his emissaries says is true, but what I through the vanity of my own self-determination believe to be true. Another, older word for this is Pride. Adam and Eve exercised it when they repudiated the kingship of God and claimed the “truth” they preferred to hear from the serpent. We have been doing it ever since, proclaiming our own truth and laughing all the way to hell.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Much of this confusion about Church doctrine stems from a notion that the Church ought to be, like the State, a democracy. It is not; it is a monarchy and Christ is the King. But the modern mind has an ingrained hostility toward monarchy. This is a Protestant mindset. I believe what I want to believe; not what the King through his emissaries says is true, but what I through the vanity of my own self-determination believe to be true. Another, older word for this is Pride. Adam and Eve exercised it when they repudiated the kingship of God and claimed the “truth” they preferred to hear from the serpent. We have been doing it ever since, proclaiming our own truth and laughing all the way to hell.

This is why Catholics need to say, whenever possible, “The Church teaches” and not “I think”. Your opinion is capricious and prone to be swayed. The Catholic Church has been rock solid and immovable for 2000 years.

Build your house on the rock.

No consent to lies. No attending gay engagement parties or “weddings”.

 

[fix]

Yes Mr Catholic Answers Forum Master I can. Thanks for the insightful questions. You actually show your approval at these ceremonies with a secret handshake. (No just kidding.)

My sister who is 55 now was raised in a very devout Catholic family with myself and two other siblings. She has been a faithful Cathoic at times, others times not so much. Same with our relationship, sometimes close, sometimes not so close. She knows what the teaching of the Catholic Church is, she doesn’t agree with it, but she knows exactly what it is, and she knows where I stand as a practicing faithful Catholic. She is severely mentally ill, paranoid schizophrenic diagnosed at age 20, in and out of hospitals, suicidal. She has lots of difficulty maintaining relationships with family or anyone for that matter. People come in and out of her life. In her 40’s she had a civil union with a woman who had come in to her life and actually added stability. ( I can hear the howls of outrage now…I am not touting the benefits of gayness).

We attended. It was a rare opportunity for our family to be together, when my sister was reasonably happy, and not hooked up to life support tubes in a suicide unit. Her name is Laureen, given at baptism at St Paul the Apostle Roman Catholic Church Norwalk Ohio. Was it a celebration? Not really. There was no dancing or high fiving or gay oath or cakes or whatever people imagine goes on. Were there feelings of joy? Given the circumstances, yes there was. My mother sobbed uncontrollably for joy that we were together under those circumstances, rather than seeing her daughter through a psych unit window. My father didn’t want to go and actually visited the priest to find a way out. He didn’t get his excuse, and attended. He is repulsed by homosexuality as I am frankly, but thats alright, she’s flesh of my flesh, blood of my blood.

We have scratched tooth and nail to maintain contact with her over the last years. The relationship with her partner faded, just like all of her relationships do. Our relationship has lasted however. Last month we traded books. I gave her a JP2 and she gave me a Henri Nouwen. I will be present for my sister, period. I do not fear her being gay, and I will not leave her out to hang like they left Jesus. .

So that’s the flesh and blood situation that I have. Probably shockingly different from the OP’s, no problem, we’re human beings, each unique. If some of you would like to throw your comfortable blanket over that, go right ahead. But don’t pretend that you are able to cast judgement on each of these situations, because you’re but a banging gong, a crashing cymbal, and you do so at your peril. The rest of us will love as Jesus taught us through the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

But, you did not answer my question.

 

[Corki]

This is why Catholics need to say, whenever possible, “The Church teaches” and not “I think”. Your opinion is capricious and prone to be swayed. The Catholic Church has been rock solid and immovable for 2000 years.

Build your house on the rock.

No consent to lies. No attending gay engagement parties or “weddings”.

Excellent point. Too often on CAF, someone will post “what does the Church teach about XYZ?”. After a few responses that state what the Church teaches, the OP comes back and posts “well I believe…” or “but for me…”. At which point, you know the person is not really seeking answers, just looking to share his opinon.

 

[heaintheavy]

Yep. But the cause for confusion and prolonging of debate does not reside with sharing “ponts of view,” unless debaters mistakenly believe that Church teachings are subject to points of view or opinion. Church teaching is not a matter of opinion. It is settled doctrine. One can say (whether Catholic or not), “I don’t like this particular doctrine” (on sexuality, on anything), or “I wish the Church didn’t teach X,” but it is not possible to state that the Church doesn’t teach that there is no such licit union as homosexual “marriage,” and that to support or “celebrate” such a union (not a non-sexualized friendship, which is different) is within moral law.

Sure, I understand that the church “teaches” certain doctrines. Although, it does seem that even priests have different opinions of what those doctrines say, as we’ve seen here on this forum when someone asks an important question and has gotten different answers from different priests…so I guess many priests don’t even know the doctrines well themselves, which is odd. You’d think they would, of all people.
I guess they should have to “renew” their priesthood in the same way that we have to renew our driver’s licenses every few years.
Or it means there is still room in the wording of the doctrines that leaves room for nuances in interpretation.

But having said all that…the doctrines were debated and voted upon and decided by groups of men over many centuries at those councils, were they not? They themselves debated for years before they settled on many points. So while they did make decisions, and then ended up saying “these decisions cannot be changed–EVER!”…it doesn’t mean all the decisions they made 2000 years ago were the *right *ones.

As per what you said, then, I assume the Catholics who debate a topic like this while knowing full well what the church teaches…who think the person should still go to the party…are expressing that they do not agree with the settled upon teachings?
That they think the doctrine, then, is wrong?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Sure, I understand that the church “teaches” certain doctrines. Although, it does seem that even priests have different opinions of what those doctrines say, as we’ve seen here on this forum when someone asks an important question and has gotten different answers from different priests…so I guess many priests don’t even know the doctrines well themselves, which is odd. You’d think they would, of all people.
I guess they should have to “renew” their priesthood in the same way that we have to renew our driver’s licenses every few years.
Or it means there is still room in the wording of the doctrines that leaves room for nuances in interpretation.

But having said all that…the doctrines were debated and voted upon and decided by groups of men over many centuries at those councils, were they not? They themselves debated for years before they settled on many points. So while they did make decisions, and then ended up saying “these decisions cannot be changed–EVER!”…it doesn’t mean all the decisions they made 2000 years ago were the *right *ones.

As per what you said, then, I assume the Catholics who debate a topic like this while knowing full well what the church teaches…who think the person should still go to the party…are expressing that they do not agree with the settled upon teachings?
That they think the doctrine, then, is wrong?

It’s all good, the generations that was infused with the “Spirit of Vatican II” and the Great Modernist Heresy shall be dying off in the near future and they shall be replaced eventually by the current generation which is far more Orthodox then they were. In such a way the Church shall be reborn and perhaps like after overcoming Arianism rise and become greater than ever.

tl;dr it’ll be cool in 40 years bro

 

[Corki]

But having said all that…the doctrines were debated and voted upon and decided by groups of men over many centuries at those councils, were they not? They themselves debated for years before they settled on many points. So while they did make decisions, and then ended up saying “these decisions cannot be changed–EVER!”…**it doesn’t mean all the decisions they made 2000 years ago were the *right ***ones.

Actually, that’s exactly what it means. A doctrine would not be protected by the ordinary infallibility of the magesterium if it was wrong.

 

[Tampa_Rays]

Sure, I understand that the church “teaches” certain doctrines. Although, it does seem that even priests have different opinions of what those doctrines say, as we’ve seen here on this forum when someone asks an important question and has gotten different answers from different priests…so I guess many priests don’t even know the doctrines well themselves, which is odd. You’d think they would, of all people.
I guess they should have to “renew” their priesthood in the same way that we have to renew our driver’s licenses every few years.
Or it means there is still room in the wording of the doctrines that leaves room for nuances in interpretation.

But having said all that…the doctrines were debated and voted upon and decided by groups of men over many centuries at those councils, were they not? They themselves debated for years before they settled on many points. So while they did make decisions, and then ended up saying “these decisions cannot be changed–EVER!”…it doesn’t mean all the decisions they made 2000 years ago were the *right *ones.

As per what you said, then, I assume the Catholics who debate a topic like this while knowing full well what the church teaches…who think the person should still go to the party…are expressing that they do not agree with the settled upon teachings?
That they think the doctrine, then, is wrong?

Your just looking for an excuse to dissent against church teaching. Like a poster said above, the Church is not a democracy. And if you are a true Catholic, you should trust that the councils were under the guidance of the holy spirit.