Has the church infallibly claimed that gay marriage and ABC are sinful and wrong?

[bingbang]

When people look at the Crusades, they only see the wrong that is done. The Crusades and the Inquisition both had noble objectives but in the end were abused. The Church never taught for massacres to happen but those who participated in them thought they were empowered to do so.

What was the noble objective of the Crusades? To take back the holy land from the Muslims? If that was so noble why not try again now?

 

[ConstantineTG]

What was the noble objective of the Crusades? To take back the holy land from the Muslims? If that was so noble why not try again now?

With respect to the OP, this will be the last time I will address this topic. I hope we can stay on topic.

The laws of the world are different today than it was back then. Diplomacy is the right way today. The Church already has what it wants from the Holy Land, we have churches on the Holy Sites and access to these churches. What more can we ask for? Christianity doesn’t need to take hold of the Holy Land. Its ideal that we have access to the historical sites, but not an absolute necessity. Our faith will continue to grow even without those sites because Christ has promised us that He will be with us wherever two or three are gathered.

Aside from the control of the Holy Land, the Crusades also helped control Mulsim advancement into Europe. If the Crusades didn’t happen, I imagine most of the world will be Muslim today.

 

[richardacombs]

But things change in the church. What has been consistently taught by the church doesn’t make something right.

Even without the cloak of Papal Infallibility, both Old and New Testaments clearly describe homosexuality as an abomination. (Lev 18:22, 20:13; Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:8-11)

Those who claim that the Scriptures do not strongly condemn the practice of homosexuality “twist [the Scriptures] to their own destruction.” (2 Pet 3:16) For thousands of years both Jews and Christians have declared homosexual practices as a grievous violation of God’s law, meriting death under the Old Testament and damnation under the New.

Modern notions of Christian acceptance of homosexuality are simply modernist notions that have no basis in Scripture or Tradition.

Finally, the Church has constantly and consistently opposed artificial birth control. On June 11, 1987, in a statement to a Conference on Natural Family Planning, Pope John Paul II said, “What is taught by the Church on contraception does not belong to material freely debatable among theologians.” Before that Pope Pius XI wrote in Casti Connubii on December 31, 1930: “…any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

More or less, the Parousia will probably occur before the Church changes its stands on homosexual practices and artificial birth control.

 

[1ke]

So the question still stands…if somehow the church has some change of spirit, calls vatican III, could they change their stance on gay marriage and ABC?

The question has been answered. Both of these are part of the deposit of faith, and no, they cannot change.

Your examples of things that have supposedly changed-- the language used for Mass, apologies for the conduct of some members of the Church, etc-- show a profound lack of understanding regarding Church doctrine, Church discipline, and *moral failings *of individuals inside the Church.

The language in which the Mass is given has nothing to do with the deposit of faith. It’s not doctrinal.

The Church did not apologize **for **the Crusades or **for **the various inquisitions (the Congregation of th Doctrine of the Faith is the Holy Office of the Inquisition, it’s not like it went away). The Church apologized for regrettable actions of individuals **during **the Crusades and during the inquisitions.

The example given of “no salvation outside the Church” is also a non- example. The Church teaches that exact same thing today.

Anyone proporting that JPII said anything to the effect that all religions are equal has no idea what they are talking about. Evidence to the contrary can be found in his two documents Ut Unum Sint and Dominus Jesus.

The example of Bishops being in favor of contraception is also grossly mischaracterized. The commission of Pope Paul VI did not set out to “vote” on whether or not to *allow *contraception. Contraception was already defined as a grave sin against the sixth commandment-- this has been the teaching of the Church since the first century. The commission was to study whether or not a new thing called the Pill was a contraceptive or not– they studied how it worked, since nothing had ever been around like it before, supressing ovulation rather than attempting to thwart the meeting of egg and sperm. Some of these commission members went seriously astray, which led to the Pope dismissing them entirely.

Sins against the sixth commandment-- which homosexual sex acts and contraception are-- are part of the deposit of faith. These things cannot change.

 

[bingbang]

Even without the cloak of Papal Infallibility, both Old and New Testaments clearly describe homosexuality as an abomination. (Lev 18:22, 20:13; Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:8-11)

Those who claim that the Scriptures do not strongly condemn the practice of homosexuality “twist [the Scriptures] to their own destruction.” (2 Pet 3:16) For thousands of years both Jews and Christians have declared homosexual practices as a grievous violation of God’s law, meriting death under the Old Testament and damnation under the New.

Modern notions of Christian acceptance of homosexuality are simply modernist notions that have no basis in Scripture or Tradition.

Finally, the Church has constantly and consistently opposed artificial birth control. On June 11, 1987, in a statement to a Conference on Natural Family Planning, Pope John Paul II said, “What is taught by the Church on contraception does not belong to material freely debatable among theologians.” Before that Pope Pius XI wrote in Casti Connubii on December 31, 1930: “…any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

More or less, the Parousia will probably occur before the Church changes its stands on homosexual practices and artificial birth control.

What about this quote from leviticus? Should this law still stand

bible.cc/leviticus/20-9.htm

“'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.”

 

[edwest2]

Apparently, what the Church has established on these two issues is not enough for some. The manufacturers of The Pill did not want to risk lost sales to Catholic women who might listen to the Pope. So, and I’m only being descriptive here, the sexual deviants wanted others to experience their perverted sexual world, which led to adult bookstores, swinger magazines, topless bars and strip clubs. They were hoping that if they put their mud within easy reach, we’d roll around in it.

Pope Paul VI warned that if his words were not heeded, there would be increased promiscuity. And what was the fruit of it? One in five people walking around with an STD? Abortion? Easy divorce? This is better?

Cohabitation, gay marriage? This is better?

Do you need a Pill, or the State or the Church to decide when you have sex? Because every time you perform a sexual act, you - and only you - choose to do so.

God bless,
Ed

 

[jilly4ski]

What about this quote from leviticus? Should this law still stand

bible.cc/leviticus/20-9.htm

“'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.”

Sigh, really? Did you not see that the previous poster listed both new and old testament. Indeed many of the “old” laws are no longer in force like kosher and lots of the “you shall put to death” laws. This is because physical death is not really the ultimate punishment, but rather hell in the next life.

But you use a bad example. Would not cursing your mother and father still be a sin? Just because we don’t put people physically to death, doing this could be their death in the next life if they don’t repent. Thus we don’t go out and demand that the government put to death people who engage in homosexual activity, but if they persist in their behavior it could lead to their separation from God in the next life.

 

[bingbang]

Sigh, really? Did you not see that the previous poster listed both new and old testament. Indeed many of the “old” laws are no longer in force like kosher and lots of the “you shall put to death” laws. This is because physical death is not really the ultimate punishment, but rather hell in the next life.

But you use a bad example. Would not cursing your mother and father still be a sin? Just because we don’t put people physically to death, doing this could be their death in the next life if they don’t repent. Thus we don’t go out and demand that the government put to death people who engage in homosexual activity, but if they persist in their behavior it could lead to their separation from God in the next life.

It didn’t say in the next life, it said you should put them to death in this life. Also, there are other things that Paul talks about more than homosexuality that we don’t follow now. For instance he talks about women not being allowed to talk in church and also that women should wear head dresses while in church. He talks about the head dresses far more than he talks about homosexuality.

 

[jilly4ski]

It didn’t say in the next life, it said you should put them to death in this life. Also, there are other things that Paul talks about more than homosexuality that we don’t follow now. For instance he talks about women not being allowed to talk in church and also that women should wear head dresses while in church. He talks about the head dresses far more than he talks about homosexuality.

Yes, but as I said much of the old law is no longer (completely) in place. But in this case where saying homosexual acts are an abomination against God, Paul maintains the old law. He says it is a sin, but we don’t need to execute people over it. (punishment is different than the offense). Neither the examples you mentioned are laws in the old testament, so I can just say they are bad examples. (Which seems to be the theme today).

However, I will say this: the “woman shouldn’t talk in church” thing might be more about running the new church than “sinning against God.” Those two things are clearly different. And rules about running a church could change, because the rule was useful then but not now. And indeed I see no real reason for a woman to “talk” during Mass. Nobody but the priest “talks” anyway, and then it is really only in the homily. Every thing else is prayer and the reading of the Bible. Paul doesn’t say that women shouldn’t pray at church or that the “letters” shouldn’t be read by women.

Head covering is more muddy as Paul brings up reasons why head covering would be pleasing to God. Saying things like “her hair is her glory” and that is why women should cover. So it might go to reason that if a woman’s hair is not longer considered her “glory” that covering it might not make sense anymore. Of course it is always a pious practice.

Your reasons seem to ignore the difference between law and punishment, and how the Church understands Christ as fulfilling the old law. If something was a sin before Christ and a sin after Christ why wouldn’t it still be a sin now? Things like keeping kosher were considered a sin before Christ but not considered a sin after Christ (even for Paul and the disciples). You need to understand the difference and why homosexual acts do not fit in that category. I suggest you do some research. Catholic answers probably has some good resources.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But things change in the church. What has been consistently taught by the church doesn’t make something right.

No, something isn’t necessarily right because ‘it is taught by the church’. . .but in matters of faith and morals, the Church teaches what it does **because those things it teaches are right. **

What changes did the Church make that actually turned over ‘dogma’ as opposed to discipline? Come on, the very first Christians reclined at table to receive the Eucharist, because that was the customary way to eat then. Kneeling or standing to receive don’t change the teachings about what the Eucharist is but only reflect a change in posture that came about because the ‘posture’ of eating is not a necessary ‘part’ of the reception.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So the question still stands…if somehow the church has some change of spirit, calls vatican III, could they change their stance on gay marriage and ABC?

Right after they announce that God is a Quartet and the Eucharist will be confected with beer and pizza. IOW. . .no, never.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Pope Eugene IV said that there is no salvation outsidet the Church. St rober Bellarmine said the same thing and so did a bunch of other saints…

And the teaching is still the same. It hasn’t changed. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. But we understand today that all humans are members of the Church, even if those who are not baptized Christians are members in a less than full and imperfect way. If Jonathan the Jewish Man and Mustapha the Muslim and Al the Atheist are saved, they **will somehow be saved by Jesus, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, THROUGH the Catholic Church, even if they themselves have never heard and do not believe in Him. **

For if the Jesus they ‘think’ is a fraud and a fake is not really Jesus, but a figment of their fevered imaginations that they have somehow come to believe is the ‘real’ Jesus, and that is what they reject, they have never really rejected the True Christ at all, have they?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It didn’t say in the next life, it said you should put them to death in this life. Also, there are other things that Paul talks about more than homosexuality that we don’t follow now. For instance he talks about women not being allowed to talk in church and also that women should wear head dresses while in church. He talks about the head dresses far more than he talks about homosexuality.

Could it possibly be that there were more women (Gentile converts from the pagan traditions) who were having trouble adapting to a more reverent atmosphere, not because they didn’t want to, but because it was not a cultural tradition for them, since non-Jewish cultures tended to emphasize priestesses? And that helping them with outward ‘show’ (modesty) would help them with inward grace? (Something we all could use more of today. . .both of those things, outward modesty and inward grace --men and women alike). Could it possibly be that there were far fewer people who engaged in homosexual actions? And that the ones who did so tried to hide it because they knew it was wrong and felt shame and guilt? So simply mentioning ANY sexual immorality meant that all immoral actions of a sexual nature–adultery, fornication, and homosexual behaviors–were recognized as equally wrong? No need to go into explicit hairy detail?

 

[nickybr38]

I just wanted to throw in a quick thank you to everyone who replied in this thread. I learn a lot through these kind of discussions. I really appreciate all your effort… even you bingbang. By raising the debate you’ve become the avenue to much good info. I appreciate it!

Okay, it’s Friday, I’m super happy and full of love. Sorry guys. <3

Hehe.

 

[bingbang]

And the teaching is still the same. It hasn’t changed. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. But we understand today that all humans are members of the Church, even if those who are not baptized Christians are members in a less than full and imperfect way. If Jonathan the Jewish Man and Mustapha the Muslim and Al the Atheist are saved, they **will somehow be saved by Jesus, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, THROUGH the Catholic Church, even if they themselves have never heard and do not believe in Him. **

For if the Jesus they ‘think’ is a fraud and a fake is not really Jesus, but a figment of their fevered imaginations that they have somehow come to believe is the ‘real’ Jesus, and that is what they reject, they have never really rejected the True Christ at all, have they?

lol, so the teaching is still the same in words, but the meaning is completely different. I am sure that the early pope meant that only catholics could be saved…now they say the same words, but the definition of church has changed. (before only catholics were part of the church, now everyone is part of the church???) Give me a break, the teaching has changed.

That is like saying someone from the 19th century saying “I’m gay” meaning “I’m happy” is the same as someone now saying “I’m gay” meaning “I’m homosexual” is the same thing. If you change the meaning of a word, it changes the meaning of the teaching.

 

[bingbang]

Could it possibly be that there were more women (Gentile converts from the pagan traditions) who were having trouble adapting to a more reverent atmosphere, not because they didn’t want to, but because it was not a cultural tradition for them, since non-Jewish cultures tended to emphasize priestesses? And that helping them with outward ‘show’ (modesty) would help them with inward grace? (Something we all could use more of today. . .both of those things, outward modesty and inward grace --men and women alike). Could it possibly be that there were far fewer people who engaged in homosexual actions? And that the ones who did so tried to hide it because they knew it was wrong and felt shame and guilt? So simply mentioning ANY sexual immorality meant that all immoral actions of a sexual nature–adultery, fornication, and homosexual behaviors–were recognized as equally wrong? No need to go into explicit hairy detail?

And I am sure that a lot of blacks in the south in the 50’s thought that it was wrong to sit in the front of the bus. Just because people think something is wrong doesn’t mean that it is. 100 years ago many women would probably think that going out and getting a job was wrong.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

lol, so the teaching is still the same in words, but the meaning is completely different. I am sure that the early pope meant that only catholics could be saved…now they say the same words, but the definition of church has changed. (before only catholics were part of the church, now everyone is part of the church???) Give me a break, the teaching has changed.

That is like saying someone from the 19th century saying “I’m gay” meaning “I’m happy” is the same as someone now saying “I’m gay” meaning “I’m homosexual” is the same thing. If you change the meaning of a word, it changes the meaning of the teaching.

Um, if by that you mean that the time Pope Eugene stated it, there were only Catholics (and of course Orthodox). . . and the sadness of such a rupture on the part of many Christians who rejected PARTS (but not the whole) of Catholic teaching was not envisioned. Now, since all Protestants can trace their teaching to the Catholic faith, and all of them profess SOME at least OF that Catholic faith, they can’t be in the same ‘boat’ as those who reject all teaching, right? '

Give ME a break, laddie, **the teaching did not change. **

---

And my dear, dear man. . .(or woman). . .the fact that some people have attempted to ‘change’ a meaning of gay does not destroy the original meaning. Pope Eugene understood the Catholic Church to be all Christendom. . .and it still is. Just as the Trinity was understood only faintly by the earliest Christians (and still is not completely understood by us), saying that St. Paul (as an example) might not have envisioned the Trinity as we do today, but what he did see, though an ‘earlier’ version, by no means CONTRADICTS the better understood version today. . .the concept of the Catholic Church is more fully understood today and it does not contradict any earlier Pope’s understanding.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And I am sure that a lot of blacks in the south in the 50’s thought that it was wrong to sit in the front of the bus. Just because people think something is wrong doesn’t mean that it is. 100 years ago many women would probably think that going out and getting a job was wrong.

Hmmm, that ‘whooshing sound’ you heard was my post apparently going right over your head. . .

If you don’t understand what I mean, just say so. . .please don’t respond to what you ‘think’ I said with these contrived and off topic ‘suppositions’ and strawmen.

 

[inocente]

I don’t understand infallibility in the context of Santa Teresa:
Let nothing disturb you
Do not be frightened
All things must pass
God never changes

If in future the Church was to decide that its understanding had been in error on something, could it change its teaching?

I mean no matter how unlikely, and not necessarily anything to do with gay marriage or ABC, but just as a general principle.

 

[Corki]

I don’t understand infallibility in the context of Santa Teresa:
Let nothing disturb you
Do not be frightened
All things must pass
God never changes

If in future the Church was to decide that its understanding had been in error on something, could it change its teaching?

I mean no matter how unlikely, and not necessarily anything to do with gay marriage or ABC, but just as a general principle.

Yes, and the Church changes her teaching all the time. Not everything the Church teaches falls under the mantle of even ordinary infallibility,. All disciplinary teachings, for example, can be changed to reflect the current needs of the Church. It’s not a matter of realizing an error, more a matter of changing what can be changed to best serve the Church while defending what cannot be changed.