Gay Marriage

[Rau]

Spiritual disorders exit. One of them is homosexuality. And when one acts on this tendency it also becomes a physical disorder.

Really? How does one acquire this particular Spiritual Disorder? What other spiritual disorders are there? Can they be eliminated? How?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Compared to when we were burning the irreligious in the street? Compared to when women didn’t have the vote? Compared to when people could be hung for stealing a load of bread because their children were starving to death?

Absolutley, we’re practically all saints compared to what those who came before us were doing in the 18th century right the way back to the birth of Christ and beyond.

There has never been a “golden age” in recorded history where Humanity was chaste, pure and good, like this myth of the perfect 50’s American family I keep seeing being promoted by a variety of Christian groups. We’ve got plenty of problems today we need to address, like in Europe for instance many countries pay women 15% less what they would pay an equally qualified and experienced man to do purely because they are female and the law permits it.

There are many cases of immoral practices we need to deal with, but we’ve come a long way in two thousand years. Sure, pornography isn’t exactly good christian reading, but it’s really doesn’t even come close to when we just to burn Protestants during the reformation (Bloody Mary of England anyone?) for their “immorality”.

This is such a one sided assessment that seeks to put every social ill squarely on the shoulders of the Church. What you have here is a view carefully groomed by reading anti-Catholic propaganda without much in the way of even trying to see the Church’s view on any issue. It is basically naturalist-rationalist dogma wrapped up in modern libertarianism that purports to be sympathetic to the Church as a “spiritual” reality.

You think the Church will die in much the same way that the Pharisees thought that by simply killing Christ their problem would be eradicated and Rome was convinced that persecuting and killing Christians the Church would die. What you fail to see is that modern liberalism is paganism in new garb and that paganism will be used by God to purge and refine the Church in modern times. It is the refiner’s fire and what will remain will be the essential core of Christ’s Body, the City of God that has lived through two thousand years of interaction with the City of Man. The City of Man will often appear to triumph and will definitely outnumber the City of God, but what God is looking for is quality not quantity.

Your call seems to be to make the Church popular. The question to be asked is “Popular with whom?” Large numbers of human beings or God? Are we seeking with our whole heart, mind and being to please God or please men?

You may take great exception to this appraisal, but your assessment of Church history seems incredibly one sided as if Christ has been more active outside the Church than within it. As if “upon this rock I will build MY Church” was simply a misleading phrase by Christ who really planned to build his Church as dictated by human whims. You also seem to have bought into “chronological snobbery” wholeheartedly, as if modern times are so much better than any previous era.

May I suggest you broaden your reading away from Wikipedia to original source material and not merely selected quotes that serve to make your points? The broader view is that the position of the Church on issues like slavery, abortion, gay relationships, etc. is much, much more subtle and nuanced than you give her credit for.

In a very real sense, following Christ, the Church is to be humble and serving, taking on the position of a slave and the Pope is to be the servant of servants, the slave of slaves. It is not possible to be slaves without being slaves to slave owners - those who populate the City of Man. Condemning those owners by retaliation or aggression is precisely NOT in keeping with the redemptive act that being a slave for God entails. It means eschewing the “fight or flight” dilemma that humans can’t seem to get beyond and choosing a stand firm “turn the other cheek” resolve against the evil actions and intentions of those who populate the City of Man. This is the passive resistance of Gandhi. This is the “foolishness” of God which serves as a stumbling block to those who simply don’t get it and seek rather to “enforce” morality with external sanctions rather than organically from the very ground of Being Itself.

This is the point of the entire Old Testament, where the “Law” as an external means of controlling evil lacked the integral power to re-create humanity in the image of God’s Word, His Son.

Being a slave is not fundamentally demeaning provided the Imago Dei is living and active inside the slave. Being a slave “owner” is fundamentally degenerate, but no lawful banning of slavery will restore or make right the interiority of the owner. If both owner and slave are restored to Christ, slavery dissipates like water on hot pavement. The fact that slavery exists anywhere is the litmus that simply shows up to reveal that the hearts of some men are enslaved to evil and therefore will seek to impose their own interior slavery on others. Banning slavery simply serves to mask the symptoms and does nothing to treat the real issue.

What you don’t seem to get is that your argument against the Church on the issue of slavery is about as well-intended as an argument against dentists using red vegetable dye to disclose plaque. Banning vegetable dye will not fix the problem of plaque, it merely hides it from view. Likewise, banning slavery as a spiritual or moral endeavor simply misses the point. It is a wise and sane political enterprise, but the Church is not in the business of politics. “My Kingdom is not of this Earth.” Converting hearts will change the politics, but changing politics will not necessarily convert hearts.

 

[Nacho45]

Very well then! Let us return all the women to their confinement in their homes, let us force them to wear burqas for their modesty. Let’s prevent women serving at the altar and force them to remain silent. Oh, of course, we have to sack all the female teachers as well. After all, by the words of St Paul (where our condemnation of Homosexuality is strongest and still a tedious translation) they too are an abomination before God.

We must also send ships to Africa to subject the heathens to slavery, for by the Papal States holy standard they are nothing more than tools for our personal use on Galleys or servants.

Now, are you that twisted and ancient in your thoughts to think for one single moment any of this is ok? Because lest we forget, these activities are all endorsed, indeed in many cases demanded by sacred tradition and scripture. (After all, the place of women is one of the reasons the SSPX views the Catholic Church as heretical, if anything they’re probably closer to tradition).

God spoke to us 2000 years ago, and the world has changed dramatically since that time. Some parts of the message, such as to love and to serve one another are relevant in every age and time. Others such as to demand the total and absolute subjugation of women have no place in our enlightened age, we have become wiser, indeed more moral since then. Perhaps when the world was ravaged by diseases and high child mortality there was a valid reason to prevent homosexuality, or perhaps if the translation (Effeminate not homosexual which I’m unsure of myself but is irrelevant really) is indeed wrong it was legitimate for that time. But there is no sensible sane reason anymore when we compare to other (arguably more appealing to previous standards) developments over time.

If Gods will hasn’t changed on this matter, but you are not willing to carry out the full demands then you too are a heretic.

What are you talking about?

 

[Nacho45]

There sure is a lot of fallacious argumentation taking place in this thread.

 

[SMGS127]

Sources?

Peace,
Ed

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria

There are plenty of sources in the references section, if you are interested. It is fairly common knowledge that female hysteria was a diagnosis treated with external masturbation by a doctor. A ridiculous diagnosis, and a stain on our country’s past, but it was still a part of the past.

Spiritual disorders exit. One of them is homosexuality. And when one acts on this tendency it also becomes a physical disorder.

A spiritual disorder is most definitely not a medical disorder. And a physical disorder, while it CAN be a medical disorder (e.g. someone who is disabled or blind), is not always a medical disorder. A mental disorder is colloquially defined as something that negatively affects ones life; in this sense, homosexuality could theoretically be defined so. But the APA uses mental disorder to describe something that both negatively affects one’s life and requires treatment. This is why “gender identity disorder” has become “gender dysphoria” and is only a temporary diagnosis. This is why homosexuality is not listed as a mental disorder at all. The former has a temporary need for treatment with a short end date; the second requires no treatment at all. With no treatment necessary for (or even capable of) “converting” one’s sexuality, there is no reason for homosexuality to be listed as a mental disorder in the DSM. It, of course, still remains disordered, but it is not a mental disorder.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Thank you for having the energy to keep up the fight. Even though you and I know you won’t get anywhere. This site needs people like us to stop the judging Catholic that **think they know what God wants. **Good luck to you !!!

Meaning that you know what God wants, correct? That despite the fact that all reliable indicators of what “God wants” point away from what you know what God wants.

How have you determined what God wants?
Not by Church teaching, not by Scripture, not by Tradition. By personal fiat.

Given that BOTH you and those you decry as judging are, in fact, making judgements, (yes YOU are as well as "they,”) the definitive unbiased determination would be to go with authoritative Church teaching, Scripture and Tradition.

In point of fact, there is no avoiding judgement. All issues require judgements - reasoned, wise, discerning judgements. There is an entire book in the OT called Judges. There are a number of “wisdom” books that teach how to make good judgments. Jesus spent three years teaching the truths about how to recognize the Kingdom of Heaven (a recognition that requires discerning judgement) to his disciples and hearers. He taught in parables - every one requiring some kind of judgement to be made by the listeners.

Jesus didn’t say “Do not judge.” He said, “Do not judge by appearances only.” He also said, “Be as innocent as doves, but as cunning as serpents.” He said, “Do not condemn.”

What you appear to be saying is, “Don’t make a wise judgement, simply accept what the loud cultural voices around you are saying because they know best. Don’t use wisdom, be a sheep. Don’t judge, let other people persuade you.”

Your last line gives you away, by the way. This isn’t about “luck” as if the outcome is a merely fortuitous event. It is about the will of God and discerning that. Luck has nothing to do with it precisely because God has an interest in the outcome.

 

[Nacho45]

In our relationship with God, the only thing which changes is our opinions.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Neko is in no way putting forth anti-Catholic bigotry. Trying to explain that history marches on and that social customs and norms that were appropriate 2000 years ago are not acceptable in today’s world is hateful in what exact manner? Those who fail to learn from what has happened in the past are doomed to relive it again. The historical facts are that slaves were considered a regular part of life and quite legal and women were treated far differently in past times - you cannot magically do away with reality. Thank goodness that Papa Francis lives in the real world and as the pastor for several billion Catholics, understands that we live in 2014. His mission to make the Church one that lives out the Gospels of our Lord will most likely save the Church, especially in the First World.

Pope Francis: Children need a mother and a father.
patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2014/04/pope-francis-children-need-a-mother-and-a-father/

 

[Peter_Plato]

Really? How does one acquire this particular Spiritual Disorder? What other spiritual disorders are there? Can they be eliminated? How?

Perhaps some clues…
patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2014/05/sexuality-and-personality.html

 

[Rau]

Perhaps some clues…
patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2014/05/sexuality-and-personality.html

Not many…

 

[NekoNecro]

I agree entirely. The Church supports those positive actions and deplores unjust discrimination.

In theory, but have you heard some of the venom being spew from the the mouths of the African clergy in recent years, or that Bishop who I posted a link about earlier in this thread who tried to exorcise Illinois of “The gay demons”.

If I wasn’t so well acquainted with Church Doctrine and I had to judge from the conduct of Church leaders, I’d find this very hard to believe.

What right is denied? I guess you mean " marriage"? The gay person’s right is the same as mine ; regrettably, by virtue of his makeup, it’s not the right he values.
What accommodations could or should be made?

Why is it regrettable? Is it regrettable that I am left handed? Despite that being natural had I been born fifty years earlier it would have been perceived by my teachers as a sign of Satan and I would have been forced to right with my right hand, as indeed one of my parents were.

The only reason we see homosexuality to be “regrettable” is because we have made it a negative quality. In light of the fact the worlds population is growing far too fast for the support network to keep up, I find it to be neither regrettable or to be applauded. It simply is.

1). Should the Church say that sex between 2 men is ok/good?

Good? Of course not, relationships of any kind have the potential to be good or bad.
Ok as in they are to be tolerated and permitted in society? It needs to, the sooner the better. Every time a Catholic film comes out claiming to minster to homosexuals to help “guide them away” from their “disorders”, we’re breeding resent to the Church, inside and out.

2). Should the church extend the marriage sacrament to same sex couples?

This isn’t actually my main concern in all truth, many homosexuals wish to be married but the vast majority aren’t Catholic so this probably would be irrelevant to.

If the world was all rainbows and happy care bears though? Yeah, I’d be happy to see this. Not because I’m gay, just because for me this would be the ultimate symbol of how far we’ve come and that homosexuals in the laity can experience the joys most heterosexuals do.

Again, this is not my priority however. I’d rather deal with the faster-moving secular barriers first than the ancient machinations of an institution that in all truth really doesn’t have that much of an influence on wider society aside from it’s immense wealth it can use to lobby, pressurize and influence goverment.

3). Should the state change it’s view on marriage to cover any 2 people?

I think so, I quite like how the UK has defined marriage recently, in that it is a “public show of devotion to an individual and a union of the assets of two persons”, or words to that effect.

4). Should the state introduce a new legal framework, distinct from marriage, but addressing requirements for persons to share assets, live together, care for each other,

No…A number of European countries have tried this over the past twenty odd years and I think everyone thought the whole idea of a “Civil Union” to be really rather demeaning and patronizing. A marriage in everything but name? If it looks liker a duck, and it quacks like a duck…We might as well call it a duck and not a bear.

 

[NekoNecro]

Thank you for having the energy to keep up the fight. Even though you and I know you won’t get anywhere. This site needs people like us to stop the judging Catholic that think they know what God wants. Good luck to you !!!

Thank’s for the support Shelby Sun Yeah, I’m not holding out too much hope of convincing anyone on here, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t say or try to do what is right.

 

[NekoNecro]

Only a few radical Leftists deny the truth. I was there in the 1950s and with undisguised hatred they tell people it was a myth.

I am rather more inclined to a left-wing view, but I can assure you I speak the truth.

In fact, they are afraid people will, and are, living like that again.

Do you really want to go back to the days of McCarthyism? That was from what I can read the modern American equivalent to the reign of terror.

As the poison began to seep into daily life, faithful Catholics who were there never forgot the way life was lived. They rejected, as I did, the spiritually harmful and physically harmful effects of various movements. No, there is real fear there. As I heard on Catholic Radio: “We’re not quite back to 1957 but we’re getting there.” So this is not just my idea or a myth. It was real. I was there in 1957.

The difference was though Ed is that abortion, per-marital sex, homosexuality…All of these things existed in just as great a quantity in society back then as it does today. The only difference is we aren’t so two faced and there’s no requirement to hide it anymore.

Maybe you were just lucky to grow up in a paticually idyllic and comfortable situation, I couldn’t possible comment but for most people in Europe, especially in Catholic territories like Ireland the 50’s where the Catholic church was the unofficial goverment (pick up a copy of Angela’s Ashes or Evelyn if you don’t believe me, they are two very famous autobiographies of a man and woman who lived there during that time) were a very dark time in it’s history, one that even today it hasn’t recovered from

That’s not slamming the Catholic church, I’m just pointing out that in every age some of us enjoy comfortable and moral surroundings while others don’t. Many Americans had a real (or fake) veneer of it during the 50;'s, while all of the poor in Ireland had a tyranny straight out of the 18th century.

 

[Nacho45]

I am always amazed with the authority some people use to speak on certain matters and even more amazed at their shock when they realize just how wrong they are on that certain matter.

The problem with those people is they speak from a position of personal idea, dealing little with fact or reality. Its what they want to believe; therefore, that is what it is…according to them. This relativistic approach to Catholicism and Christianity in general is a most dangerous slippery slope as evidenced by the world around us. This approach has always and always will be destructive and certainly not enlightening. It darkens the soul and pulls one away from God. This type of person has limited sight and only able to see what is directly in front of them while wearing blinders, never taking in the enormous big picture.

In any event, those people can go right on claiming what they speak is true and the Church will go right on teaching what it has always taught which is in opposition to their “facts” which were created to support their ideas.

The Church does not change to fit you. You change to fit the Church.

 

[NekoNecro]

This is such a one sided assessment that seeks to put every social ill squarely on the shoulders of the Church. What you have here is a view carefully groomed by reading anti-Catholic propaganda without much in the way of even trying to see the Church’s view on any issue. It is basically naturalist-rationalist dogma wrapped up in modern libertarianism that purports to be sympathetic to the Church as a “spiritual” reality.

Good God no, I don’t think for one moment all of the bad actions in history were the actions of the Catholic Church. I used Mary I of England as an example, sure she was motivated by religious fanaticism (and just happened to be Catholic) but I’m not suggesting that’s the fault of the church, she had many secular reasons to eradicate her political enemies as well.

Just because a historian book does not take a sycophantic stance hero worshiping the Catholic Church does not mean their evidence is false or without merit. We cannot change historical fact, we can recognize it and take lessons from it to make a better present.

You think the Church will die in much the same way that the Pharisees thought that by simply killing Christ their problem would be eradicated and Rome was convinced that persecuting and killing Christians the Church would die. What you fail to see is that modern liberalism is paganism in new garb and that paganism will be used by God to purge and refine the Church in modern times. It is the refiner’s fire and what will remain will be the essential core of Christ’s Body, the City of God that has lived through two thousand years of interaction with the City of Man. The City of Man will often appear to triumph and will definitely outnumber the City of God, but what God is looking for is quality not quantity.

I think if it keeps going the way it is digging a bigger hole for itself it will die (I mean let’s look at the greatest most devout Catholic bastions of history, France, Spain Ireland…The membership is falling away and in lieu of recent history and activities and a refusal to accept and correct malpractice the numbers are not being replaced with new intake.

I don’t want it to, but it will happen if we keep driving down this road leading off a cliff. It won’t be the end of Christianity by a long stretch, I understand the liberal Methodists and Quakers are undergoing something of a Renaissance and a boom in new membership but the influence of the Church founded by God will be come non-existent without the faithful to support it.

We could say this doesn’t matter, “we have Africa” to replace the pagan heathen in Europe but think about it…It’s not Africa that funds all the gold and marble decorating the Vatican or it’s many commercial or charitable activities. It’s the wealthier Americans and Europeans who bankroll and support it, and without them Church acitvites will grind to a halt, and everyone born in the world without the Catholic Church is doomed.

Your call seems to be to make the Church popular. The question to be asked is “Popular with whom?” Large numbers of human beings or God? Are we seeking with our whole heart, mind and being to please God or please men?

In my eyes popularity is a product of benevolence, good conduct and morality
. We have good intentions, but neither good conduct or morality in this case.

By obtaining all three, the Church will become popular as a result. I’m more concerned with doing the right thing, which just also will make is more popular and draw closer the faithful.

You may take great exception to this appraisal, but your assessment of Church history seems incredibly one sided as if Christ has been more active outside the Church than within it. As if “upon this rock I will build MY Church” was simply a misleading phrase by Christ who really planned to build his Church as dictated by human whims. You also seem to have bought into “chronological snobbery” wholeheartedly, as if modern times are so much better than any previous era.

Did he say “Upon the rock I will build my church”, or “Upon this Roman hill I shall sit and guide every single last action you do”.

Christ founded his church, but it’s been humans who have been promoting his Gospel and defaming his church with their own malice and greed, along with their own Holiness and good actions as they occur ever since.

May I suggest you broaden your reading away from Wikipedia to original source material and not merely selected quotes that serve to make your points? The broader view is that the position of the Church on issues like slavery, abortion, gay relationships, etc. is much, much more subtle and nuanced than you give her credit for.

So…You’d like me to stop posting facts, just because they don’t pain the Church in the most favorable light?

I know wikipedia isn’t ideal Peter But since I can’t actually show you a textbook or direct you to files in my universities internet archives I have tio resort to less detailed and nuanced public material. It’s not as well written, but it covers the central events accurately enough.

The church has had a more positive (name removed by moderator)ut overwriting the bad in the past hundred years, but I have to go back into the past to support more modern proposals of action.

 

[NekoNecro]

In a very real sense, following Christ, the Church is to be humble and serving, taking on the position of a slave and the Pope is to be the servant of servants, the slave of slaves. It is not possible to be slaves without being slaves to slave owners - those who populate the City of Man.

Would you be happy to let your “master” sell your daughter to a brothel to be raped every day and night? Because that’s what was demanded of many slaves in the past. Please…Don’t try and justify such a heinous barbaric act. We messed up back then, we didn’t know any better…But now we do.

Condemning those owners by retaliation or aggression is precisely NOT in keeping with the redemptive act that being a slave for God entails. It means eschewing the “fight or flight” dilemma that humans can’t seem to get beyond and choosing a stand firm “turn the other cheek” resolve against the evil actions and intentions of those who populate the City of Man. This is the passive resistance of Gandhi. This is the “foolishness” of God which serves as a stumbling block to those who simply don’t get it and seek rather to “enforce” morality with external sanctions rather than organically from the very ground of Being Itself.

B-But your killing your own argument saying this! Enforcing it’s own brand of “morality” upon society is exactly what the Catholic Church has been trying to do since day one of operations.

To suffer and be silent in the way of gay marriage we are told is to be committing a grave sin at the moment…But to fight back against slave masters and tyrants is bad? Please…Somone tell me I’m not the only one who thinks this is mad.

This is the point of the entire Old Testament, where the “Law” as an external means of controlling evil lacked the integral power to re-create humanity in the image of God’s Word, His Son.

Yeah, it also advocated stoning people to death, polygamy and not eating bacon sandwiches, do we really want to use that as a good example of morality today? (if we stand by the Church’s view that morality cannot be changed and is always the same)

Being a slave is not fundamentally demeaning provided the Imago Dei is living and active inside the slave. Being a slave “owner” is fundamentally degenerate, but no lawful banning of slavery will restore or make right the interiority of the owner. If both owner and slave are restored to Christ, slavery dissipates like water on hot pavement. The fact that slavery exists anywhere is the litmus that simply shows up to reveal that the hearts of some men are enslaved to evil and therefore will seek to impose their own interior slavery on others. Banning slavery simply serves to mask the symptoms and does nothing to treat the real issue.

This is defending the indefensible. Don’t take my word for it Peter, try out this argument on the next person you meet in real life. The only reason arguments like this exist is because some institutions (not only the Church, there are plenty of others) who don’t want to admit they got it wrong and did some pretty bad stuff.

The difference here between right and wrong is that while France today is ashamed of what it did over in Haiti enslaving the population and has apologized profusely for it never to do it again, the Church doesn’t even admit that it ever did anything wrong, it’s almost entirely unrepentant on the matter. Without an admission of malpractice, we cannot move on from it and make a better future.

What you don’t seem to get is that your argument against the Church on the issue of slavery is about as well-intended as an argument against dentists using red vegetable dye to disclose plaque. Banning vegetable dye will not fix the problem of plaque, it merely hides it from view. Likewise, banning slavery as a spiritual or moral endeavor simply misses the point.*** It is a wise and sane political enterprise***, but the Church is not in the business of politics. “My Kingdom is not of this Earth.” Converting hearts will change the politics, but changing politics will not necessarily convert hearts.

I hope you’re not in any position of power

Banning something itself rarely fixes a problem, but it is indeed a start. When Slavery was outlawed in the united states it merely introduced sharecropping instead, a minor improvement but that wasn’t really saying much. That said, people soon worked against that, and over time the situation for slaves slowly developed and escalated in improving conditions until finally it developed into the Civil Rights movement.

Sure, Black Americans and Hispanics are still pretty disadvantaged today, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the days of the Atlantic Slave trade or Spanish Peonage.

Provided nothing happens to drag us back into the past, we’ll keep moving on and things will get better,

 

[NekoNecro]

There sure is a lot of fallacious argumentation taking place in this thread.

Prove me wrong than Nacho45, I’ve provided you with a colorful variety of evidence and situations to illustrate my points, but all you’ve done is accuse me of anti-Catholicism, slander and lies.

It’s better to cede and accept defeat in an argument than to defend the indefensible, how else can we learn and develop if we cannot accept someone else might have a slightly better idea.

I’m not saying mine is perfect, not by a long shot…But you’ve not given me any reasons at all to prove why you are right and I am mistaken.

 

[NekoNecro]

I am always amazed with the authority some people use to speak on certain matters and even more amazed at their shock when they realize just how wrong they are on that certain matter.

I study Theology 5 days a week Nacho, I don’t claim to be an authority by any stretch of the imagination but I am confident that my knowledge stretches further than that of the average Catholic.

Compared to the Pope? Not even close, I never will be as well versed in canon law or Theological thinking. Compared to you? I think I’m a bit more knowledgeable.

The problem with those people is they speak from a position of personal idea, dealing little with fact or reality.

It’s only you who has been denying reality and historical fact so far. Like I said, prove me wrong.

Its what they want to believe; therefore, that is what it is…according to them. This relativistic approach to Catholicism and Christianity in general is a most dangerous slippery slope as evidenced by the world around us.

Relativism is the only way we develop our morality in the long run. Sure, we’ve gone of the rails a few times (I find abortion to be very immoral in most cases myself) but if we don’t develop our morals we’d be back in the middle east beating women who speak in Church.

This approach has always and always will be destructive and certainly not enlightening. It darkens the soul and pulls one away from God. This type of person has limited sight and only able to see what is directly in front of them while wearing blinders, never taking in the enormous big picture.

You sure you’re not describing yourself here? I’m more than willing to take an unbiased scathing critical analysis of any topic, including my own faith. It’s only you who are blindly defending the indefensible in the face of evidence proving contrary to it.

In any event, those people can go right on claiming what they speak is true and the Church will go right on teaching what it has always taught which is in opposition to their “facts” which were created to support their ideas.

The Church does not change to fit you. You change to fit the Church.

Vatican II. The Church changed plenty then to help accommodate the world. I can pull out even more examples if need be, I’m quite familiar with the development of canon law.

The Church has changed countless times over history, and is more than able to do so again.

 

[NekoNecro]

Meaning that you know what God wants, correct?

Good grief no, the only thing we can do is try to work it out and make the best decision possible. I know many others in my line of study would disagree and say it’s actually impossible to know what God wants. I disagree to an extent.

That despite the fact that all reliable indicators of what “God wants” point away from what you know what God wants.

How have you determined what God wants?
Not by Church teaching, not by Scripture, not by Tradition. By personal fiat.

Not at all, I myself was once one of the most fanatical ultra-orthodox Catholics around. If Benedict came out and said the ocean was pink, as far as I was concerned the ocean was pink.

Since then my views have developed, after having become far better versed in Church/World history, Philosophy and Theology logic and reason, along with seeing what the current stance on certain topics has done has forced me to reconsider everything. Some topics like abortion I find little if anything to question, others like gay marriage I now find the current stance to be both immoral, unrealistic and indeed backward.

Given that BOTH you and those you decry as judging are, in fact, making judgements, (yes YOU are as well as "they,”) the definitive unbiased determination would be to go with authoritative Church teaching, Scripture and Tradition.

Church teaching has developed over the years so many times it’s almost impossible to keep track of it. There have been innovations and restorations, but it’s never sat still.

We only have to look at the Dogmas of the Church to see that; The Church may have always believed in the assumption of Mary, but it wasn’t ever taught as an undeniable truth that our absolute faith in was a requirement for our salvation prior to that. Papal Infalliability is another, The Pope has always wielded a great Authority, but for 1800 years there was little (if any) distinction between his charism as can be applied to his teaching office, or his secular authority as it applied to everything else. For many centuries in Italy they were assumed to be both one and the same.

In point of fact, there is no avoiding judgement. All issues require judgements - reasoned, wise, discerning judgements. There is an entire book in the OT called Judges. There are a number of “wisdom” books that teach how to make good judgments. Jesus spent three years teaching the truths about how to recognize the Kingdom of Heaven (a recognition that requires discerning judgement) to his disciples and hearers. He taught in parables - every one requiring some kind of judgement to be made by the listeners.

There is a difference between judgement and reasonable unbiased discussion. Since I am neither a homosexual or a practicing Catholic at present, yet I am quite well versed in Church History and Theological thinking I find myself in an ideal situation to consider this topic. I have no bias either way, I can merely state it as I find it

Jesus didn’t say “Do not judge.” He said, “Do not judge by appearances only.” He also said, “Be as innocent as doves, but as cunning as serpents.” He said, “Do not condemn.”

What you appear to be saying is, “Don’t make a wise judgement, simply accept what the loud cultural voices around you are saying because they know best. Don’t use wisdom, be a sheep. Don’t judge, let other people persuade you.”

Don’t be silly, I never said that. My culture doesn’t even recognise rape as a very serious crime compared to many other foul things a person could do.

The fact that I am on a Catholic Forum, promoting a stance at odds with official Catholic teaching should tell you I am not a sheep, I’m a very loudmouthed and rebellious cow who practices independent unbiased thinking.

Your last line gives you away, by the way. This isn’t about “luck” as if the outcome is a merely fortuitous event. It is about the will of God and discerning that. Luck has nothing to do with it precisely because God has an interest in the outcome.

I’m afraid being gay like having red hair is just pot luck. Unless you want to suggest those poor souls who are born without a limb or downs syndrome are the victims of an intentionally malicious God, because that to me is a very dark way of viewing the creator.

 

[josh987654321]

or a practicing Catholic at present,

Hi NekoNerco,

I haven’t followed all of this thread and I apologise if this questions was already asked, but may I ask what made you stop practicing your Catholic faith?

Thank you for reading
Josh