Gay Marriage

[chessmane4e5]

The issues arises because the church at one time used the bible as if it was a scientific reference. And in those times it was with good reason. When originally written it was the text that served as a reference for most subjects and there was little else that compared to it.

It was the biology book (origin of man , Gen ), it was a food safety text ( lev. and trichinosis)It was poetry (psalms) and it served the its first audience pretty well , especially in comparison to the other available texts.

In addition to writings based on observation , it was also a story book. Noah and the flood, the history of man from Garden of Eden to Jesus in only 6,000 years etc. etc.

Then there are the predictions from the OT to Paul to Rev. Many of these predictions are based on precedent texts and/or oral history revisions from other cultures in the middle east and Mediterranean.

Two of the issues the young church faced were of credibility and authority. They didn’t think the teachings of Jesus or the works He performed were sufficient to establish credibility and authority for the new religion. If they did, the gospels would have been enough.

From a practical standpoint of building the business side of the church, they needed a product that would sell. Receiving a smile because you treated your neighbor well wasn’t going to succeed. And how can you feed the hungry when so much of the population was hungry?

What did the people want? They wanted the good old days. So what did the church give them? It gave them the good old days. But with a warning, be good because yours is probably the final generation so while you are looking forward to a fabulous entry into heaven with the visions of angels and all that stuff there are some conditions. You must believe Jesus is the only way in.

So we ended up with many of the laws being based on the OT version of fact with the caveat that you must believe in Jesus. but never a requirement that we had to act as Jesus taught us to act.
So the early laws were really variations of the OT laws, which were based on the observable science of the day and an emphasis on the patriarchal nature of Jewish law. Up through the middle ages there was little change in the view of the world since the OT.

Later the church said it could never do a better job than it had done because it was infallible regarding morals and doctrine. So despite having laws, morals and doctrine being based on untruths that were relied upon up to the time infallibility was codified they couldn’t be changed because they were now carved in stone and now that the church had told people they were always right, the church can’t legally change anything or it breaks the law of infallibility that it used to paint itself in a corner.

But contrary to this whole concept of a static set of morals and doctrine is the fact that Jesus’s teachings can be applied to sets of actions and realities that were never imagined by the people who were carving the stone in the past.

This is not to say that any of the core holdings of the church must change, but that some changes are not only possible, but required if the church is to be truer to what Jesus taught.

One place that has changed is the notion that you must be catholic to be saved. It was held by the church at one time that you had to be catholic to get into heaven. That was when the insurance sales people were running the show and they thought they had come up with a better selling product than helping the least.

While that product sold very well and sometimes they even killed you if you didn’t buy it. It was realized that the millions of people the church didn’t even know existed probably should have an out to get into heaven, so then we had invincible ignorance added as a get out of jail card free to address the issue of what to do with them .

So does the church change doctrine yes, but because it says it can’t, it says it has developed. Even though the wording it originally used was absolute i.e. like having to be catholic to get into heaven .

So what does that mean? To me I would hope the church can change because it is a very human institution. My faith which I received through the church isn’t predicated on a perfect church that is infallible. What does it mean To you? I can’t answer that.

My faith in what Jesus taught didn’t catch fire in me because I was told it was what I had to believe. In fact if what we believe in is even partly determined by the credibility of who and what is teaching us I might not be Catholic. If what I believed in was in anyway related to the actions of those that call themselves princes of the church I might not be catholic.

But my faith in what Jesus taught is so strong and bolstered by the evidence of the actions of those that put Jesus’ teachings into action that I can ignore the human frailties of the church and focus on what Jesus taught.

But the practicality of what Rome has done can’t be ignored either. It is much easier to tell people what they can’t do, then to get them to do what Jesus taught us to do. It has got them a billion followers that probably wouldn’t recognize the least if He was standing right next to us. But we are not required to be able to recognize Jesus, are we?

BTW, if you believe every thing the church states is true, I have no issue with that. I am all for people having strong faiths. And from a practical standpoint if you believe everything the church says, you probably believe a lot of the things I believe. And among those people who have been inspirations to me and evidence of the good within the church are some people very close to me who are totally obedient to the church. Saintly even.
Peace

Wow, and to think I just bought Warren Carroll’s “Founding of Christendom”, but you haves summed up everything right here.

Where did you get your Degree in Church from?

 

[portarica]

Wow, and to think I just bought Warren Carroll’s “Founding of Christendom”, but you haves summed up everything right here.

Where did you get your Degree in Church from?

Got the whole history of the church down to 6000 characters. The size of post rules here are infallible.

Where did I get the info ? 12 years of catholic school , thousands of masses, most of the catholic encyclopedia, most of the encyclicals that are available in English, hundreds of articles in the spectrum of catholic publications, general knowledge of the church and history in general. and from finding answers to the questions poised in these forums.

There is nothing like trying to find supporting info and confirming ones holdings or leaning to change ones mind based on newly uncovered evidence.

And most importantly struggling with trying to treat all the least like they may be He. Because of that I know with some certainty that we can learn from our failures.

Peace

 

[estesbob]

BTW You didn’t understand what my mother taught me, she was saying go to church and have an open mind. She was saying not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And by what authority did your Mother determine which doctines were wrong and could be ignored?

So you are saying that the church’s teachings on sexuality in marriage and have nothing to do with the OT perception of the physical and spiritual nature of men and women?

Yes.

I show you evidence where Church doctrine has changed and you ignore it. (must be catholic to be saved)

You have presented no evidence other than the usual canards about galileo, the Inquistion,and the crusades-none of which has anything to do with Church doctine.

I say that Jesus’ message is boundless and you say it should be constrained in the same form the church saw it during the inquisition. That’s the real point
That’s OK with me.

When you say Jesus message is boundless what is that based on? Your personal interpreation of scripture of your personal opinion on the way things ought to be? tThe Church does not constrain Jesus’s message-it amplifies it and protects it from distortion.

 

[surritter]

Got the whole history of the church down to 6000 characters. The size of post rules here are infallible.

Where did I get the info ? 12 years of catholic school , thousands of masses, most of the catholic encyclopedia, most of the encyclicals that are available in English, hundreds of articles in the spectrum of catholic publications, general knowledge of the church and history in general. and from finding answers to the questions poised in these forums.

There is nothing like trying to find supporting info or

And most importantly struggling with trying to treat all the least like they may be He. Because of that I know with some certainty that we can learn from our failures.

Peace

And none of these official sources could explain why marriages and sexuality must be ordered to procreation?..

 

[chessmane4e5]

Got the whole history of the church down to 6000 characters. The size of post rules here are infallible.

Where did I get the info ? 12 years of catholic school , thousands of masses, most of the catholic encyclopedia, most of the encyclicals that are available in English, hundreds of articles in the spectrum of catholic publications, general knowledge of the church and history in general. and from finding answers to the questions poised in these forums.

There is nothing like trying to find supporting info or

And most importantly struggling with trying to treat all the least like they may be He. Because of that I know with some certainty that we can learn from our failures.

Peace

When I first read your post I was completely baffled that a Catholic could believe the things you said, but then it dawned on me that it is not your fault, you are a victim of the Enlightenment.

You have absolutely no evidence for your beliefs, besides what you think happened. You think that you have figured it all out by rationally thinking about history and the way things happened.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that Jesus is God? Completely Human and Completely Divine.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

When I first read your post I was completely baffled that a Catholic could believe the things you said, but then it dawned on me that it is not your fault, you are a victim of the Enlightenment.

You have absolutely no evidence for your beliefs, besides what you think happened. You think that you have figured it all out by rationally thinking about history and the way things happened.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that Jesus is God? Completely Human and Completely Divine.

dont go asking questions you may not like the answer to.

 

[chessmane4e5]

dont go asking questions you may not like the answer to.

haha, I am not worried about the answer, as I know what the Church teaches and therefore what I believe. I am just trying to get down to some very basic “facts” and see if I can’t build from there. I thought I would get a quick reply to this question, unless portarica missed me asking it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

haha, I am not worried about the answer, as I know what the Church teaches and therefore what I believe. I am just trying to get down to some very basic “facts” and see if I can’t build from there. I thought I would get a quick reply to this question, unless portarica missed me asking it.

thats a good idea. the first question should always have been that.

 

[portarica]

Chess : When I first read your post I was completely baffled that a Catholic could believe the things you said, but then it dawned on me that it is not your fault, you are a victim of the Enlightenment.

You have absolutely no evidence for your beliefs, besides what you think happened. You think that you have figured it all out by rationally thinking about history and the way things happened.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that Jesus is God? Completely Human and Completely Divine.

The last will be first, YES.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Chess :You have absolutely no evidence for your beliefs, besides what you think happened. You think that you have figured it all out by rationally thinking about history and the way things happened.

Actually it goes back to when I first realized I was catholic and what that meant to me. I was baptized at birth so I was always catholic but knowing I was catholic was different.

When I first became an altar boy I got stuck serving at the 6:30 am Latin mass with the pastor. Usually I had gone to mass with my parents or class so until I served at these masses I had never been to one.

What I found out at the first mass I served was that the 6:30 was that it was the one favored by the hobbled elderly, the ones with the growths on their faces, the immigrants and the poorly dressed.

When I went out to light the candles before mass I was a little fearful and shaken by seeing these people at mass But it wasn’t right up front and close and most of them sat in the side pews where it wasn’t as brightly lit.

At communion time they came up and knelt at the railing. You could see some squirming as people tried to make some personal space.

When I went down to the railing with the pastor I could really see these people. And then something happened as we approached people they would tilt their heads up and crane them further over the communion rail, and then they would stick out their tongues while I positioned my server under their chins and then they received the Eucharist. And then without exception I would see some sign in their faces that what I just had witnessed was good and graceful.

When I was putting out the candles after that first mass I saw some of the parish nuns in the wings and some of the older women of the parish talking to the people in the wings. Over the next few years I learned a lot about Jesus from those nuns, both inside and outside the classroom. I observed how the same people kept helping those in the wings and saw it outside the church too.

And later when I would see the people from the wings around the parish (where had they been before?)and they would recognize me from serving them and all I had to do was say Hi to them and they would light up . Just a kind word.

I remember one day feeling ashamed because I had been afraid of them, even in church.

I saw the good Jesus does for people and I saw the good that people had done for others in His name. That is when I realized how valid treating the least like they may be He really is. I see how selfless service to others benefits people. I have a mother in law who should have millions of people praying for her for all she endures, yet she only prays for others and accepts her predicament with such grace and appreciation for the help she receives from her daughter, my wife.

So the basis for my faith is not the enlightenment or thinking about history, It is from the good fortune of experiencing at a young age evidence of the best of the catholic faith in action. And that evidence I saw at an early age has been confirmed time and time again.

But everything in my life is now judged by that standard of selfless service to others. ( and I do so much more poorly than others, Catholic guilt perfected and all that). It is a standard so easy to imagine and so difficult to even get close to meeting.

In addition to the seeing the best the church has brought to people I have seen what should not have been seen. So I do cast a critical eye on things.

But I don’t do it to disprove anything about the church as repository of everything good taught by Jesus, but to confirm my suspicion that most times when bad things are happening in the church they are the result of deception and selfishness on the part of people who should be acting as shepherds.

As to what my mother was trying to tell me was, she was saying despite what I had seen, I could still find Jesus in the church.

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

Chessman: “Do you believe that Jesus is God? Completely Human and Completely Divine.”

Portarica: “The last will be first, YES.”

This is an interesting reply and it has been a common theme in your posts. You really take Matthew 20:16 to heart.

But a few considerations.

1. The Bible should be considered as a whole instead of latching on to one or two teachings of Jesus.
2. Pray about why Jesus took human form. When He was here He did help cure lots of people. He also fed many thousands of people with the multiplying of the loaves and fish. He did “clarify” many of the laws from the Old Testament (i.e. it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles, but what comes out of the mouth). He did challenge all the wrong beliefs about who is good and righteous (the Beatitudes).

But if I had to pick the one reason why He came it was to save us from our sins by dying on the cross.

Think about it. Jesus could have cured everyone that suffered from disease and illness. Jesus could have fed everyone, not just 5,000 people. Jesus could have commanded His 12 Apostles to write down everything He was teaching and thereby produce a Complete New Testament. Being God, He could have created a book that contained everything we would need to know.

Now, I am not saying that what Jesus did in those 3 years of His ministry are not important. He helped many people, He was able to teach His Apostles what they would need to go out and continue to spread the Good News.

Which is what convinces me to submit to the Catholic Church, His Church. Once I decided to believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the pieces began to fall like dominoes. Since Jesus was God, He must have knew what He was doing when He originally called the 12 disciples. He must have know what He was doing when He changed Simon’s name to Peter and told him He would build His Church upon him. When He gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and when He told him He would protect the Church when He said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. (Matt 16:13-19)

It is this line of reasoning that makes me trust in the Church, and not just in myself or my faith alone. I believe that Jesus has protected the Church in the area of Faith and Morals and that the Holy Spirit has guided all the Popes and even all the religious priests, nuns, deacons, monks, etc. This does not mean these people are perfect or even that all are even good, but overall the Catholic Church has continued to be the Pillar of Truth.

So, if you believe that Jesus is God, how else can you explain what the 12 Apostles did after Pentecost, or the Tradition they passed on and how the Church grew from their? Did Jesus “mess-up” or did things pretty much develop the way He wanted?

 

[portarica]

Chessman: “Do you believe that Jesus is God? Completely Human and Completely Divine.”

Portarica: “The last will be first, YES.”

This is an interesting reply and it has been a common theme in your posts. You really take Matthew 20:16 to heart.

But a few considerations.

1. The Bible should be considered as a whole instead of latching on to one or two teachings of Jesus.
2. Pray about why Jesus took human form. When He was here He did help cure lots of people. He also fed many thousands of people with the multiplying of the loaves and fish. He did “clarify” many of the laws from the Old Testament (i.e. it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles, but what comes out of the mouth). He did challenge all the wrong beliefs about who is good and righteous (the Beatitudes).

But if I had to pick the one reason why He came it was to save us from our sins by dying on the cross.

Think about it. Jesus could have cured everyone that suffered from disease and illness. Jesus could have fed everyone, not just 5,000 people. Jesus could have commanded His 12 Apostles to write down everything He was teaching and thereby produce a Complete New Testament. Being God, He could have created a book that contained everything we would need to know.

Now, I am not saying that what Jesus did in those 3 years of His ministry are not important. He helped many people, He was able to teach His Apostles what they would need to go out and continue to spread the Good News.

Which is what convinces me to submit to the Catholic Church, His Church. Once I decided to believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the pieces began to fall like dominoes. Since Jesus was God, He must have knew what He was doing when He originally called the 12 disciples. He must have know what He was doing when He changed Simon’s name to Peter and told him He would build His Church upon him. When He gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and when He told him He would protect the Church when He said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. (Matt 16:13-19)

It is this line of reasoning that makes me trust in the Church, and not just in myself or my faith alone. I believe that Jesus has protected the Church in the area of Faith and Morals and that the Holy Spirit has guided all the Popes and even all the religious priests, nuns, deacons, monks, etc. This does not mean these people are perfect or even that all are even good, but overall the Catholic Church has continued to be the Pillar of Truth.

So, if you believe that Jesus is God, how else can you explain what the 12 Apostles did after Pentecost, or the Tradition they passed on and how the Church grew from their? Did Jesus “mess-up” or did things pretty much develop the way He wanted?

Chess ,

Its not and all or nothing approach that I take, its like asking if I like steak or scallops, but I do tend to try to keep things in line with treating the least like they may be Him.

I also have a prejudice toward the inclusiveness of Jesus vs. the worthiness approach favored by some writers.

And to believe that the church is the pillar of truth, while some issues that a first grader could understand are not fully addressed by the church, begs some difficult questions about how closely apostolic tradition has been accepted, not by the congregation, but by the princes of the church.

A lack of impeccability is not an excuse for wanton ignorance of moral behavior.The pain and suffering due to the delays and denials that the princes of the church feel they are entitled to inflict upon faithful members of the congregation suggests that perhaps your trust while it may not be misplaced in the church, has been misappropriated by some of those very princes.

Peace

 

[estesbob]

Chess ,

A lack of impeccability is not an excuse for wanton ignorance of moral behavior.The pain and suffering due to the delays and denials that the princes of the church feel they are entitled to inflict upon faithful members of the congregation suggests that perhaps your trust while it may not be misplaced in the church, has been misappropriated by some of those very princes.

Peace

And this has what to do with the immorality of Homosexual behavior? In fact what does it have to do with ANY of the teachings on faith and moras by the Church?

 

[Lycorth]

It’s not so much that we’re against gay marriage; it’s that there is no such THING. Your friend has an incorrect notion of what marriage is. It is not a contract between two people who love each other. It is a sacramental covenant between two people whose bodies are, by design, meant for each other to love, and love in such a way that life can result. I suspect our culture which embraces contraception has clouded his understanding of the natural link between “love-giving” and “life-giving.”

That natural link does not exist in homosexuals, so it cannot even a marriage to begin with. (Since someone will ask: a man or woman who is infertile does not render a marriage invalid, because their bodies are designed to go together. There is a physical abnormality in the way, yet it is still a marriage.)

Took the words right out of my mouth

Gay marriage is furthermore unnecessary and unessential for the improvement of society. Homosexuals, and I may be wrong, only amount to about 1% of the American population, and must number a very tiny minority overall. Hence, changing laws and customs to benefit an extremely narrow minority is at the best, unproductive. There are far more important things to worry about than redefining marriage to include homosexuals.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Chess ,
Its not and all or nothing approach that I take, its like asking if I like steak or scallops, but I do tend to try to keep things in line with treating the least like they may be Him.

I see it as all or nothing. Either I accept all Jesus taught and said, or I don’t.

I also have a prejudice toward the inclusiveness of Jesus vs. the worthiness approach favored by some writers.

Can you be more specific?

And to believe that the church is the pillar of truth, while some issues that a first grader could understand are not fully addressed by the church, begs some difficult questions about how closely apostolic tradition has been accepted, not by the congregation, but by the princes of the church.

Again, examples would be helpful. To claim that the Pope or Priests do not understand when a first grader does is quick extreme.

A lack of impeccability is not an excuse for wanton ignorance of moral behavior.The pain and suffering due to the delays and denials that the princes of the church feel they are entitled to inflict upon faithful members of the congregation suggests that perhaps your trust while it may not be misplaced in the church, has been misappropriated by some of those very princes.

Wanton ignorance of moral behavior? I just do not see what you see.

The princes of the church feel they are entitled to inflict pain?

Are you speaking from personal experience or just what you have observed?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But I don’t do it to disprove anything about the church as repository of everything good taught by Jesus, but to confirm my suspicion that most times when bad things are happening in the church they are the result of deception and selfishness on the part of people who should be acting as shepherds.

As to what my mother was trying to tell me was, she was saying despite what I had seen, I could still find Jesus in the church.

Peace

so, the homosexul apologetics are in the same spirit as Mother Theresas work with the poor? St. Damiens self sacrifice for the lepers?

and somehow homosexual activity is good, but the badmean, Princes of the Church just have us tricked?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

seen on craigslist…

(1) tinfoil hat. slightly used. in good condition. size: pinhead

proof against

1. mind reading aliens
2. mind reading government sattelites
3. any semblance of common sense whatsoever.

for the low, low price of others respect!

 

[Lycorth]

And when things go wrong in the Church, why can’t it possibly be the fault of infiltrators with an anti-Catholic agenda? Why must the Church always be the bad guy?

 

[surritter]

And when things go wrong in the Church, why can’t it possibly be the fault of infiltrators with an anti-Catholic agenda? Why must the Church always be the bad guy?

I wish you would post this same comment in the SSPX thread.

 

[deanast]

I do not understand the churches active campaign against ``gay marriage". Of course there is no such thing as a sacramental marriage between two people of the same sex, nor is there any such thing as a sacramental marriage between a male and a female if either one is married to someone else, irrespective of whether a civil divorce has been granted. However, if we are prepared to, e.g., pay health benefits to the partner of a worker in a contractual marriage where one of the two is divorced, we should, out justice, be prepared to pay benefits to the partner of a worker in a same sex contractual relationship. The churches obligation is to catechize the enormous difference between these two contractual arrangements and a real, permanent sacramental marriage.

I am concerned about the vocal opposition of the church because it seems to me that this dilutes the churches stance against the totally unacceptable evil of abortion. Bishop’s MUST deny the Eucharist to any politician who is openly in favor of legalized abortion. I have seen some people argue that politicians who support same-sex marriage should be similarly denied the Eucharist, but this would be an abuse of Canon 915. Just as a Catholic Attorney has a responsibility to seek a minimum sentence, or not guilty verdict for a murderer even if their client acknowledges guilt, so too does a politician have a responsibility to assure equal legal rights to all people is similar situations (i.e., two people living together as spouses without being in a sacramental marriage but with a civil contract).

 

[Lycorth]

I wish you would post this same comment in the SSPX thread.

I could just as easily