Gay Marriage

[portarica]

You are also missing the FACT that Galileo had no PROOF of his theory. That he turned out to be right, is of no consequence to what we are discussing.

He wanted church approval, the Pope said no you don’t have proof.

He got all mad, cried like a baby, then called the Pope Simplitico.

The Church then, and only then, put him under house arrest.

If you do some research you will find it was the Scientific Community that wanted Galileo punished for his theory, not the Church. The Church could care less if the Earth was the center or the Sun was. As it turns out, neither are the center, so Galileo was ultimately wrong.

You need to check your sources. The church officially condemned the works of Galileo and also of Copernicus.

The question Galileo posed was not did the whole universe revolve around our sun, but wasn’t it true that the earth revolved around the sun and not the opposite.

As for the church not caring now if the earth or the sun was the center of the universe, that is a straw man argument. After it was determined that the church holding of it being an earth centric solar system was found to be false, it didn’t make another theory “official” to the extent it would then arrest people for having differing scientific views. Also it lost some credibility among the scientific community and science began to be advanced outside of the realm that was controlled by the church.

As far as your conclusion that the church didn’t care, why would it put Galileo under house arrest for 8 years?

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

As far as your conclusion that the church didn’t care, why would it put Galileo under house arrest for 8 years?

For insulting the Pope and everything else he was doing before.

Excerpt from catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp (have you read this yet?)

"Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (1605-1621). The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.

At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.

In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.

As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, “We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities.” Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.

Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.

Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s “imprisonment” when he reported to the Tuscan king: “The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another” (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and “*n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible” (letter, June 18).

Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.

The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of “witches” subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, “the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof.” Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment. "*

 

[chessmane4e5]

The question Galileo posed was not did the whole universe revolve around our sun, but wasn’t it true that the earth revolved around the sun and not the opposite.

"It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth. "

From the same source. If you can provide a source that says otherwise, I would like to read it.

 

[portarica]

For insulting the Pope and everything else he was doing before.

Excerpt from catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp (have you read this yet?)

"Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (1605-1621). The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.

At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.

In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.

As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, “We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities.” Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.

Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.

Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s “imprisonment” when he reported to the Tuscan king: “The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another” (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and “*n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible” (letter, June 18).

Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.

The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of “witches” subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, “the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof.” Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment. "*

So the final conclusion is that Galileo didn’t get tortured like those in Salem or similarly like the victims of the inquisition? So it was OK?

And the reason he was originally arrested was because the pope was tired of the controversies.

What other controversies have been covered up because the popes were tired of them?

The church sure had a mature reaction to problems.

Peace

 

[surritter]

I think we need to stay on target. There is no need to even discuss whether the Church can be wrong, because the idea of homosexual marriage is dependent on natural law, biology, and common sense.

Sorry to keep hammering the same points, but if procreation is not an essential part of the purpose of marriage, then it sounds like marriage is for other purposes:

• to show publicly that there is a bond of love
• to protect financial rights of survivorship
• save on taxes
• …?

Please add to the list what other foundational purposes there might be.

I think a logical person could then look at that list and say there is no reason why marriage based purely on those purposes can’t validly be extended to groups of three or four people. Portarica, why then do you dislike the idea of a three-way marriage?

 

[portarica]

For insulting the Pope and everything else he was doing before.

Excerpt from catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp (have you read this yet?)

"Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (1605-1621). The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.

At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.

In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.

As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, “We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities.” Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.

Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.

Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s “imprisonment” when he reported to the Tuscan king: “The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another” (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and “*n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible” (letter, June 18).

Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.

The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of “witches” subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, “the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof.” Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment. "*

Did you read the whole article. To summarize it. The church was ticked off that the truth about the earth revolving around the sun would confuse the ordinary catholic and shake his faith.

When does the truth shake ones faith?

Thats a major problem when an institution fights the truth because it might shake the faith.

And to use that as an excuse for wrong minded behaviour is even more wrong.

Jesus was all about truth, not hiding it.

Peace

 

[estesbob]

Did you read the whole article. To summarize it. The church was ticked off that the truth about the earth revolving around the sun would confuse the ordinary catholic and shake his faith.

When does the truth shake ones faith?

Thats a major problem when an institution fights the truth because it might shake the faith.

And to use that as an excuse for wrong minded behaviour is even more wrong.

Jesus was all about truth, not hiding it.

Peace

And this relates to the morality of homosexual behavior becuase…?

 

[portarica]

Look when you go beyond saying that the church is entitled to its holdings because it says it is and try to revise history it only makes the church’s positions appear weaker.

Stand on the moral ground and say the church is against gay marriage because it doesn’t want to marry gay people because the church considers them disordered. Stop, that is enough.

When you try to put science in it the justifications just get weaker.

The church has a right to be against gay marriage. Being against gay marriage is not a moral obligation of a catholic. Perhaps marrying some gays in a church by a priest might put the priest in some trouble but other than that there is no real harm that results from the non orthodox catholic gay person getting married.

If a gay marriage hurts the church or your marriage then the church is more vulnerable than it is officially allowed to mention.It has survived a lot of things worse than gay marriage, both self inflicted and from the outside.

Peace

 

[portarica]

And this relates to the morality of homosexual behavior becuase…?

regarding 186

When one starts making up stuff to defend a position of the church it begs the question of how many things have been made up to defend the position of the church.

Peace

 

[surritter]

Stand on the moral ground and say the church is against gay marriage because it doesn’t want to marry gay people because the church considers them disordered. Stop, that is enough.

But do you know why it is a disorder? Is that disorder something that is merely religious, or might it be something that everyone can understand and agree with?

When you try to put science in it the justifications just get weaker.

The science of “tab A into slot B” doesn’t seem too complex. How can that weaken the discussion?

The church has a right to be against gay marriage. Being against gay marriage is not a moral obligation of a catholic. Perhaps marrying some gays in a church by a priest might put the priest in some trouble but other than that there is no real harm that results from the non orthodox catholic gay person getting married.

But if anyone (Church or secular) marries a homosexual couple, it is by definition one that is not ordered to sex. So what is it? Please reply to my post #184 when you get a chance.

 

[chessmane4e5]

So the final conclusion is that Galileo didn’t get tortured like those in Salem or similarly like the victims of the inquisition? So it was OK?

I may be mistaken, but the Church was not involved with the Salem witch trials.

Inquisitions is another misrepresented time in Church history catholic.com/library/Inquisition.asp

 

[estesbob]

regarding 186

When one starts making up stuff to defend a position of the church it begs the question of how many things have been made up to defend the position of the church.

Peace

So if the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years about the immorality of homosexual behavior how do we know they are not wrong about the Ressurection? The Divinity of Christ? How can we trust any of her teachings?

 

[portarica]

So if the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years about the immorality of homosexual behavior how do we know they are not wrong about the Ressurection? The Divinity of Christ? How can we trust any of her teachings?

Who said the church is wrong about the morality of homosexual marriage? If the church believes it is immoral then it has the right to insist that no same sex marriages are performed in the catholic church.

The question that poses difficulty is that the church in the past has supported positions that were wrong. But if they were wrong they were said to fall under the protection of not being about morals or doctrine.

Or when they did change and concerned morals and doctrine, they were said not to change and instead were said to have become more developed. For example OT being developed into NT when the populous was better able to handle the truth.

One of the problems the church has is when the temporal side mixes with the spiritual side.

In the case of Galileo the church’s holdings about astronomy were solidly in the spiritual side. Otherwise Galileo’s and Copernicus’s holding would not have been seen to be heretical.

So the quandary was that the work of these men was being held as heretical , but to charge them with heresy and then have scientific proof that their heliocentric findings were true would put into question the credibility of the church’s holdings in general.

Those are facts. To nuance them this way or that doesn’t change reality.

Now do I care if a bunch of men in the middle ages made some mistakes? If the pope was mistaken about the sun revolving around the earth and said catholics had to believe that to be catholics do I really care if he was found to be mistaken later?Even if the reason is that he believed the catholic populous was too stupid to handle the truth?

Does his mistake make Jesus’ teachings any less true today?

There are any number of events in church history that call into question the credibility of the church position on things.

So what? Is my faith in Jesus’ word shaken because some pope thought cats were evil?

The whole concept of infallibility was codified as a response to the church losing moral credibility in the 19th century. Its a recent construct. Does that make Jesus’ word any less valid?

It takes more courage to remain catholic because one believes in Jesus than to remain catholic because one believes all the church has to say about always being right about morals and doctrine.

The concept that the sun revolved around the earth was doctrine. Does the fact that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth mean we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater or to pretend that the church really really didn’t think people who thought the earth revolved around the sun were heretics.

The church is very human, I don’t expect perfection in anything it does.

I’m OK with that. That doesn’t diminish my faith in Jesus’ teachings.

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

The whole concept of infallibility was codified as a response to the church losing moral credibility in the 19th century. Its a recent construct. Does that make Jesus’ word any less valid?

The whole concept? I believe the whole concept originated with Matt 16, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.”

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Your logic would be like saying the concept of the Trinity was codified at the Council of Nicaea. But the concept of the Trinity existed before then, just as the concept Papal infallibility existed before the 19th century.

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10).

 

[portarica]

The whole concept? I believe the whole concept originated with Matt 16, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.”

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Your logic would be like saying the concept of the Trinity was codified at the Council of Nicaea. But the concept of the Trinity existed before then, just as the concept Papal infallibility existed before the 19th century.

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10).

And that made the doctrine that the sun revolved around the earth true by …(fill in the blank with the correct answer).

The church has been wrong in the past and saying it can’t doesn’t make it true.

But does an error of the church negate what Jesus taught? Nope.

Does it impact how treating the least like they may be He works?
Nope.

All the primacy stuff was about the establishment of the church was a temporal thing. It had nothing to do with concordance with what Jesus taught.

Luckily the church staying in existence preserved what Jesus taught. That’s enough for me.

If that didn’t happen I wouldn’t have been baptized catholic and then I wouldn’t have seen how the catholic actions of some really good people really were all the evidence I needed to believe in what Jesus taught.

So my belief in Jesus isn’t predicated in the law that says I have to believe in Jesus to go to heaven, I just believe in Jesus because I think what He taught is the right thing to do.

So it doesn’t hurt my faith if what the church says and reality aren’t always the same thing.

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

And that made the doctrine that the sun revolved around the earth true by …(fill in the blank with the correct answer).

The church has been wrong in the past and saying it can’t doesn’t make it true.

It didn’t, but you are the one that wanted to bring it up to prove …

The Church has NEVER been wrong in an area of Faith and Morals, which is what is important.

I am not the one who said the Church can’t be wrong, it was Jesus that said that

I just feel their are enough anti-Catholics in this world, that people who call themselves Catholic should at least talk about the Church with a little Charity. No one has ever said the Church is perfect all the time. But the Church was founded by Jesus Christ and it was Him that said the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

I guess I am just taken aback by most of your posts, as I have never heard a Catholic talk the way you do about the Church. The Church is considered the Bride of Christ. I would be very hurt, to say the least, if someone talked badly about my wife. I am not saying to lie or try and hide the truth, but to try and talk about the Church with a little love.

 

[portarica]

It didn’t, but you are the one that wanted to bring it up to prove …

The Church has NEVER been wrong in an area of Faith and Morals, which is what is important.

I am not the one who said the Church can’t be wrong, it was Jesus that said that

I just feel their are enough anti-Catholics in this world, that people who call themselves Catholic should at least talk about the Church with a little Charity. No one has ever said the Church is perfect all the time. But the Church was founded by Jesus Christ and it was Him that said the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

I guess I am just taken aback by most of your posts, as I have never heard a Catholic talk the way you do about the Church. The Church is considered the Bride of Christ. I would be very hurt, to say the least, if someone talked badly about my wife. I am not saying to lie or try and hide the truth, but to try and talk about the Church with a little love.

Where did Jesus say the church could never be wrong? Right after the rock and the keys, Jesus was telling Peter that Peter was acting like satan.

Does that sound like giving someone carte blanche regarding perfection or giving someone a warning to stay true to Him?

The church has written her own history. Some of it was out of ignorance some is just ignorant.

That doesn’t make the church bad, it only makes it human which is basically how Jesus thought it would turn out.

I’m not anti catholic, in addition to being fairly well versed on the history of the church I’m pretty well versed on the good it has done, directly and through the actions of its members.

If I didn’t think the good of the church vastly outweighed its shortcomings I would probably find another avenue to practice my faith.

Unfortunately the official policy of the church is that it can’t be wrong on the matters you brought up. That policy was enacted because for a while there were some real bad actors running the show in Rome who wear more concerned with the temporal kingdom than the spiritual one. It was a political move to establish legitimate authority because they had lost the moral high ground.

Now that was wimpy because they could have assumed the moral high ground again by acting in a more moral manner. Instead they were content to say that they and only they knew about morals and if you wanted to be on the winning team you better believe them.

Unfortunately that painted the church into a corner because while the underlying values might be somewhat true some of the facts had “developed” over time and where no longer true.

So all the conditions started popping up. Infallibility was de norm, but on the other hand expecting the hierarchy to act in a moral manner was not a requirement.

The church should be like Jesus and show a preference for the poor, but the church didn’t have to get rid of its gold to help the poor. Well you know Jesus didn’t make the apostles sell the oil so that justified golden chalices and villas in the countryside etc.etc.

The ministry of discernment means the bishops and cardinals and popes have a more direct conduit to God through the Holy Spirit than the rest of us, so what did the HS have to say about the issues confronting the church over the last few decades ?

So the church leaders professes to have all these special graces that enable them to better know God, yet they appear to not to be able to understand what a typical first grader would know about morals and integrity.

So do I go along with them when they do unChristlike things? Do I have to believe things that are not real or incomplete? Just because they say it is so?

No I do what my mom always said,I go to church for what can get out of it. Ignore what doesn’t seem in accordance with what Jesus taught. Love Jesus and try to treat the least like they may be he.

Jesus told us we were all sinners. Does it surprise you that the church preaches like it can’t sin? I hate the sins of the church but love the sinner.

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

Where did Jesus say the church could never be wrong? Right after the rock and the keys, Jesus was telling Peter that Peter was acting like satan.

And we know that the Pope is human and does make mistakes, just not when he speaks ex cathedra.

Does that sound like giving someone carte blanche regarding perfection or giving someone a warning to stay true to Him?

No, Jesus never said and the Catholic Church has never said, that the Pope is perfect and in all things infallible. But Jesus did give the Pope the power to loose and bind. This is pretty powerful. The Church knows to use this power sparingly.

Unfortunately the official policy of the church is that it can’t be wrong on the matters you brought up. That policy was enacted because for a while there were some real bad actors running the show in Rome who wear more concerned with the temporal kingdom than the spiritual one. It was a political move to establish legitimate authority because they had lost the moral high ground.

Which issues? About Homosexuality? Infallibility? I again do not believe that “some real bad actors” would be able to damage the Church that Christ protects (gates of hell not prevail against it).

There have been some bad Popes, but history shows that they were not able to damage the Church. Peoples opinions of the Church might be effected by these bad Popes, but the Church itself is still led by Christ.

Now that was wimpy because they could have assumed the moral high ground again by acting in a more moral manner. Instead they were content to say that they and only they knew about morals and if you wanted to be on the winning team you better believe them.

What moral high ground? The Church is the Moral foundation. If they were standing up for Morals, then they were doing what Christ commissioned it to.

So all the conditions started popping up. Infallibility was de norm, but on the other hand expecting the hierarchy to act in a moral manner was not a requirement.

What conditions? Are you talking about Vatican II? When has the Church no expected all it’s members to act in a moral manner?

The church should be like Jesus and show a preference for the poor, but the church didn’t have to get rid of its gold to help the poor. Well you know Jesus didn’t make the apostles sell the oil so that justified golden chalices and villas in the countryside etc.etc.

The Church is like Jesus. Could the Church sell off all it has and give that money to the poor? Yes, but it would be gone in a year and the world would be back to where it was. Some of the “riches” that the Church has (the Vatican for example) are necessary, and if sold the Pope would need to live somewhere and the conclave would need a place and any of the times lots of people need to meet. If you mean the riches as in Artwork or relics of the past, they could be sold, but then some private collector would own them, while right now the public can view these things.

The ministry of discernment means the bishops and cardinals and popes have a more direct conduit to God through the Holy Spirit than the rest of us, so what did the HS have to say about the issues confronting the church over the last few decades ?

Not sure your point here? Anyone can sin. Each person will be held accountable on the day of Judgment.

So the church leaders professes to have all these special graces that enable them to better know God, yet they appear to not to be able to understand what a typical first grader would know about morals and integrity.

Again, not sure your point. To say that most church leaders have less morals and integrity than a first grader is baffling to me.

So do I go along with them when they do unChristlike things? Do I have to believe things that are not real or incomplete? Just because they say it is so?

Absolutely not. When it came to light that their were some priests who were molesting children, every Catholic has a moral obligation to speak up. That problem was made worse because some members of the Church did not handle those situations properly. Then this was compounded by the media, which villianized the Church.

No I do what my mom always said,I go to church for what can get out of it. Ignore what doesn’t seem in accordance with what Jesus taught. Love Jesus and try to treat the least like they may be he.

You should obey your parents and I hope you believe in the Real Presence, as that is one of the most valuable things you can get from going to Church. I would use caution when ignoring what doesn’t seem in accordance, because we can all be led astray. The Devil is a master as convincing us that we know better than God or the Church.

Jesus told us we were all sinners. Does it surprise you that the church preaches like it can’t sin? I hate the sins of the church but love the sinner.

We are all sinners, but with God’s good Grace we can strive to not sin. The Church can’t sin because Jesus protects it, but it’s members still can. I think it is important to distinguish the two.

 

[OraLabora]

This also opens up a legal can of worms. In both the Church and in society, a marriage that has not been consummated can be declared null. Non-consummation is easy to define: it means sexual intercourse has not taken place.

How do you define non-consummation for homosexuals? Simply not having sex? What kind of sex? Homosexual activity can be a wide array of practices. One party can claim the relationship was consummated and the other claim it wasn’t based simply on sexual preference. It is clearly nonsensical and potentially a legal quagmire.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually your examples are nonsense. First sexual activity doesn’t necessarily confer validity.

In the catholic church there can be invalid marriages with intercourse, (annulled marriages with kids)

And valid marriages with unordered male and female people without intercourse being possible. For example injured Iraqi war veterans.

As for the gay marriage you are talking about , it won’t be a church one, so the people would get divorced and could come up with many reasons that are not akin to being in a legal quagmire.

A legal quagmire is having a marriage with multiple kids being annulled by the church, but the church has overcome those hurdles in the past. Have some confidence in the canon lawyers being able to handle most anything.

Peace

Actually you’re quite wrong.

A non-consummated marriage can be annulled unilaterally.

A couple incapable of completing the marital act cannot be validly married in the Church:

“Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.”

“Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.”

As Canon 1084 states, a couple incapable of completing intercourse have a specific diriment impediment and cannot be validly married in the Church. They can be civilly married though, but even in civil law (at least Canada), non-consummation is grounds for annulment.

That does not mean there aren’t other reasons for invalidating marriage and intercourse is still possible in those cases. But the conjugal act is at the core of “becoming one flesh” in marriage. In the Church, no consummation = no valid marriage.

You’re understanding of sacramental marriage is very flawed. You need to get better informed about what the Church truly teaches.

 

[portarica]

Actually you’re quite wrong.

A non-consummated marriage can be annulled unilaterally.

A couple incapable of completing the marital act cannot be validly married in the Church:

“Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.”

“Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.”

As Canon 1084 states, a couple incapable of completing intercourse have a specific diriment impediment and cannot be validly married in the Church. They can be civilly married though, but even in civil law (at least Canada), non-consummation is grounds for annulment.

That does not mean there aren’t other reasons for invalidating marriage and intercourse is still possible in those cases. But the conjugal act is at the core of “becoming one flesh” in marriage. In the Church, no consummation = no valid marriage.

You’re understanding of sacramental marriage is very flawed. You need to get better informed about what the Church truly teaches.

So the church would not marry an Iraqi war veteran who has damaged genitals because he couldn’t meet the prescribed requirement of consummation.

And since it isn’t about the act but about the pro creative possibility the church won’t marry older people who are incapable of having kids, and it won’t marry women who have hysterectomies and can’t have kids.

Or it will marry them and the marriages won’t be valid and the some of the participants would then be fornicators.

Is that what you are saying? Because that is the result of what you posted.

Peace