Gay Marriage

[Rau]

Neko- I cannot reconcile what you write with your belief in the sacraments (notwithstanding your condemnation of the flaw in Marriage- omitting same sex couples).

I continue to not understand why you believe the Real Presence, and other things for which your teacher is the Catholic Church, but that is another issue. *

Consider the Real Presence- if you believe it, why would you stay away from it just because you have some issues with a very fallible Church? Why do you reject what Christ commanded? Why would you accept any Church “rule” that your lack of submission requires you to stay away? Is that rule truly correct? *

If you believe in it, isn’t the Eucharist more important than rules of a wayward Church?**

 

[Kal2012]

Ultimately, unless the rest of society decides to somehow exterminate the Catholics/super-Orthodox Christians, Orthodox Jews and other groups that are opposed to SSM, there will always be groups that don’t support SSM.

This is just something SSM supporters need to learn to deal with. It’s called pluralism.

Just because you personally may not believe in religion (or have issues with Catholicism) doesn’t mean that I’m (or everyone in my religious group) is going to magically buy into another way of thinking.

I believe in the Holy Sacrament of marriage. Someone who’s not affiliated with my church is free to disagree with me. I’m okay that secular people don’t. However, I’m not inclined to call a SSM “marriage.” I like the idea of creating a new language to cover this new form of legal relationship.

However, part of the reason why I joined the Catholic church is because of its position on SSM marriage/abortion, etc. (Not in spite of them). So, I really find it sad when people sincerely believe that the church is a hateful organization. I joined the church to deepen my faith, not diminish it.

Things like marriage between a man/woman and having monogamous relationships are things that made the Christian church different than the cultures they were living in. That’s the larger problem. These days, Christians are way so quick to be inclusive that they don’t realize the value and reasons for being exclusive. (Does that make sense?)

As Christians, we are specifically live in the world, but not live the same way as the world does.

So, we are supposed to be different than the culture when it gets perverted and goes against God. That’s how people are supposed to know that we are Christians. We strive to live pure lives, even when the culture goes nuts.

The truth is that we are supposed to try to fit what God and the church wants, not what society demands of us.

Secular people, obviously, don’t have the same obligations to the church as Christians do.

However, all of us have to figure out how to get along with each other because we all have relationships to our communities. Nothing happens in a vacuum and I’m sick of this idea that we should ignore the larger ramifications for society when people want to go off and do crazy things because they want to be “individuals”.

Individuals create families. Families create kids. We are supposed to live in community with each other, not act like everyone else are just extras on a movie set. Your relationship is my problem, if I don’t want my kid to live out your values.

It should be okay for me to say that I don’t want my kid in a SSM relationship if it’s okay for you to say that Catholics and Christians have bad morals. We are both making value judgments on each others behavior based on our life experiences. Why is one socially okay and the other socially wrong. I thought we valued diversity and everyone’s ideas. This is why people see hypocrites when it comes to these issues. One standard is okay for me, but not for thee.

Really? Seriously? I hope that people get something out of my rambling. Peace.

 

[shelby_sun]

Ultimately, unless the rest of society decides to somehow exterminate the Catholics/super-Orthodox Christians, Orthodox Jews and other groups that are opposed to SSM, there will always be groups that don’t support SSM.

This is just something SSM supporters need to learn to deal with. It’s called pluralism.

Just because you personally may not believe in religion (or have issues with Catholicism) doesn’t mean that I’m (or everyone in my religious group) is going to magically buy into another way of thinking.

I believe in the Holy Sacrament of marriage. Someone who’s not affiliated with my church is free to disagree with me. I’m okay that secular people don’t. However, I’m not inclined to call a SSM “marriage.” I like the idea of creating a new language to cover this new form of legal relationship.

However, part of the reason why I joined the Catholic church is because of its position on SSM marriage/abortion, etc. (Not in spite of them). So, I really find it sad when people sincerely believe that the church is a hateful organization. I joined the church to deepen my faith, not diminish it.

Things like marriage between a man/woman and having monogamous relationships are things that made the Christian church different than the cultures they were living in. That’s the larger problem. These days, Christians are way so quick to be inclusive that they don’t realize the value and reasons for being exclusive. (Does that make sense?)

As Christians, we are specifically live in the world, but not live the same way as the world does.

So, we are supposed to be different than the culture when it gets perverted and goes against God. That’s how people are supposed to know that we are Christians. We strive to live pure lives, even when the culture goes nuts.

The truth is that we are supposed to try to fit what God and the church wants, not what society demands of us.

Secular people, obviously, don’t have the same obligations to the church as Christians do.

However, all of us have to figure out how to get along with each other because we all have relationships to our communities. Nothing happens in a vacuum and I’m sick of this idea that we should ignore the larger ramifications for society when people want to go off and do crazy things because they want to be “individuals”.

Individuals create families. Families create kids. We are supposed to live in community with each other, not act like everyone else are just extras on a movie set. Your relationship is my problem, if I don’t want my kid to live out your values.

It should be okay for me to say that I don’t want my kid in a SSM relationship if it’s okay for you to say that Catholics and Christians have bad morals. We are both making value judgments on each others behavior based on our life experiences. Why is one socially okay and the other socially wrong. I thought we valued diversity and everyone’s ideas. This is why people see hypocrites when it comes to these issues. One standard is okay for me, but not for thee.

Really? Seriously? I hope that people get something out of my rambling. Peace.

There is probably a way to keep your children away from SSM, but it won’t be easy these day. The same sex union of someone I know who is raising child they adopted just went to Disney World this summer. I am sure they were not they only ones there. They are also allowed to go to public places like the movies, malls, parks, etc. So good luck with that.

Catholic do not have bad morals except when they judge others and tell them they are going to hell. I have a bit of a problem with why you came to the Catholic church, over its teachings on SSM and abortion? Maybe I am wrong, and I know I will be told so but the main thing that should be focused on above all others is the Trinity of the Church and the 10 Commandments that God gave to us, not on the rules. We are to believe Christ is are savior that God through His mercy sent down to us so we MIGHT be saved.

Gay people are children of God. their unions are civil, legal contracts. Very, very few are pushing to have the Church change it view on SSM. I really don’t want my children, now old enough to decide for themselves who they associate with, associating with people like you, but in much of the world we have a right to our opinion, but not to push it on others. That goes for both sides of this discussion.

What I find interesting is that people are talking like they know the truth. None of us KNOW the truth, only God knows. None of what has been discussed can be proven, none of it. That is why it is called faith, not fact. None of us will know until it is are time to meet God, then He and and only He will have the truth for us.

 

[NekoNecro]

Could you please reconcile the above with this…

You consider yourself “one of us” but then deny it - and all in the same post, yet.

Oh I’m sorry, does he say “To the Catholics, go love and serve one another, but all you non-catholics out there, you’re going to hell”? No, the last time mass was held at my universities chapel he said “Go to love and serve one another” to whoever happened to be there, and not all of them were Catholics (I know, considering I was sat right at the back explaining the different aspects of the mass to the non-catholic pre-grad freshmen).

Do you now see why I am rather skeptical of your rather ‘fluid’ and dubious position vis a vis the Church? :

No, I’m not one of you, you’re reading far too deeply into that. Also the fact that you’re picking at the language of a guy that doesn’t even speak English all that well and is using a translator to talk to you is a strange way to attack my argument. So you can point out mistakes (in that case I hadn’t made any) in my use of a foreign language, congratulations. My argument is still intact however.

No actually, I am more concerned about the state of rational thought and the capacity for discernment among the many Catholics in your sphere of influence. It is the same type of influence that persuaded the mobs to shout “Crucify him!” even as the Truth stood before them.

Mhm…Right, so now I am not the great tempter, but a Jewish High Kohen marshalling the masses. You are too kind Peter, you draw all these comparisons illustrating me as some great charismatic leader when really I’m just another bookworm. Trust me, it is not some dark seductive charm I have, anyone who could be half bothered and had read a few books on Church History could shred any arguments against SSM to ribbons, you’re just fortunate in that most haven’t.

My problem and perhaps yours, as well, is that there is some uncertainty as to the sincerity of your motives. Human nature is very prone to beguilement and flattery regarding moral uprightness.

Human nature? I daresay I probably don’t know it as well as some people, I’m not a qualified psychiatrist so there are people wiser on the subject than me. I don’t claim to be flawless in my morals, I just think I’m right here.

It is not clear to me whether you don’t understand human nature at all or you do very well AND you know how to pander to psychological weakness. I suspect it has been in giving into your own weaknesses and vulnerabilities that you have gained expertise in the area of influencing the vulnerable. I would suggest you take a second look at your own formation.

Ok…I’m sorry. This part genuinely made me laugh hard out loud. I don’t agree with you…So I must really have been giving into my own “weaknesses” (I’m…Asexual, what weaknesses are these exactly?) and vulnerability (I’m really not vulnerable thank you).
No, the reason people listen to me is because what I say makes sense. Mass approval doesn’t always mean an idea is right, but it’s generally a good symptom that accompanies a good idea.

Why did many in your parish leave the Church if they truly believed Jesus’ words about eating his body and drinking his blood? They obviously didn’t believe.

I couldn’t possibly speak on behalf of the others on this matter, but as for myself? It had been announced that those who were in favour of SSM are forbidden from communion, and also I really don’t want to pay into the collection plate considering where it would be going at the moment.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

If you’d ever picked up a bible at any point in your life you would know Christ himself never said a world about homosexuality. After all, this was the same logic that kept the slave trade in good favour with the Church for so many centuries.

…

The arrogance in your posts is breath taking.

Above reasoning of yours has been trotted in this forum countless of times (and rebutted) well before your forum join date. This is why we “fanatics comprising a minority of Catholics” as you like to characterize CAF membership who must be so unlearned to blindly heed Church teachings (as some others would also like to say), are no longer quick to correct new ardent gay apologist members like yourself.

First, it was very clear to Jews of the first century: active homosexuality is to be shunned.

Second, did not Jesus touch on the subject at all? He most certainly did in Matthew 19:4. He was answering a question from the Pharisees regarding divorce, His words covering the entire issue of sexuality and the proper form of marriage,

“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?’”

Therefore, Jesus upheld creation, male and female sexual relationships (in marriage), male-female marriage, procreation as a part of male and female marriage, and the sanctity of male and female marriage and sexual relationships.

In John 5:46-47, Jesus tells his detractors that unless one holds to the writings of Moses (in the OT), one cannot fully know or understand truth or Jesus Himself. “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” In the first five books of the Bible we read of the days of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis) and the blanket condemnation of homosexuality as perversion (Leviticus).

Jesus spoke of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Luke 17:28-32; Matthew 10:15; 11:24; Mark 6:11.) The presenting sin that brought about the destruction of those cultures was homosexuality along with inhospitality. Of course, homosexual apologia would rather ignore that “strange flesh” and “defiling of flesh” in Jude 1:7-8 refer to sodomy.

Finally, even if all the above arguments fail to convince you, surely you have heard of argumentum ad silentio. So, you can drop this reasoning already as it fails. Big time.
,

 

[Prodigal_Son]

PS, there are good arguments and positions from you in this thread, but, this is a bone I respectfully pick with you. I do not think this is helpful in your evangelization objective. One foot is in the door, the other not.

As Bishop Paprocki admonished, there are no two Catholic views on gay marriage. One is authentic Catholic, the other is dissenting.

Further, a Catholic cannot say he believes the Church offers the saving truth of Jesus, and then reject what the Church teaches, as Archbishop Vigneron expounded here.

First of all, I think Rau made my point better, when he asked Neko, “Why would you accept any Church “rule” that your lack of submission requires you to stay away?” That’s what puzzled me so much about Neko’s position – that he thinks that the Church’s current rules are not in accordance with God’s rules, and yet respects the Church’s rule.

But as for whether there are two potential Catholic views on gay marriage, I don’t know if I agree with you. I think it is possible to believe, for example, that current marriage laws are discriminatory against gays while still being Catholic. It’s going against the grain, and it’s puzzling, but it’s possible. As to whether it’s possible to think that Holy Matrimony can be extended to gay couples and still be a Catholic in good standing – that’s a tougher issue.

Here’s the test I run in my head to test these things: I imagine a priest who held the view, and I ask whether he should be defrocked. It seems to me that a Catholic priest who believed in legalizing gay marriage, on a purely social level, would not necessarily be anathema.

Moreover, with respect to communion, I guess I wonder what specific authoritative instructions from the Church proper indicate that people should withdraw from communion because of specific *beliefs *-- as opposed to actions, written or spoken claims, sinful attitudes, or the like. I take it for granted that we cannot control our beliefs, and often the grace that we need for our beliefs to be transformed is the very grace we receive in the Sacrament.

As for Vigneron, he’s my local bishop, actually. And that statement of his caused me no end of frustration. How can we be a Church that welcomes the sinner if we say that turning away from sin isn’t enough? When the Father welcomed home the prodigal son, he did not interview him first to figure out whether he agreed with the way the household cleaned the laundry.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What I find interesting is that people are talking like they know the truth. None of us KNOW the truth, only God knows. None of what has been discussed can be proven, none of it. That is why it is called faith, not fact. None of us will know until it is are time to meet God, then He and and only He will have the truth for us.

Not true. If we travel blindly then we have no way of knowing that we are headed in the right direction. We do not travel blindly. It is not called “faith” because we are in the dark about everything. We have a light, the Light - the person of Jesus Christ. We also have Tradition and Scripture. These shed light on all the issues with which we have to grapple. Then we also have the living Body of Christ - the Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit guaranteed by Christ. Upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

The reason it is called “faith” is not because we travel blindly, not seeing the light, but because we are called to be faithful to the light that shows us the Way, the Truth and the Life.

To say we cannot know Christ, the Truth, is to say that Jesus is not who he claimed to be.

"And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him.”

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As for Vigneron, he’s my local bishop, actually. And that statement of his caused me no end of frustration. How can we be a Church that welcomes the sinner if we say that turning away from sin isn’t enough? When the Father welcomed home the prodigal son, he did not interview him first to figure out whether he agreed with the way the household cleaned the laundry.

Turning away from sin is not enough because we are called to walk somewhere. It is not merely abiding in a kind of limbo devoid of a destination or reality. Sin is negative in the sense that it reduces the being of the one who sins. Merely turning away from sin does not restore being to fullness. Repentance is one thing - a turning away - but metanoia is another - a definitive movement towards.

The prodigal son did not merely turn away from the pig sty, he walked home. He understood the depth of his folly and sin. “Father I have sinned against Heaven and against you.” He wasn’t merely regretting leaving his father - that is quite compatible with remaining a sinner and merely wanting respite from the consequences of his acts. No, he understood deeply the nature of his separation from his father and wanted to restore his relationship with his loving father. He had changed, that is what brought about his return. He did not merely regret his folly but wanted the Good, he had abandoned his previous distorted desires.

His misadventure led him to a realization - by its very absence - of the nature of his Father as represented in his father. That is why turning away from sin was NOT enough for him. Turning TO the Father caused him to turn AWAY from sin.

 

[Rau]

… I think it is possible to believe, for example, that current marriage laws are discriminatory against gays while still being Catholic. It’s going against the grain, and it’s puzzling, but it’s possible. As to whether it’s possible to think that Holy Matrimony can be extended to gay couples and still be a Catholic in good standing – that’s a tougher issue.

Personally - I don’t see an injustice in the civil law of marriage that says Marriage = Man + Woman. This class of relationships is special, and has unique potential.

Arguably, there is an unmet and reasonable need for States to provide a legal framework for arbitrary persons to share assets and care for each other. I cannot see why any fair-minded person, or the Church for that matter, would have objection to that, however I believe it is seen by the potential beneficiaries as not meeting all their requirements.

 

[Nacho45]

“God” also said it was an abomination for a woman have the vote, for women to read from the gospels, to stop slavery…
Oh wait, no. That was just the Vatican

Really? Let me begin by saying the Vatican is a city/state and says nothing. This is a common mistake made by many opponents of the Catholic Church. They mistake the actual physical place housing the Pope and the leadership of the Catholic Church as a speaking voice. This would be no different than telling someone, “Toronto, Canada, said…” Having cleared this up, where did the Catholic Church, is what you really meant to say, proclaim the above things you mentioned?

Some things in the bible may have been appropriate for their time, like how say divorce was for mosaic times but not for Christ’s new covenant. The world moves on, and we have to develop our morality with it.

Okay, let’s see where this is going. The world changes and morality develops because Jesus arrived and we are now in the age of Grace…

If it does not, we have been teaching error ever since the very first councils of the church when Christs nature was debated. We had no proof, we merely had to deduce and decide what was right.

Not sure of the connection between this and the above statement, but I will touch on this briefly after saying Jesus never said homosexual acts were acceptable and not sin. In fact, whenever He spoke of marriage it was always in reference to man and woman. But, I encourage you to research the councils of the early Church. It seems pretty apparent you have only glanced at them or you would not have made this comment about not having any proof and merely deciding what was right.

Oh the world has it’s issues, it’s not driving headlong off the face of a cliff like you seem determined to do.

Like I seem determined to do? What are you attempting to project onto my statement? We know where the world is heading because we have been told where it would go. It’s pretty simple really. I have no control or influence on where the “world” goes. It can go where it likes, but I decline to ride that doomed train. Perhaps comparing the world to the Titanic is a better fit.

Slavery, Womens Sufferage, the Place of Woman in the Church

Slavery was not confined to the Church nor was Suffrage (corrected spelling) though I believe you misapplied the phrase. These things are cultural, not dogma of the Church. The place of women in the Church? What place would that be? Elevated, respected, honored? Which one? If you mean specifically the priesthood (because there is proof of women deacons and laity in the Church) this is something you are welcome to ask about specifically; however, your attempt to bunch them all together as if there was something wrong with the history in the Church regarding these things has fallen flat. Any honest, or even half honest, historian can differentiate between human culture and actions specifically of the Church. That isn’t to say the Church doesn’t have a few blemishes, but that shows people are human. It has nothing to do with the sanctity of the Church itself. In fact, if you want to speak of the “the Place of Woman in the Church,” I refer you to Mary, mother of Jesus, who is placed as high as a human can be in the eyes of the Church.

Oops, more inconvenient truths again that have changed over time and are apparently entirely subjective.

The last time someone used the phrase “inconvenient truth” it turned out to be wrong. Are you certain you wish to word it this way? However, again, you have proven nothing other than you lack of comprehension of the history of humanity and the history of the Church, how they are similar and how they are different. You seem to hold to the modern concept of what was slavery, yet have no idea of the concept of slavery in ancient times. They are not the same. In fact, the Church has been the greatest proponent of human rights, far above that of secular society.

 

[Nacho45]

How about you start correcting my errors then so I can learn better, since you seem to have all the answers seeing as you’ve not posted any.

I prefer people to actually conduct a little research first and have a specific direction to go in order to help them. You want to jump all over the place. You touch on dozens of topics, some related, others not related in any capacity, and spew an abundance of vitriolic statements. This makes it a little difficult to address each one, especially considering how wrong you are on many of them and the amount of time and effort it would take to address each one.

Besides, you don’t need me to correct your errors when you are on a website which has already addressed each of your complaints. You do realize you are not the first person to make these empty allegations, yes? You are not the first person to be misinformed or spread lies about the Church. There have been others before you who have each been corrected, most of which has been placed on this very site and discussed in great detail. Feel free to explore, read some suggested materials, ask an apologist, etc., rather than proclaim you hold the truth over the entire Church, that what you think you have discovered which no one else in history has “discovered” is correct above the teachings of the Church from thousands of years and thousands of defenders of the faith. Again, this is a very arrogant approach. Another poster suggested it is the job of theologians to question the Church, but I disagree. It is the job of a theologian to study and understand the Church. If there is something which begs questioning, it is for clarification, not a challenge.

I’d have never have guessed from your debating technique.

Fair enough, not everyone is equipped to be a functional debater.

Waaaaaaa! I have no good points to make so I’m going to insult you NekoNecro! Waaaaaaaaaa!

Is this how it’s done?

Uh huh, yep, thats why we’re all leaving and not funding it anymore and the Parishes are all shutting up shop

This was a response to “The Church does not change to fit you. You change to fit the Church. I will add, the Church has authority over you, not the other way around.”

The reason people are leaving is they want to live in their sin and not have anyone to tell them they are wrong. The same reason people have always left the Church. This is nothing new. The world is embracing debauchery and deviancy. Again, we were warned this would happen and fully expect it to continue and get worse before it gets better. Humanity, like climate change, goes through stages. This is the stage we currently find ourselves. History shows how it will play out. Your mistake is thinking people are leaving because there is something wrong with the Church when they leave because there is something wrong with them. Again, you have proven nothing and only shown your own limited opinion for what it is.

Also, there are people coming into the Church in large numbers as well. There is always another side to the story. This one you seem to want to ignore.

It is also arrogant for the church to presume that is is always right, which I have proven it isn’t. It is subject to error as we all are.

You have proven no such thing. You have not even tarnished the Church in the smallest way. For all of your pomp and circumstance, it is nothing more than bloviating. Jesus gave authority to the Apostles over man, who passed that authority on to their successors. People are fallible, the Church which Jesus established is not.
“And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” - Matthew 16:17-19

I believe in the real presence of the Eucharist…

But you deny the Church which tells you this. That makes no sense.

 

[Nacho45]

What exactly is that message, NekoNecro?

The more I read your posts the more I am convinced that you are an enemy of the Church who has found that the most effective way to drive Catholics away from the true Church is by an elaborate pretense: “I am one of you so therefore I am in a privileged position from which to see the truth.”

Personally, I see you in the role of a tempter - … If you truly believed in the Real Presence and understood the nature of what that entails, you would not be driving others away from the true Church because, you ought to know, it is in that Presence that God resides and it is in consuming the Bread and Wine of that Presence that the Church remains the Body of Christ animated by His Spirit…You who give evidence against Christ’s Body at the same time as purporting to be a friend. Betrayal is the word that comes to mind…Your polemical rhetoric speaks directly against Christ, the only hope mankind has…You are peddling a shallow emotive warm feeling as “love,” failing to realize that it isn’t real abiding love precisely because it detracts from self-giving, it is self-absorbed love, endlessly narcissistic in nature. It is also the oldest formula for tempting the unwary away from their true good and from God.

What is so captivating about using the formula in any issue involving sex is that so much guilt exists in most people’s minds and hearts regarding their own failings that not only the emotive aspects can be played up, but these can be pitted against individual guilt to effectively shut down any reasoning within him/her. “Who are you to say anything?” Words like “homophobe”…I find your methods quite distasteful. It would be a good idea for anyone reading your posts to prepare themselves by reading Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters, … you will be held accountable. That should make you a little more wary about what you add to this thread.

Yes!

NekoNecro, the reason some of us, like me, don’t fully engage you is we have seen your rhetoric before. You are not here to ask questions and learn. You come here in an attempt to confuse and drive a wedge between people and the true Church. Some people are not inclined to study in earnest so they fall for your ploy while others spend or have spent their entire adult lives researching and studying and see you for what you are. The thing is, as I stated previously, you are not the first nor will you be the last to make this feeble assault against the Church. Nothing you have said is new, nothing you have said is revolutionary, but everything you have said is faulty and riddled with inaccuracy. You fail to distinguish the difference between custom or discipline and dogma. This alone is enough for anyone to dismiss your pomposity. Your tactic is to bombard with accusations and move on with more. You thing because you created large posts this in some way gives you the high ground in a debate only you are currently engaged. You fail to make reliable and relevant connections between your posts and the subject matter contained within them. You proclaim you have done something you have not, repeatedly, and then demand us to prove you wrong. The burden of proof is still in your hands, my friend. Once you have given some semblance of rational proof to support anything you have said, maybe then others will be inclined to retort. However, what you have produces up to this point I imagine causes others to simply roll their eyes and go to a different thread.

Either a person recognizes the authority of the Church or they do not. If they do, they abide by its teachings or they willingly refuse to follow what God has commanded, denying God. If a person does not recognize the authority of the Church, they should approach matters inquisitively wishing to learn, not in an accusatory manner with false authority (which you conveniently claim not to hold). If they still disagree, so be it, they move on and everyone has a nice day. Your purpose here is evident. I wonder if you really though it would not be.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Turning away from sin is not enough because we are called to walk somewhere. It is not merely abiding in a kind of limbo devoid of a destination or reality. Sin is negative in the sense that it reduces the being of the one who sins. Merely turning away from sin does not restore being to fullness. Repentance is one thing - a turning away - but metanoia is another - a definitive movement towards.

The prodigal son did not merely turn away from the pig sty, he walked home. He understood the depth of his folly and sin. “Father I have sinned against Heaven and against you.” He wasn’t merely regretting leaving his father - that is quite compatible with remaining a sinner and merely wanting respite from the consequences of his acts. No, he understood deeply the nature of his separation from his father and wanted to restore his relationship with his loving father. He had changed, that is what brought about his return. He did not merely regret his folly but wanted the Good, he had abandoned his previous distorted desires.

His misadventure led him to a realization - by its very absence - of the nature of his Father as represented in his father. That is why turning away from sin was NOT enough for him. Turning TO the Father caused him to turn AWAY from sin.

Sorry, I misspoke. I don’t think turning away from sin is the end goal, at all. The point I meant to make is that turning away from sin should be enough for us to be in communion with the Church – and thus to receive the Eucharist. When a sinner turns away from sin, we should welcome them with open arms, and invite them to *eat *with us, even if their journey is not done. Indeed, none of our journeys are finished; we all travel from one transformation to the next, farther up and farther in.

Thank you for the beautiful reflection on the prodigal son, though! My previous post turns out to be a felix culpa.

 

[Nacho45]

The Church teaches homosexual activity is wrong. That is the end of the story if you are Catholic. If you have same sex attraction, there are resources available to you for assistance, but you still must abide by the teachings of the Church. Even if you think what you feel may be better, you realize you have no authority over the Church and trust what was promised to us, and being an informed yet obedient servant of the Church.

If you are not Catholic and seek learning and growth, it is open and willing to assist you.

If you are anti-Catholic, nothing you say will change any reality within Catholicism and you are waiting a lot of energy, time and effort in a task you have chosen which as continued to fail for two thousand years. You are not the special one which will bring down the Church. Jesus already promised that could not and would not happen, so …good luck.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You come here in an attempt to confuse and drive a wedge between people and the true Church. Some people are not inclined to study in earnest so they fall for your ploy while others spend or have spent their entire adult lives researching and studying and see you for what you are.

I don’t understand why you are questioning Neko’s motives, Nacho. That’s a form of ad hominem. No doubt we all have mixed motives, some of them bad, for posting.

Neko is enthusiastic and clever, though his scholarship at this point doesn’t particularly impress me. I’d love to plant some seeds of doubt in his mind, doubt that the dogmas he is hearing from the choirs of hedonism are sound. But I’m not the slightest bit worried about him leading people astray. In my experience, people don’t get led astray by intellectual arguments – they pick up intellectual arguments for their position after they’ve been led astray.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Personally - I don’t see an injustice in the civil law of marriage that says Marriage = Man + Woman. This class of relationships is special, and has unique potential.

I agree 100%. My point was not that I myself thought the state was discriminating, but that I think that a person could possibly be a faithful Catholic and hold that position.

 

[seakelp]

Turning away from sin is not enough because we are called to walk somewhere. It is not merely abiding in a kind of limbo devoid of a destination or reality. Sin is negative in the sense that it reduces the being of the one who sins. Merely turning away from sin does not restore being to fullness. Repentance is one thing - a turning away - but metanoia is another - a definitive movement towards.

The prodigal son did not merely turn away from the pig sty, he walked home. He understood the depth of his folly and sin. “Father I have sinned against Heaven and against you.” He wasn’t merely regretting leaving his father - that is quite compatible with remaining a sinner and merely wanting respite from the consequences of his acts. No, he understood deeply the nature of his separation from his father and wanted to restore his relationship with his loving father. He had changed, that is what brought about his return. He did not merely regret his folly but wanted the Good, he had abandoned his previous distorted desires.

His misadventure led him to a realization - by its very absence - of the nature of his Father as represented in his father. That is why turning away from sin was NOT enough for him. Turning TO the Father caused him to turn AWAY from sin.

Excellent explanation!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Regarding the conditions for receiving the Eucharist, read:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P39.HTM

Nowhere is it mentioned that people who hold political or moral views contrary to the Church’s teaching cannot receive. I guess I can imagine an argument that such a person is guilty of grave sin, but that seems like a serious stretch of the meaning of grave sin – unless the person is causing scandal by their flouting the moral teachings of the Church publicly.

 

[Nacho45]

I don’t understand why you are questioning Neko’s motives, Nacho.

Perhaps I should have stated, “Everything you have said so far and every piece of evidence you have produced thus far would lead any rational and prudent person to believe…”

I follow the evidence to its logical conclusion. A hazard of my occupation.

 

[Rau]

Regarding the conditions for receiving the Eucharist, read:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P39.HTM

Nowhere is it mentioned that people who hold political or moral views contrary to the Church’s teaching cannot receive. I guess I can imagine an argument that such a person is guilty of grave sin, but that seems like a serious stretch of the meaning of grave sin – unless the person is causing scandal by their flouting the moral teachings of the Church publicly.

I don’t see how Neko can be sinning (gravely!) by expressing beliefs that he both substantiates with evidence, and believes sincerely. That cannot be sinful, and if the Church thinks so, that sounds like something to be added to Neko’s list of Church errors.

Neko - not even the Church has cause to deny you communion, and I believe does not deny you - as per the linked document. Are you therefore reassured you are able to receive communion? How do you react to this?